TPMtv

Surprise Surprise -- Thompson to Run

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:33:56 EDT

Fred Thompson is going to announce his candidacy for president on Sept. 6. He will announce with a Web cast at his "I'm with Fred" site. Not exactly a great sense of occasion — but maybe he is a bit used to too much drama.

Audio Tape of Larry Craig's Interrogation

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:05:28 EDT

Re-enactment of Craig's solicitation

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:54:40 EDT

Crooks and Liars has a great video of Keith Olberman's re-enactment Se. Craig's alleged men's room solicitation.

Death Penalty ... for Drivers? The case of Kenneth Foster

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:52:05 EDT

The Death Penalty. A concept that many hate yet some feel should be used in the absolute most appalling of crimes. To take a life is a very serious matter, and one that everyone — even proponents of the death penalty — take seriously.

Enter Kenneth Foster. Kenneth was a driver in a robbery. He was sitting 80 feet away in a car when the robbery turned violent, and one of his robbery accomplices shot someone dead. Normally, Kenneth would be serving a possible life sentence, more likely getting released after 30 years. Unfortunately for Kenneth, this all happened in Texas.

The person who pulled the trigger is already dead — executed. As for the Kenneth, he is set to die this Thursday. In Texas, you can get the death penalty for being a co-conspirator to murder. The issue, obviously, is not only that Kenneth might not have anticipated the robbery to escalate to murder — he was the driver — but also this going beyond the "eye for an eye" ideology so commonly voiced by supporters of capital punishment, as the murderer is already dead.

It has also blurred concepts of guilt and innocence. If Mr. Foster is not legally guilty of murder, as his lawyer, Keith S. Hampton, and supporters contend, many find it hard to pronounce him blameless.

"I’d hate to use the word 'innocent,'" said his father, Kenneth Foster Sr., a former heroin addict who told a church audience in Houston on Saturday that he used to take his baby son with him on drug runs and petty crimes. He said his son "should be punished to some degree, but not put to death."

At the heart of the case is Texas' law of parties, under which those conspiring to commit one felony, like a robbery, can all be held responsible for an ensuing crime, like murder, if it "should have been anticipated." NYT

Activists are in uproar over the ensuing execution. All appeals seem exhausted, and there isn't much left to do but hope for a last minute reprieve.

Kenneth did not hold the gun, he did not encourage the murder, it is even admitted by the prosecution that he might not have known it was going to happen. He did, however, participate in a crime that could lead to murder. But, if that is the case, where does the death penalty stop? It is one thing to defend the execution of a person who took someone's life, it is another to support the execution of someone who has never held someone else's life in his or her hands and chose to take it.

Daily Kos discussed Kenneth's case,

Kenneth Foster's case is important not just because he is innocent; not just because the death penalty targets people of color and the poor. Kenneth is also an activist and a leader on death row. He help found the DRIVE Movement which has held numerous hunger strikes and protests on death row. Right now he and Johnny Amador, who is also scheduled to be executed this week, are both on a hunger strike. Neither will go willingly to their death and neither will cooperate with the executioners.

If you want to help the Kenneth's cause, and speak out against his execution, go to www.freekenneth.com .

Whatever your beliefs about the death penalty for murderers, Kenneth's case should make everyone rethink the extension of the death penalty to someone who drives a car — for a robbery.

UPDATE:

LATimes has announced that Governor Perry is releasing Kenneth from the death penalty.

"After carefully considering the facts of this case, along with the recommendations from the Board of Pardons and Paroles, I believe the right and just decision is to commute Foster's sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment," Perry said in a statement.

The governor did not address the Texas law that allows an accomplice to be given the death penalty, but said, "I am concerned about Texas law that allows capital-murder defendants to be tried simultaneously, and it is an issue I think the Legislature should examine."

Al Sadr positioning himself to rule

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:36:20 EDT

The most prominent insurgent leader in Iraq, the Shiite cleric Muqtada Al Sadr might be shaping up to be his country’s George Washington. He has taken credit for driving the British out of Basra and called for a U.N. peace-keeping presence to ensure Iraq's security until the country can stand on its own. Thursday, he distributed an order to his followers calling for a six-month unilateral ceasefire:

"Asked if the unexpected order meant no attacks on American troops, as well as a ban on Shia infighting, a senior Sadr aide said: 'All kinds of armed actions are to be frozen, without exception.'"

Ostensibly, the hiatus is to restructure the Madhi army "in a way that helps honur the principles for which it is formed."

Sadr stands to consolidate his power by using U.S. troops to eliminate disloyal and competing Shiite factions. Any Shiites who continue insurgent activity are not loyal to Al Sadr and will be the focus of the undivided attention of U.S. and Iraqi forces. On the other side, Al Sadr should emerge with a rested, loyal, well-organized militia.

Al Sadr goes on to call on the Madhi army to work toward stabilizing Iraq. "We call on all Sadrists to observe self-restraint, to help security forces control the situation and arrest the perpetrators and sedition mongers, and urge them to end all forms of armament in the sacred city."

It remains to be seen how his followers implement the order to "help security forces," but it could translate to significant improvements in the security situation. Such an improvement would improve his standing with Iraq citizens. And the reduction in violence would make it easier, politically, for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Implicit in all this is the message that the Madhi army will be more ready than ever to attack U.S. troops when the six months is up, if U.S. troops are not already on their way out.

There is a leadership void in Iraq. The current Prime Minister is seen as weak and insufficient to the task of governing. To the contrary, Al Sadr is seen among Shiites as an energetic, capable leader. The British leaