A federal appeals court has ruled against Bush's enemy combatant policy.

"The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention," the panel found.

Judge Motz wrote, "To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the president calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country. We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our republic.”

What's amazing is that it took an appeal to recognize the obvious: what this administration has been trying to get away with -- and thus far succeeded -- was all along fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional. The fact that our judicial system finally worked to admonish this wrong is a relief, albeit long overdue.

Regarding the outcry by the right for a Libby pardon, Dick Polman sums things up nicely:

So here’s the Republican bible on selective morality: If a high official of a Republican administration lies under oath and obstructs justice in order to impede a national security investigation, and to prevent a prosecutor from even determining whether an “underlying crime” had been committed,” that’s perfectly fine. But if a Democratic president lies under oath to impede a sex investigation (even when there was no underlying crime, since the sex with Monica Lewinsky was consensual, no illegal), those are sufficient grounds for throwing the president out of office – because, after all, perjury for any reason is not only wrong, it is also a violation of “the rule of law.”

Or as Glenn Greenwald succinctly puts it, "It is hardly surprising that the right-wing movement of which he [Libby] is a part operates from the premise that their comrades ought to be exempt from criminal prosecution even when they commit felonies."

Did anyone really think the Bill Clinton witch hunt was really about the GOP's sanctimonious concern for the rule of law? Laughable.

Regarding the no-confidence in Gonzo resolution, Steve Benen wrote about the words of longtime DoJ employee Dan Metcalfe, who stated, “I think the way in which the firings themselves were handled was abominable, the way in which the ensuing controversy was handled was abysmal, and the way in which Gonzales has handled himself is absolutely appalling. As a long-term Justice Department official, I am embarrassed and increasingly incensed that he is still in there.”

Benen wrote, "Everyone in the Senate chamber, regardless of party or intellect, knows that Metcalfe’s perspective is a) accurate; b) frightening; and c) common among career officials at the DoJ. To vote against the no-confidence resolution is to endorse the indefensible status quo."

Well, 38 voted for the indefensible. Click here to see the names and how they voted. Print it out and save. If you are in a state that has a senator who voted "No" to this resolution, please seriously consider not voting for this person when up for re-election. In all honesty, how could you?

Oh, and notice Lieberman voted "No". It's one thing for him to claim he is with Bush and the Republicans when it comes to Iraq, but the sheer incompetence and likely law-breaking ways of Gonzales are a bit removed from anything directly involved with Iraq. How can Lieberman possibly defend this vote? Even seven Republicans had enough sense to vote the other way.

One of those Republicans being Sen. Arlen Specter. However, Specter first came out saying he hoped this resolution was not some partisan attempt to embarrass Bush, but went on to say, "If you ask Arlen Specter, do I have confidence in Attorney General Gonzales, the answer is a resounding no. I'm going to vote that I have no confidence in Attorney General Gonzales."

OK, so Specter qualifies as "I didn't like the resolution before I voted for it."

Meanwhile, on Olbermann's Countdown tonight, Howard Fineman said this resolution was a "largely inside the beltway issue that is...too abstract for most people to be following." Fineman then said, "But it is significant enough for those senators who are up for re-election, those Republicans in those swing states, to be cautious."

What the hell is Fineman saying exactly? That the public at large is just too dumb to follow this issue, much less care about it, but for some reason the citizens in purple-ish states are smart enough and care enough to make the issue matter? Just nonsensical, downright stupid reasoning.

Bravo to the final Sopranos episode. I won't say much for now given many may still not have seen it, but Chase is brilliant -- and remains so when taking poignant shots at GW and his supporters. Note that Carm and T are Bushies, and yet when their son says he wants to join the Army to go fight in Afghanistan, suddenly the war over there sucks and is too dangerous for their boy. The yellow ribbon and bravery talk is all well and good as long as it's someone else's child doing the actual fighting. Suddenly out of the blue, AJ's parents back up the truck with all kinds of amazing offers (movie exec, club owner) to entice him away from a life in the military. Also, notice that these job offers could've been offered to AJ many episodes ago, perhaps alleviating some of his depression and grief, but Carm and T only decide to dump this mother load of future jobs when he expresses interest in fighting Bush's war over there (so they won't come here). Made in America. Yup, Chase is brilliant.

Dick Polman (and Paul Krugman) explains how Romney either blatantly lied last Tuesday night or he's woefully misinformed. Whichever the case, this occurrence alone should preclude Romney from becoming president.

Thanks to the newly awoken independents, we may not have to worry:

The big challenge for Romney would come later, if he wins the GOP nomination. Uttering falsehoods about why we went to war – particularly in an autumn debate - probably wouldn’t fly with swing-voting independents, most of whom now believe that the invasion was a mistake and that the ruling Republicans misled the nation. In 2008, no Republican can win if he leaves the impression that he will be as averse to factual reality as the man he seeks to replace.

Matt Cooper feels there's a very good chance Bush will not pardon Libby. He sums things up by writing, "Unfortunately for Libby, Bush's not a pardon kind of guy."

We'll see. Bush may dislike pardons, but Libby is a "special" friend candidate. Given his fall-guy status, look for an exception to be made. Loyalty is the golden rule with GW and easily trumps anything having to do with appearances much less the rule of law. Just consider the lengths he's going through for Gonzo.

Bush will likely take the heat and commute the sentence.

In this week's NY Observer, just on pages 16-17, we find Mayor Mike Bloomberg taking on the "gun nuts," as well as looking to increase recycling levels, and there's an appropriate mention by Joe Conason of Giuliani's gift to Bloomberg: "When he [Rudy] departed City Hall, he left on his desk a gaping deficit of nearly $4 billion—and Mayor Michael Bloomberg had no choice but to raise taxes."

He's not the first Republican to cut taxes while in office only to hand the deficit bag over to the incoming person to fix. But it's crystal clear that this country would be much better off if they had the current NYC mayor as a real choice for the White House, as opposed to his smoke-and-mirrors, GW-for-four-more-years predecessor.

From The Progress Report:

Last month's dramatic testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey has prompted renewed attention and focus on the administration's warrantless domestic spying efforts. Describing the shocking lengths that the White House went to in order to gain legal sanction for its surveillance program, Comey revealed that President Bush called then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's wife to seek permission for former chief of staff Andrew Card and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to visit a debilitated and hospitalized Ashcroft at his bedside. The White House orchestrated the hospital visit in March 2004, one day after a meeting between Vice President Dick Cheney and Comey in which Justice Department officials announced their staunch opposition to certifying the program. Cheney tried to skirt Comey's authority by seeking Ashcroft's approval, but Ashcroft demurred as well. The White House then reauthorized the spying program "without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality," prompting at least eight top Justice officials to threaten their resignation. Bush finally backed down, altering the program in order to get the Justice Department's sign-off. The saga over the White House's trevails to get legal approval underscores the serious questions that surround the program -- questions that remain largely unresolved to this day.

The more we learn about the Ashcroft/hospital saga, as well as the domestic spying program in general, the more outrageous it all becomes. We now know that it was Bush who phoned Ashcroft's wife for permission to visit her ailing husband, who at the time was no longer the man in charge, but no matter. So we now know it was Bush who initiated the attempt to circumvent the JD by swooping in on Ashcroft. We also know wiretapping / eavesdropping activity went on for several months without the JD's approval, meaning crimes were repeatedly and systematically committed at that time. We also now know Cheney blocked the promotion of a JD official who dared to raise questions about the legality of the surveillance program -- that combined with the threat of massive resignations within the JD and yet we're to believe there were no major disagreement's in the department about this program?

These guys are beyond running a sham government. Yes, they operate as if in a banana republic, but in such a country there would've likely been a coup by now.

The good news just keeps on coming:

Bush visits with the Pope amidst thousands of anti-American protesters. Over 10,000 police will attempt to keep the peace, but they're warning all U.S. tourists to not become easy marks. Yeah, I know, it's not Bush's fault one iota, this global anti-American sentiment, just a bunch of lefty, commie lunatics. F*ck'em, right?

Gen. Peter Pace is out. Gates blatantly admitted he didn't want Pace to have to answer the tough questions regarding the Iraq war. Better to duck accountability altogether. Keep running from it and hopefully it will become someone else's problem. I suppose it didn't help that Pace seemed to be quite the dunce, writing a letter in support of Libby (unheard of for military officer) and expressing his views concerning the "right" kind of sexuality.

Reports are that Turkey has been shelling northern Iraq and have crossed the border at least once to conduct fighting. Is this just one more thing to worry about, Turkey getting drawn into invading Iraq? Just when the U.S. is trying to calm Iraq down, we now have this news, which would certainly ramp up the chaos. Is this a new tact of the insurgency, to incite and suck in other countries? The situation just continues to worsen.

So Fitzgerald wanted a 30-37 month sentence, Libby's defense wanted probation, the Reagan/GW appointed Judge Reggie Walton went with Fitzgerald, and the judge stated evidence of guilt was "overwhelming." If the judge decides Libby should go to prison, it just further drives home the degree of Libby's guilt.

And yet Bush will still pardon a very, very guilty Libby? Also ignoring the Justice Department's pardon regulations that 1) require a period of at least five years after conviction, and 2) the person must show genuine remorse. Libby clearly does not qualify under either one.

If Bush pardons Libby, freeing him of jail time, it should haunt Bush at every turn, not just in his remaining 18 months in office but even after in private life. Also, if a pardon doesn't sink his poll numbers below 20%, nothing will.

But one can make the case that Bush might be potentially willing to let Libby rot in jail (I don't believe it, but let's just assume). Bush recently said, "it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss the case until after the legal remedies have run its course." And when Perino was asked when is the legal process considered over, she said, "when those appeals are exhausted."

So the president will not speak about the case until the appeals process has "run its course." Wow, sounds like GW is (finally) going to respect our legal system -- so much so that he's not going to say a word about the Libby case. Let's see if this new-found sanctity for the law stance holds up if Libby gets sent to the pokey next week. Will Bush then continue to let the judicial process run its course? Will he patiently wait for the appeals to exhaust themselves?

Or will he instead go from seeming respectful with silence on the matter to the opposite extreme and grant a pardon? How will he then explain the abrupt shift from no-comment silence out of respect for forthcoming appeals to a pardon?

It screams just one thing: bullsh*t followed by more bullsh*t.

In Bob Herbert's latest column, he writes about a familiar topic these days: prospects for Gore running in 2008.

I find myself speculating on what might have been if the man who got the most votes in 2000 had actually become president. It’s like imagining an alternate universe.

The war in Iraq would never have occurred. Support and respect for the U.S. around the globe would not have plummeted to levels that are both embarrassing and dangerous. The surpluses of the Clinton years would not have been squandered like casino chips in the hands of a compulsive gambler on a monumental losing streak.

Not to diminish Herbert's words, but it's hard to imagine that anyone would've screwed things up worse than GW in his two terms.

Herbert has this nugget from Gore, "You know, I don’t really think I’m that good at politics, to tell you the truth. Some people find out important things about themselves early in life. Others take a long time.”

Sounds like he's simply playing down expectations, which is typical behavior for anyone running or planning to run for president. We especially observed this with Rove's handling of Bush, set the bar low and it makes it that much easier to excel and appear winning.

If anything, Gore appears to be getting better at politics.

Concerning Iraq, Gore says the objective should be "to get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share — including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance — to remove our troops in a way that doesn’t do further avoidable damage to the people who live there."

A near perfect answer, especially for a presidential contender. Note he made sure to remind that he "opposed this war in the first instance."

Yeah, I think the door's still wide open.

Regarding immigration, Bush has been criticizing his own and Peggy Noonan for one is not pleased. Dick Polman writes:

Noonan is particularly incensed about President Bush’s shoddy treatment of his conservative critics. Many members of the increasingly fragile GOP coalition have strongly attacked Bush’s path-to-citizenship immigration bill, and, in response, he has impugned their patriotism. Last week, Bush said that opponents of his immigration bill “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” Bush surrogates have intimated the same thing.

Noonan is nonplused: “Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, (of) concerned conservatives?” My response to that is: Welcome to the club, Peggy. For years, Bush and his surrogates have suggested that they alone have a monopoly on the national interest, and that those who disagree with them are ipso facto threats to the national interest. (Bush, referring to his Senate Democratic critics in 2002, said that they were “not interested in the security of the American people.”) It’s only now, apparently, that Noonan and other mainstream Republicans have fully come to appreciate the Bush team’s signature arrogance.

Hmm, it's not fun when shoe is on the other foot, huh Peggy? I suppose it's also unpleasant to see your guy for what he truly is: a superficial, callow coward who relies on name calling and inflammatory, false accusations as a pathetic means to get his way.

Bush has been doing this for years to the Dems, and it was acceptable then by the likes of Noonan. However, apparently it's insulting and hostile only when such treatment is directed at oneself. The height of ignorance.

Before the far right goes ballistic over the Libby decision, likely blaming everyone but Libby himself, let it be known that the judge (Walton) was first appointed by Reagan in 1981 and then appointed to the federal bench in 2001 by GW. It would appear that he ain't no liberal.

More evidence that Cheney is the most powerful (and crazed-maniacal) VP in history:

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the president is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the president if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.
<..>
The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the president's hands.

Regarding Bush's latest global warming announcement, the conservative Wall Street Journal wrote, it "effectively removes the U.S. as the last doubter among big developed nations." Well let's give GW a medal!

But the fact remains, thanks to Bush the U.S. is far, far from the first real mover on the issue. This latest proposal is just more nothing dressed up as something.

Dan Froomkin wrote, "Bush's proposal calls for a new round of international meetings that would nearly outlast his presidency. The purpose of the meetings would not be to set caps on emissions, but to establish what the White House -- uncorking a bold new euphemism -- calls 'aspirational goals.' But a change in rhetoric was enough to generate some headlines about the administration's attention to the issue."

It was just more (black) smoke and mirrors, more kicking the can down the road to run out the clock, and yet look good doing it via duping the always-gullible "liberal" media that he actually intends to do something of substance and with teeth.

To get translations of what Bush really meant, click here.

On this subject of global warming, in the debut issue of Portfolio magazine, John Cassidy glibly writes, "I did a quick cost-benefit analysis of this presumed product of climate change...What about the costs? The only one I could think of was that a few people might have decided they no longer needed a winter vacation, which would hurt the airlines and the Florida tourism industry."

Why is it when I read about climate change, often the only item of concern referred to is the actual warming of the atmosphere, and then at times you do read about how this could be a good thing. Are these people insane? What do they think is causing the warming? It's not just CO2 (which I'm fairly certain we humans do not breathe in and benefit from), but pollution, toxins, harmful emissions -- all leading to health problems frequently resulting in death.

So next time you read or hear of this sort of pro/con debate regarding global warming, remember the issue involves much more than just about needing fewer sweaters in the winter.

Harold Meyerson recently wrote:

Of all the absurdities attending our unending war in Iraq, the greatest is this: We are fighting to defend that which is not there.

We are fighting for a national government that is not national but sectarian, and has shown no capacity to govern. We are training Iraq's security forces to combat sectarian violence though those forces are thoroughly sectarian and have themselves engaged in large-scale sectarian violence. We are fighting for a nonsectarian, pluralistic Iraq, though whatever nonsectarian and pluralistic institutions existed before our invasion have long since been blasted out of existence. In the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the one nonsectarian party, which ran both Shiite and Sunni candidates, won just 8 percent of the vote.

Every day, George W. Bush asks young Americans to die in defense of an Iraq that has ceased to exist (if it ever did) in the hearts and minds of Iraqis.

In contrast to the notion held in Bush's juvenile imagination, the only unified Iraq known to have ever existed was an artificial one, held together by the brute force of Saddam.

The evil tyrant is long gone but GW continues to believe in the possibility of a structure that was only possible with Saddam alive.

Something the Dems could have been strongly banking on when reluctantly deciding to fold regarding their demands for a timetable. In due time, Republicans will look to save their own political skins versus siding with a lame duck, increasingly unpopular president.

Could Gonzo be facing disbarment? And if it occurs, would GW continue to fight to keep him as AG? Like Homer Simpson said about that delectable pig, "It's still good! It's still good!"

So many of our soldiers are now getting killed in Iraq, individual ceremonies are becoming impossible, necessitating one ceremony for all. Posted with no comment.

More proof that Ronald Reagan was a liberal compared to today's far right:

And yet, it [the immigration bill] faces a barrage of criticism on the right from those who seem to reject any solution to immigration that does not deport 12 million people. Anything else they call amnesty. The term amnesty comes from the 1986 immigration bill, supported and signed by Ronald Reagan, which gave many illegal immigrants in the United States immediate permanent residency—green cards—with few requirements, a tiny fee and a fast-tracked application process. The current proposal would allow illegal immigrants to apply for a green card after a minimum of eight years, the payment of large fines and fees and proof of clean records and good employment history.

The right loves to cloak themselves in Reagan nostalgia -- as long as it's cleansed from much of what represents actual reality. They didn't waste any time in revising history.

Yesterday, Michael Kinsley wrote:

There was a time, circa 1999, when Republicans considered it the height of naivete, irresponsibility and indifference to the fate of American soldiers to commit any troops to action in a foreign country without what used to be called an "exit strategy." That was when the president was a Democrat. Now it is considered the height of naivete, irresponsibility and indifference to the fate of American soldiers to suggest the possibility of any exit strategy short of triumph. If you do, you are betraying the troops. And no one sees actual triumph in the cards, so there is no exit strategy.

Just more partisan hypocrisy. If Bill Clinton = wrong, if GW = A-OK.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Yes, it's time for a smart U.S. president.

As Eugene Robinson writes:

I want a president who reads newspapers...I want a president who looks forward to policy meetings...I want a president who believes in empirical fact...I want a president smart enough to know a good deal about science...I want the next president to be intellectually curious -- and also intellectually honest...I don't want the candidates to pretend to be average people, because why would we choose an ordinary person for such an extraordinary job?

100% agreed. And guess who Robinson favors? (Hint: he's not running -- yet).

We have more truth coming from an ex-president than the current one (the quote is more than a year old, but even more relevant today):

JIMMY CARTER: What I believe is that there are people in Washington now, some of our top leaders, who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they're looking for ten, 20, 50 years in the future...because that was the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that ten years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq.

More of the typical Orwellian double-speak:

Later, Snow said it was impossible to say if U.S. troops would remain in Iraq for some 50 years, as they have in South Korea. "I don't know," he said. "It is an unanswerable question. But I'm not making that suggestion. ... The war on terror is a long war."

In the same breath, two opposing notions: Snow is not making the suggestion that our troops will remain in Iraq for long, but the war is a long one -- huh? And he makes the insinuation that war is an infinite continuum, an eternal quest. It's lunacy.

Bush believes our occupation in Iraq could equate to that of South Korea. He alone had to come up with this doozy of an analogy (though judging from his cadre of dunderheads, I could be wrong).

Hmm, for starters I believe South Korea was never comprised of multiple sects of people, i.e. the country has always been populated by just Koreans. That's a huge difference right there. Also, it was not at one time held together by a brutal dictator, creating an artificial unified nation. Oh, and it never had an insurgent element insuring mayhem was the natural state. Finally, our forces in South Korea were to maintain existing order and prevent an invasion from North Korea. Our troops in Iraq have been trying to achieve order for years and I don't believe they are there to prevent any sort of invasion (although Al Qaeda has made nice inroads).

From this past Sunday's New York Times, a quote from Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament: “People in the street say the United States is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”

Yes, when will we "make the country more stable" -- the $64K question. By September? Next year? 2017?

That's the point, no one knows. There's no sign of meaningful progress, our soldiers continue to die, the war funding tab continues to climb -- when do we say enough already?

Wars are a finite concept, not infinite! The far right preaches this about federal spending, but apparently not wars, esp. ones that have ever-changing objectives and end-goals.

This story is absolutely jaw-dropping amazing -- even for Bush's low standards.

Both parties are being bought by the coal industry. With evidence of global warming undeniable to most sane people, and the greening of America becoming a force to be reckoned with, coal interests are having to scramble to stay relevant.

And yet this latest idea of coal-to-liquid fuel is not all it's cracked up to be -- not by a longshot:

The Energy Department found that coal-to-liquid fuel could generate roughly twice the carbon emissions that regular gasoline does....According to the National Coal Council, ... a tremendous coal-to-liquid push--involving $211 billion in investments over the next 20 years and a 40 percent increase in mining--would allow the United States to replace just 10 percent of its oil supply. By contrast, using that coal to generate electricity for plug-in hybrids would displace twice the oil and emit a fraction of the carbon.

Or if not hybrids, how about just raising the MPG standards for all vehicles? It would work to conserve gas, cut down on global warming, save consumers money, and contribute to our independence from foreign oil.

Frankly, conservation is one of the best methods for addressing the global warming problem, and yet one of the least mentioned or utilized (mainly because no corporation can make big bucks off of it). For shame.

The Giuliani 9/11 myth, a secret Rudy no doubt fears will get out between now and November 2008. With any luck, it will.

Of the three leading Dem prez contenders (Clinton, Obama, Edwards), each of them do very well against all GOP contenders, but the only one who sweeps the board in defeating all Republican challengers is Edwards. He's the only one who beats Rudy too. Interesting.

Signs are emerging that Bush et al are trying to back off September as a deadline concerning judging Iraq's progress.

When it came to the spending bill, the Dems didn't have enough votes to override GW's veto; in America, there's not much you can do about that.

However, with this blossoming chicanery about September, the Dems need to go to the mat. Unlike the recent back-down, this attempt at weaseling out of an agreed-upon deadline is not a matter of governmental procedures. If the Dems let September slip away as the time of truth-telling, they deserve to be slammed, hard.

In part, I assumed the Dems avoided the veto fight now to instead use September as the definitive month of judgment -- knowing many Republicans by then would be eager to jump sides on this issue. I wouldn't call that a gamble, but rather a safe, calculated assumption.

Then again, when dealing with rascals like Bush & Co., someone else would say this is what happens when you don't stand up to them every time you have the chance.

Bush may feel that over the years Iraq will miraculously improve and he'll one day enjoy renewed appreciation.

Unlikely. Instead, in the future we're more likely to hear hundreds of stories like these from vets:

Staff Sgt. David Safstrom, Delta Company, 82nd Airborne, currently on his third tour in Iraq, quoted today: “What are we doing here? Why are we still here?…We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

Sgt. First Class David Moore, a self-described “conservative Texas Republican” who now supports troop withdrawal, quoted today: “In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war. Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me.”

Sgt. Kevin O’Flarity, a squad leader, quoted today: “I don’t believe we should be here in the middle of a civil war. We’ve all lost friends over here. Most of us don’t know what we’re fighting for anymore."

Fitzgerald appears to be saying something very damning about the VP -- and boy is he pissed!

AP's Jennifer Loven writes:

"Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq," he [Bush] said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. "I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course."

Increasingly isolated on a war that is going badly, Bush has presented his alternative reality in other ways....

Uh, what is "dramatically different" with this supposed new strategy? I'm fairly certain that all GW has done is send more troops. That's an enormous change?

It's one thing to have an inept president in the White House, it's quite another to have an inept, delusional madman running the country. Can we really afford 19 more months of this?

When you play a role in helping to distort and lie about intel, resulting in the deaths of 3400+ U.S. soldiers and counting, well, this is the kind of reception you can expect.

An interesting little story that came out late yesterday:

U.S. intelligence analysts predicted in two papers widely circulated before the 2003 Iraq invasion that al Qaeda would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape the post-Saddam era. The top analysts in government also said that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, turbulent challenge.

Three predictions which came true.

As I wrote over a year ago, it wasn't our intel that was bad, but rather the politicizing, distorting, corrupting, and outright ignoring of it by higher-ups in the administration. High crimes occurred in high places.

In the story, Bush is quoted as saying, "Going into Iraq, we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen."

Here are a few things that didn't happen:

Iraqis greeting us with flowers.

Iraqi oil would pay for the war.

The war would cost under $50 billion.

A thriving Iraqi democracy.

A unified Iraq (jury out).

Insurgency was in "final throes."

Found WMD.

Keep Iraq Al Qaeda-free.

Find Iraqi connection to 9/11.

I'm sure I've neglected to list several more.

Happy Memorial Day weekend!

I've been pondering, and re-pondering, the apparent give-in by Dems to Bush's demands on the spending bill. Did the Dems cave? Yes. Does it suck and as I wrote show a lack of spine? Yes.

But perhaps beyond the black and white on this topic, some grey should be considered (after all, this blog's namesake), and Dick Polman helps to illuminate in that regard:

The Democratic party is at it again, employing its traditional talent for intramural invective. This old habit doesn’t necessarily serve its members well. Liberals have long complained – accurately – that Bush has been pursuing his war with scant regard for the facts on the ground, but their current anger at the Democratic Congress suggests that they, too, are prone to ignoring reality.

The facts on the ground, in Washington, are simple: The Democrats may have the gavel, but they don’t have the votes to impose their will on Bush and override his vetoes. The margins are way too thin. And a fair number of elected Democrats represent moderate swing districts, in places like Indiana and North Carolina, where constitutents have soured on the war, but nevertheless might view a war money cutoff as tantamount to abandoning the troops in harm’s way.

As Jonathan Alter points out in his latest column, “This (swing state factor) is not a figment of some spineless Democrat's imagination, but the reality of what he or she will face back in the district over Memorial Day. Democrats who vote to cut funding not only risk getting thrown in the briar patch by Republican hit men in Washington; they also might not be able to satisfy their otherwise antiwar constituents at home….Democrats who vote to cut off funding can be more easily blamed for the war's failures, especially in swing districts.”
<..>
Time is on the Democrats’ side. The party that’s saddled with an unpopular war tends to be punished at election time, as the Democrats should well remember. They lost the ’52 race in part because of Korea, and lost the ’68 race because of Vietnam. And now that the GOP has been successfully tagged as the Iraq war party, the Democrats will have the wind at their backs in 2008 – if they can manage not to slice each other up along the way.

Dick may be right. In light of the intractable veto and the known hatchet artists for the GOP, the Dems could be playing the smart poker hand by letting the tide of the war play out. A formal timeline was dropped, but a comprehensive report is slated for September, Bush must give a status report by July 15th on Iraq's progress towards meeting benchmarks, and there are indications judgments will be made well before September rolls around -- in particular by more than a few Republicans.

Assuming no miraculous turnaround in Iraq, GW's popularity will remain in the toilet and the pressure to withdraw will only increase.

Is it, dare say, immoral for the Dems to back away from digging in and demanding a timeline? On principle, yes, but practically, not really. In this case, the practical could be the wiser, and more effective, choice. (Oh, and don't think Karl Rove didn't see as a bonus outcome that the Dem supporters would be pissed and look to eat their own).

But Kevin Drum provides another perspective:

But there's also a different interpretation: that the public will side with whoever they agree with on the merits. Maybe that seems naive in our spin-ridden, media saturated age. But you never know. People might actually support the side they agree with. Stranger things have happened.

If that's the case, it means that Bill Clinton won his showdown with Newt Gingrich not because of his bully pulpit, but because Gingrich wanted to make cuts in social programs that the public didn't support. And in fact, that's exactly what happened. Clinton's position was the popular one in that battle, so Gingrich ended up getting the blame for shutting down the government.

This time around, though, the public is pretty clearly on the side of congressional Democrats: they think the war is going badly and they want to see us withdraw from Iraq within the next year. So what would have happened if Dems had held their ground, made a public case for why it would actively benefit the country to get out of Iraq, and simply sent a lightly modified version of the original bill back to Bush? If he'd vetoed it again, isn't it likely that Bush would get the blame for being stubborn and petty, not Congress?

Kevin could be right (he often is), and as I said at the start I continue to mull over this matter, but it strikes me that there are at least two key differences between now and the Newt/Bill showdown:

In terms of being able to communicate their side to the public in a convincing way, Bill Clinton is light years ahead of anyone in this Dem congress. This point cannot be overstated.

Unlike the social issues behind the 1995 confrontation, Iraq is much more emotion-filled and intense, therefore making it easier to manipulate people. This war has bred fed-up anger and feelings of betrayal pitted against fear of terrorist attacks and guilt to be patriotic, to honor the dead as well as those fighting for us.

Sorry, with an issue as charged as this one, odds favor Rove and his "hit men" over softies like Pelosi and Reid -- and I think those two fully understood this fact.

Dan Froomkin recently noted that Bush "criticized the congressional investigation for 'taking a long time. It's going to -- kind of being drug out, I suspect, for political questions -- political reasons.' It takes a lot of chutzpah to stonewall -- and then blame the investigators for a delay."

Circumvent truth-finding wherever and whenever possible, repeatedly ignore requests by these congressional investigators to the point where subpoenas are threatened, only to then blame those in Congress who have the near-impossible task of trying to pound some honesty out of an extremely uncooperative administration. It goes well beyond sheer chutzpah to downright galling.

Regarding Bush's latest attempt to scare up support for the war by releasing details of alleged efforts by Osama bin Laden to plan attacks against the US from Iraq:

General Joseph Hoar, the former head of US Central Command, said Mr. Bush was returning to the tactic of instilling fear in the public by overstating the role of terrorists in Iraq. "It is important to note that there was never one [an al-Qaeda element in Iraq] prior to our invasion," said Gen Hoar.

When Bush was asked if he thought our presence in Iraq has helped Al Qaeda grow, he replied, "Oh, so, in other words, the option would have been just let Saddam Hussein stay there...And the answer is, absolutely not...See, that’s the kind of attitude — he says, okay, let’s let them live under a tyrant, and I just don’t agree."

But many people in other countries unfortunately live under awful tyrants, why isn't Bush looking to sanctimoniously free them? I'm sure he can stir up questionable intel to justify invading those countries....

We have the following from The Washington Post, "More than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again." And in the same article we have, "President Bush and other senior administration officials have cited declines in sectarian killings in justifying U.S. troop increases and additional funding for the war. 'The level of sectarian violence is an important indicator of whether or not the strategy that we have implemented is working,' Bush said May 10."

What say you now oh great decider...? Using your litmus test, doesn't this indicate the strategy is not working?

Regarding Monica Goodling's testimony, the NY Times writes, "She gave Congress all the reason it needs to compel Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, to testify about what they know....Since the list was by all accounts a joint Justice Department and White House effort, Congress has no choice but to question under oath the two people who are in the best position to shed light on the mystery."

Do you think the Dems have the spine to play hardball and go after Rove and Miers? This after the cave-in job Reid masterminded? The goodwill may be turning for the Dems, and if they continue to be wet noodles to the point where Rove is probably giggling, then they'll completely deserve the turned tide.

Dick Polman comes up with a few questions to be asked:

Goodling’s attempt to offer mitigating circumstances merely prompts more questions. Was she aware of the civil service bar on partisan screening? Did her Bush superiors indicate to her that she was expected to abide by those rules? After she breached them a few times, did anybody flag her behavior and tell her to stop? Can she credibly argue that she “didn’t mean to” cross the line - when in fact she was a repeat offender, doing so on roughly 50 occasions? (Best defense: She just couldn’t help it.)

Here’s the short answer to all of the above: Goodling was merely an instrument of the Bush administration strategy to politicize the nonpartisan institutions of government.

Apparently Monica Goodling has not a clue how those eight U.S. attorneys made it on the list to be fired. As Steve Benen writes:

You know, it is curious. These questions are pretty straightforward, but no one is able to answer them. Lawmakers asked Kyle Sampson about who drew up the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired and how those names got on the list. Dunno, he said. They asked Alberto Gonzales. Beats me, he said. They asked Paul McNulty. Ask everybody else, he said. They asked Monica Goodling. Ask anybody else, she said.

As Kevin [Drum] put it, “Goodling is now the latest high-ranking DOJ official to say that, really, she has no idea why those U.S. Attorneys were fired last year, or who made the choices. The list appeared, somehow, but apparently not from any human hand. It’s a miracle!”

Miraculous, indeed. Here’s a wacky thought: maybe someone at the White House knows?

Karl Rove smirks on.

The news afar just keeps getting better:

The United States is continuing to make large payments of roughly $1 billion a year to Pakistan for what it calls reimbursements to the country’s military for conducting counterterrorism efforts along the border with Afghanistan, even though Pakistan’s president decided eight months ago to slash patrols through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most active....So far, Pakistan has received more than $5.6 billion under the program over five years....despite new evidence that the Pakistani military is often looking the other way when Taliban fighters retreat across the border into Pakistan....The administration, according to some current and former officials, is fearful of cutting off the cash or linking it to performance for fear of further destabilizing Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who is facing the biggest challenges to his rule since he took power in 1999.

So Musharraf's very weakness and tenuous hold of power serves as a form of monetary blackmail to the U.S., and meanwhile the Taliban prospers. Incredible.

We had the "dog ate my homework" with the missing RNC emails, and now we have it with Gonzo not knowing who was acting AG when Ashcroft was ailing. What's worse, that Gonzo really didn't know, offering another example of his clueless ineptness, or that he did know (is lying) and intended on strong-arming a weak/sick Ashcroft despite the transfer of power to Comey?

This administration's oppressive, chilling effect on scientists is apparently working: "The Smithsonian Institution toned down an exhibit on climate change in the Arctic for fear of angering Congress and the Bush administration, says a former administrator at the museum."

Al Qaeda is now depending on and thriving due to money originating from Iraq: "U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity. The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network." So our presence in Iraq is bolstering Al Qaeda. Just great.

Regarding the Dems dropping a withdrawal timeline, it's perfectly clear: THEY CAVED! However, Chris Bowers is reserving judgment for now and infers that the story is in fact bogus. Stay tuned.

To avoid another Bolton or Fox incident, Sen. Harry Reid has been forced into out-foxing the scoundrel in the White House.

The governors of California and Connecticut are justifiably pissed off:

It's bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public's health and welfare.

California, Connecticut and 10 other states are poised to enact tailpipe emissions standards -- tougher than existing federal requirements -- that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars, light trucks and sport-utility vehicles by 392 million metric tons by the year 2020, the equivalent to taking 74 million of today's cars off the road for an entire year.

Since transportation accounts for one-third of America's greenhouse gas emissions, enacting these standards would be a huge step forward in our efforts to clean the environment and would show the rest of the world that our nation is serious about fighting global warming.

Yet for the past 16 months, the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to give us permission to do so.

Even after the Supreme Court ruled in our favor last month, the federal government continues to stand in our way.

Another discouraging sign came just last week, when President Bush issued an executive order to give federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and determine what can be done about them.

To us, that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable.

This president has been the main catalyst for a renewed surge of federalism in this country, with many states filing suit against the federal government due to long-term neglect and stonewalling on important issues -- global warming being just one. Under Bush, the EPA's job has become one of kicking the can down the road as opposed to strongly enforcing existing regulations, much less gutting them.

One thing seems perfectly clear: the next person to move into the White House will undoubtedly be far more green than this current denier.

Kevin Drum believes Rudy Giuliani will ultimately cost himself the GOP nomination "because at some point he'll throw a public hissy fit of some kind and self destruct." It's very well possible considering Rudy's volatile demeanor -- a side of him that ironically conflicts with the cool-headed, 9/11-hero imagery the campaign projects onto the public.

But even if he doesn't succumb to a fatal outburst on the trail, what will likely doom Rudy for certain is his choice to be seen as simply four more years of GW. Whether it be his shocking endorsement of waterboarding, or the use of scare tactics to win votes, or just flat-out praising Bush as "a great president," Rudy couldn't cozy up any closer to GW if he wanted to.

I will assume Giuliani believes the same as McCain and Romney: to get to be the Republican presidential nominee will require winning over the far right faction of the party. (As Paul Krugman recently wrote, "rank-and-file Republicans continue to approve strongly of Mr. Bush’s policies — and the more un-American the policy, the more they support it.") After that task is accomplished, then spend time distancing oneself from GW to appeal to the more moderate general electorate.

But as I've written before, in order to win over the zealots in their party to become the nominee, too much will have been said for any one of them to successfully try and wiggle away from. The Dem candidate will have tons of video footage and quotes to hang'em with, and I believe it's safe to assume that GW will not suddenly become popular next year.

It's a demented Catch-22 with the kiss-kiss-GW mode the only course of action for any of the GOP contenders. To go the route of Sen. Chuck Hagel would instantly translate into longshot status -- something not lost on the front-runners. But again, all that they must do and say to become the nominee ironically will make it all that much more difficult for the nominee to become president.

Demented indeed, but that's the shape of the Republican Party these days, thanks in large part to that wunderkind Karl Rove.

As if the GOP's prospects were not dim enough for 2008, we now have the added bonus of influential figures threatening to further splinter the party. Just belly-warming.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg may run for president after all. Given the current cast of GOP characters running, I say "run Mikey run." I've grown to like much of what Bloomberg stands for -- not very surprising since he was a Democrat for most of his adult life.

This little wrinkle is interesting: "Polls thus far have shown a third-party Bloomberg bid would draw more Republican votes than Democratic ones." As a vote siphon, will Bloomberg be to the Dems presidential nominee what Perot was to Bill Clinton and Nader was to GW? Though in many ways Bloomberg is a much more credible candidate, having oodles more dollars than Nader, being less kooky and a joke than Perot, and having (successfully) held public office.

The Bloomberg dance could turn out to be more interesting than following the Gore dance.

Some comments regarding the Comey vs. Gonzo drama:

Dahlia Lithwick sums it up nicely, "The White House went ahead and reauthorized a controversial, presidential-power-grabbing program deemed illegal by the Justice Department, after trying to extract permission from a critically sick John Ashcroft who didn't quite know what day it was." Just when you thought these guys could go no lower, they find a level beyond zero. Can it get any more despicable than this? They're not even above bedside bullying.

Dan Froomkin writes, "So what was the [warrantless wiretapping] program like before that -- when it was illegal even in the opinion of Bush's own Justice Department? What was the government doing for two and a half years -- starting soon after September 11, 2001, through the spring of 2004? That is -- or at least should be -- the question of the day in Washington." It appears as if for 2+ years GW and his administration violated the law. As for Froomkin's last sentence, there are so many questions of the day concerning numerous scandals and controversies that it's very difficult to focus on just one.

Dick Polman writes, "The lurid intrigue starring Alberto Gonzales (who else) - in which the then-White House counsel is depicted racing to John Ashcroft’s hospital bed in 2004, in order to inveigle the seriously ill attorney general to sign off on a domestic eavesdropping program that had already been deemed illegal by Ashcroft’s chief deputy at Justice - is just the latest drip-drip disclosure of the Bush team’s aversion to the rule of law." Ahh yes, "aversion to the rule of law" -- didn't that once constitute a favorite line by Republicans for impeachment proceedings? Oh, how times have changed.

Glenn Greenwald writes, "The overarching point here, as always, is that it is simply crystal clear that the President consciously and deliberately violated the law and committed multiple felonies by eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law....What more glaring and clear evidence do we need that the President of the United States deliberately committed felonies, knowing that his conduct lacked any legal authority? And what justifies simply walking away from these serial acts of deliberate criminality? At this point, how can anyone justify the lack of criminal investigations or the appointment of a Special Counsel? The President engaged in extremely serious conduct that the law expressly criminalizes and which his own DOJ made clear was illegal." Indeed, imagine if this were Bill Clinton, the GOP and right-wing scream-o-sphere would be ape-shit crazy with condemnation and calls for booting him from office. The level of hypocrisy is incredible. (Oh, and it would be nice to see some Dems grow some real spine).

Doesn't this Keystone Kops race-to-hospital remind you of another similar incident? You know, when Newt Gingrich broke the news to his ailing wife, who was in the hospital undergoing treatment for cancer, that he was leaving her. Just more examples of that "compassionate conservatism" we hear so much about....

And now this nonsense, "The Justice Department said yesterday that it will not retract a sworn statement in 2006 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Terrorist Surveillance Program had aroused no controversy inside the Bush administration, despite congressional testimony Tuesday that senior departmental officials nearly resigned in 2004 to protest such a program." Apparently the threat of mass resignations does not qualify as controversy within the the administration. Black is white, and vice versa. Sounds like another lie from our top lawyer -- unless you assume Comey is doing the lying. Good luck with that wager.

Further evidence that McCain has completely and utterly sold himself to the lunatic far right, he was the first to honor the death of Jerry Falwell. He said, "Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."

As John Nichols writes:

Distinguished accomplishment?

Would that be when Falwell regularly featured segregationists Lester Maddox and George Wallace on his Old Time Gospel Hour television program in the 1960s? When he condemned the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and referred to the civil rights movement as "the civil wrongs movement"? When he opposed sanctions against South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980s?

Or when he produced an infomercial in the 1990s accusing President Clinton of orchestrating murders of journalists and political critics, even though he would eventually admit that "I do not know the accuracy of the claims"? When he attacked "Teletubbies" character Tinky Winky as a gay recruitment tool? When he asserted that the Antichrist "must be, of necessity, a Jewish male"?

To add to the litany of Falwell examples of love, tolerance, and acceptance (you know, all values Jesus preached and practiced), click here.

If Falwell was considered holy, then heaven will be a very depressing place.

With these surveys judging our healthcare vs. other countries, in conjunction can they provide info that shows the degree to which HC lobbyists influence the system via legislation and other methods of impact?

I have a sneaky suspicion that our perma-status of not showing up well in these exercises might have something to do with the amount of power lobbyists have in making sure our HC system remains subpar, extremely costly -- and incredibly profitable.

From a recent Fox News interview, Cheney said, "So if you're going to be a public official advocating withdrawal from Iraq, you, in fact, are also saying that what you're recommending is validating the al Qaeda strategy."

Completely outrageous and nonsensical, but hey, it's just more classic nutzoid talk from our favorite crazed VP.

As we careen towards the days of the Politburo....

With the Pentagon banning the use of web sites like YouTube and MySpace, and yet at the same time actively using such sites to spread their carefully-controlled positive messages, we verge that much closer to the version of Russia we so greatly despised not too long ago.

It's all in accordance with this administration's mantra: restrict, restrict, restrict (unless it applies to big business).

Global warming deniers often cop the line, "why should we change to prevent global warming if China doesn't?"

Look, conservation and doing what we can to halt climate change is not a causal argument strictly tied to another entity (in this case, a country). We should do what we feasibly can, period.

But note that China is where the U.S. was 50-100 years ago, when we were developing and progressing as a nation with little concern for the environment. In the process, we were guilty of a good deal of unadulterated polluting and China is now doing the same in their rapid evolution towards a more developed country. When we did it, much less scientific evidence was known which meant for fewer scoldings from others, and fewer developed nations existed then to do any of the scolding.

So here we are now and it makes little sense to penalize or harshly judge China for trying to develop. After all, their industrial activity moves them closer to capitalism -- a good thing, right?

But we should be looking to help them grow as cleanly and as efficiently as possible. We have the technology and the know how -- the same technology and know how we should be using to clean up our act.

Economic growth and environmental stewardship can coexist. Perhaps not 50-100 years ago, but certainly they can work together today. All it takes is leadership.

I came across an article on a study titled "Egos Inflating Over Time," which makes the case that this generation of young adults is much more narcissistic than those in the past. An end result is self-esteem on steroids, with overblown egos leading to many problems.

An example of a potential cause of this sad condition is the trend to avoid keeping score in games involving the young (e.g. Little League, youth soccer and lacrosse, etc.). By admonishing the fact that in sports there's always a winner and loser, instead choosing to convey the warm and fuzzy "we're all winners" or "there's no such thing as losing" sets up many youngsters for future problems.

As much as winning or just having fun are terrific goals, equally important is encouraging kids to learn how to deal with losing or coming up short of victory. They need to be exposed to all emotions, and that includes disappointment and failure -- even at this early age -- so they can process the feelings, grow from them, and become not just better competitors but more so better human beings.

As it is, most kids keep score of who is winning in their own heads. Parents are only fooling themselves if they believe otherwise. In that case, best to have the kids understand that they won't win every time in life, and as a result other qualities -- such as resilience, perserverance, practice, humility, acceptance -- should be recognized and embraced. Looking back as mature adults, our youth will ultimately thank us for taking the less vacuous route.

Odds of a Republican president in 2008:



Yikes. If this were a stock, I'd be shorting it.

We now know what will certainly hit us here while we're over there: dastardly Mother Nature.

Get ready to see more of this blame game as Bush's cabal of losers continue to play hot potato with the Iraq war decision.

Needless to say, if the war were a success, they'd be stumbling over each other to take all the credit. Yet, given the monumental, disastrous reality, instead we have the pointing of fingers at everyone but themselves.

No one wants to go down in the history books as a primary contributor to such an epic fiasco. It's what spineless, inept scoundrels do.

There goes that "liberal" media again....

To brainiac Dick Morris, and likely many other right-wing dunderheads, the solution to "not having them follow us home" is to have soldiers over there with bulls-eyes on their backs. He believes it's best to offer terrorists "the opportunity to kill more Americans" in Iraq, thus avoiding the hassle of worrying about attacks in the U.S.

More lobotomized wisdom from the far right. Is it any wonder the public is fed up with these idiots?

Iraqi parliament mirroring U.S. Democrats:

A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels....The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded.

Ahh, but what do they know, right? And how dare them try to run their own country -- the nerve.

Regarding the lack of votes thus far sparing Gonzales, Kevin Drum writes:

Normally, cabinet officers who have been caught in multiple obvious lies have to either resign or else seriously try to defend themselves. But Gonzales realizes this is just tradition. Unless House Democrats have the votes to impeach him, he doesn't have to do anything. He can just mock them to their face and there's nothing much they can do about it.

Yes, it comes to honor and dignity -- what GW was supposedly going to return to Washington -- versus simple math. Since lying is the norm for these guys, they have no shame when it comes to sticking it out when others would've resigned, and therefore there's no cost or penalty for lying.

Not exactly Dennis Kucinich saying this.

When scoundrels quarrel.

In the Bizzaro universe that is this administration, Snow's protests just mean it was most definitely the case:

[Tony] Snow, who sat in on the meeting in the president's private quarters, said it should not be overdramatized or seen as another "marching up to Nixon," a reference to the critical moment during Watergate in 1974 when key congressional Republicans went to the White House to tell President Richard M. Nixon that it was time to resign. "This is not one of those great cresting moments when party discontents are coming in to read the president the riot act," he said.

Rudy is toast.

Try, try, try again -- but if you fail, don't worry about it:

CHENEY: Well, we're interested in having benchmarks that we want to see the Iraqis meet. The President has talked about this previously. That's not a new concept or anything that one of the Democrats came up with. It's also not - I'm always a little puzzled when we talk about consequences....So when we talk to them about consequences in some kind of bureaucratic sense or threatening them with a cutoff of funds, for example, if they don't do A, B and C, it strikes me as, you know, that's Washington talk but it may not have all that relevance on the ground out there.

Where's the incentive?

Quite a list, Bush must be so proud – you know, returning honor and dignity to the White House.

As I wrote yesterday concerning the master minds behind the "surge," the rats are jumping ship twenty months early. Again, does not bode well for Iraq. Plan B better arrive ASAP.

Notice how Bush people are all cast from the same polarizing, divisive, controversy-riddled mold? Cheney, Rove, Bolton, Rumsfeld -- Wolfowitz.

We know these guys are inept and can't lead, which I guess in part is why they raise such a stink anywhere they go. They need to get their way through the use of bravado and highly questionable practices, as opposed to solid, reasonable policy decisons.

The world will be a much better place when these a-holes are finally vanquished from power. Amen.

Get ready for a rise in U.S. casualties in Iraq in the next few months, so says an Army general. He also stated that insurgent groups linked to Al-Qaida were escalating attacks, the aim being to incite sectarian warfare. Note that U.S. News & World Report has an article concluding that "Bin Laden already has a safe haven in Pakistan and may be stronger than ever." Yes, Al-Qaida is stronger than ever and creating havoc in Iraq.

Needless to say, this news does not bode well for the perception that Iraq will be improving by September. In addition, the following does not say much for the odds of progress:

Deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch II, who helped spearhead the recent policy review that led President Bush to send more U.S. troops to Iraq, announced yesterday that he will step down early next month, becoming the latest key aide to depart the White House at a critical juncture.

Crouch, the No. 2 official at the National Security Council, has been a pivotal figure on a series of difficult issues, including Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and the detention policy for terrorism suspects. And it was his interagency group meeting at the White House complex for many weeks last winter that resulted in the ongoing troop buildup in Iraq, which has become the defining decision of the year for Bush.
<..>
Crouch becomes the second top official involved in crafting the new Iraq strategy to leave before it is clear if the new approach will work. Meghan O'Sullivan, the deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, also plans to resign soon.

Some of the key architects behind the "surge" are calling it quits. That's a bit odd. You'd think they'd want to hang around for a few months longer to bask in the glow of approval, assuming conditions improve in Iraq. It's not a good sign if these folks have their doubts.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon report released on Friday suggests "that extended tours and multiple deployments, among other policy decisions, could escalate anger and increase the likelihood that soldiers or marines lash out at civilians, or defy military ethics....no small concern since the United States’ counterinsurgency doctrine emphasizes the importance of winning the trust and support of the local population."

An Army general predicts an increase in U.S. military deaths this summer as Congress hopes to observe improvement then, and in the process our soldiers continue to get stretched to their limit, to the point where mental issues have set in making the circumstances that much more dangerous for all involved.

You think GW is connecting the dots? Doubtful. In December 2005, Newsweek wrote about "Bush's Bubble" and this week the cover story for U.S. News discusses much of this same topic.

I've written how scary this state of forced, artificial comfort in the White House could be for the rest of us. The three D's (detachment, delusion, and desperation) are a recipe for disaster. Twenty months to go, keep your fingers crossed.

Several months ago I wrote about how the primary schedule appeared to favor John Edwards.

Late last month top research outfit ISI Group wrote about the same topic, stating because "the primaries will be even more front-loaded in 2008....that Edwards has a better shot at the nomination than most think."

In fact, the first two caucuses are Iowa and Nevada, in that order, and Edwards leads in Iowa which could very much set him up for a huge boost five days later in Nevada.

Needless to say, the road to the nomination is fueled by favorable and plentiful media coverage fueling the necessary momentum to surge to the front of the pack, creating a self-fulfilling domino effect that takes on a power of its own. It worked for John Kerry when he won in Iowa and given the revamped schedule for 2008, such abrupt surprises could work wonders for a non-front-running candidate -- especially if that candidate is already predisposed to being more media-adored than say a John Kerry.

Just some food for thought.

A few days ago, Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen produced another in a series of reports showing the Iraqi reconstruction efforts to be going poorly. Very poorly.

Recall Bowen is the inspector the GOP (specifically presidential candidate Duncan Hunter) tried to do away with last year via a middle-of-the-night-inserted provision in a bill -- a bill that was completed, meaning party negotiations were finished so no more changing allowed. Also, note that Hunter gets half his campaign contributions from defense contractors. (Reminder: Hunter wants to be your president). Nonetheless, his chicanery was discovered and stopped.

Yet we now learn that Bowen himself is under investigation, spear-headed by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which is "drawn from the executive branch; its chairman is Clay Johnson III, deputy budget director and longtime friend of the president."

But we're told not to worry, that this investigation based on "fairly narrow issues" is not payback to punish or intimidate Bowen. Oh, thank goodness. I believe them. I mean why not, since this administration would never use bully tactics to influence anyone, right?

The prosecutor purge scandal edges that much closer to the White House. Increasingly it appears as if political party affiliation was used as a screening device for hiring federal prosecutors -- a practice that is illegal. Federal law prohibits the Justice Department from considering political affiliation in hiring/firing decisions.

Yet, as Murray Waas writes:

The existence of the order suggests that a broad effort was under way by the White House to place politically and ideologically loyal appointees throughout the Justice Department, not just at the U.S.-attorney level. Department records show that the personnel authority was delegated to the two aides at about the same time they were working with the White House in planning the firings of a dozen U.S. attorneys, eight of whom were, in fact, later dismissed.

Andrew Cohen sums it up:

No one who has followed this story closely can be shocked by this news. Of course, the fix was in with the Goodling, Sampson and Co. to replace professional nonpartisan officials with partisans; of course White House leaders directed the plan, and of course the Attorney General either went along with it (as he always does with his president) or negligently allowed it to happen on his watch.

Just deserts cannot come soon enough.

On Tuesday, I wrote about the many former Reagan officials who have increasingly come out with harsh words against Bush/Cheney. However, to read about one endorsing Hillary in 2008, well, what is there to say. Yes, it's that bad for the GOP.

Speaking of Reagan, Dick Polman writes:

It’s also true, of course, that this Reagan nostalgia is at odds with reality. When the candidates tonight offer their requisite praise, no doubt they’ll neglect to mention that, during Reagan’s tenure, federal spending rose by 25 percent, that the size of the federal workforce actually grew, that he raised taxes in 1982, that the size of the federal deficit doubled, and that, on the social front, he rarely gave more than lip service to the anti-abortion movement. In fact, at the time, conservative activists often joked, “It’s not that Ronald Reagan lacks principles, it’s just that he does not understand the ones he has.”

I've written here many times about the distortions of Reagan's legacy, how the right has morphed it into something they like and want to be true, as opposed to the reality of the record. Just more delusional grasping. Truly sad.

In discussing the communication of US troops with others, Bush said, "You've got a kid in Iraq who is emailing mom daily, talking about the realities of what he or she sees. Information is moving — you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets."

Yes, GW believes Google is "the Google" and the internet is plural. Gads!

But his talk of blogs and the internet is ironic since the military is currently seeking to very much control the use of blogs on the internet by those serving in Iraq.

So much for "talking about the realities"....

Sean Hannity recently had Sen. Brownback on his radio show and he had to remind the senator that they're in the minority when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade (for some reason, Brownback thought otherwise).

Hannity could've kept going, stating he and Brownback were in the minority on many issues. Iraq, global warming, stem cell research, social security reform, gun control, tax cuts for the rich -- the list goes on and on.

It appears as if Sean has fully embraced the idea of Republicans being the minority party for many years to come.

I wrote last Friday, Bush "has much time left in office and a woefully awful president who listens to no one, realizes his legacy is shit, and yet still must confront many serious problems facing this country -- well, he's very capable of doing some go-for-broke things that could really be huge whoppers, even by his standards. Brace yourself and strap in."

Steve Benen seems to agree, writing today:

A mature, sensible leader might become introspective, wondering how best to get back on track. Bush has apparently taken to whining about how unappreciated he his. As I recall, Nixon started talking the same way, right before he was driven from office.

This isn’t encouraging. In fact, if Bush starts wondering what he can do to prove everyone wrong about his greatness, this kind of thinking could get scary.

Buckle up!

Just how wrong has this administration and neocons been about Iraq? Dick Polman has assembled a collection of now infamous quotes, with a few below:

Pentagon adviser Ken Adelman (2/13/2002): “I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."

Vice President Cheney (8/26/2002): “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld (2/7/2003): “(The war) could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (2/27/2003): Iraqis “will greet us as liberators."

Cheney on NBC, March 16, 2003: “My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

Wolfowitz (3/27/2003): “We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

Dick Morris, Fox News (4/9/2003): “Over the next couple of weeks, when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing…"

Fred Barnes, Fox News (4/10/2003): “The war was the hard part....And it gets easier."

Columnist Charles Krauthammer (4/19/2003): “The only people who think this wasn’t a victory are upper West Side liberals."

Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell (5/1/2003): “I think it was time to say to the American people, the hostilities in Iraq have ended.”

Bush (5/29/2003): “We found the weapons of mass destruction.”

If it were not for already knowing how clueless these folks have been, the quotes would resonate as truly amazing. But at this point we know better.

For good measure, the public believe about every other word that comes from the mouths of Bush/Cheney concerning Iraq. Fool me once....

The cost of the Iraq war is fast approaching half a trillion dollars. However, including the economic impact of lost lives, long-term healthcare costs for wounded veterans, rebuilding a worn-down military, and other unforeseen expenses, professors Stiglitz and Bilmes have concluded the war will cost over $2 trillion when all is said and done. By far, the most expensive governmental mistake in our history.

We hear conservatives complain about government spending, but never a mention of the cost of this fiasco. Imagine what $2 trillion could accomplish if invested in this country, the USA. An outrage.

It's funny, we continue to hear Republicans invoke the name of Ronald Reagan as if to stir up some warm and fuzzy sentiment to counteract the feelings Bush/Cheney instill.

Yet, the list continues to grow of former Reagan administration officials who have gone public with harsh criticism of this current administration (a few examples here, here, here, here, here). The latest being Reagan's former National Security Agency head, who recently delivered a weekly address for the Democrats (!).

Over the past couple of years, the President has let it [Iraq] proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.

Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.

To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is 'absent without leave.' He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge.
<..>
No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the paralysis that now confronts us....The bill that Congress approved this week, with bipartisan support, setting schedules for withdrawal, provides the President an opportunity to begin this kind of strategic shift, one that defines regional stability as the measure of victory, not some impossible outcome.

I hope the President seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill the Congress has sent him.

Odom not only advises Bush to sign the bill, but he categorically states withdrawal is the first-step to an Iraq solution. Again, a former Reagan official. What are the odds that Reagan himself would be supporting Bush/Cheney right now? In many ways, GW makes Reagan look like Chomsky in comparison.

Taking Tenet at his word (a giant leap, admittedly), according to him "slam dunk" did not refer to any intel proving Saddam had WMD or was an "imminent threat," but rather the phrase was said in relation to how well the administration could sell the war to the American public. The two are very different. One concerns reality and facts as they are known, and the other refers to PR-type spin to coax the unwitting public into believing a stance the White House was favoring and desperately needed support. Tenet is making the case that such shaping of the intel to back the policy was a "slam dunk," implying enough loose ends and innuendo was available to scare the living bejesus out of most Americans, that there was enough "crap" to justify to the public that war was necessary.

Boy, isn't it great he cleared that up, years later no less? What a brave, upstanding ex-government official -- give this guy a medal! (Oh, Bush did, my bad).

James Fallows has posted a terrific response to Dan Bartlett's claim that Bush seriously debated the need to go to war:

At least George Tenet is not telling a flat-out lie -- which is a difference between him and White House counselor Dan Bartlett.

Tenet, as mentioned earlier, would have better served his country (and his reputation) by speaking up more promptly about the Bush Administration’s failure ever to have a “serious debate” about whether it was worth invading Iraq.

But his failing was telling the truth too late — not sticking to, well, a lie like the one Bartlett uttered yesterday (according to the AP) as part of the White House’s attempt to rebut Tenet:

“This president weighed all the various proposals, weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision.”

I say plainly: that is a lie. To be precise about it, no account of the Administration’s deliberations, by anyone other than Bartlett just now, offers even the slightest evidence that this claim is true. Innumberable accounts offer ample evidence that it is false. I have asked this direct question to many interviewees who were in a position to know: was there ever such a meeting or discussion? The answer was always, No. The followup challenge to Bartlett should be: show us a memo, show us a policy paper, show us a scheduled meeting, show us notes taken at the time to substantiate the idea that the Administration ever seriously considered what the nation would gain or lose by invading Iraq, and what the alternatives might be. What the Administration actually considered, according to all known evidence, is how it would invade Iraq, and when.

As I wrote on Saturday, "does anyone really care what any of these folks have to say at this point? It seems as if all of them lie and the fact is they were all involved in the hoodwinking and cookery of the intel from the start and I don't recall any of them crying foul then (of course not counting the likes of Richard Clarke)."

We now see Rice tap-dancing in response to Tenet's book. They all lie as no one -- including Bush himself -- wants to be on the hook for one of the worst decisions in our history. They continue to wriggle and squirm.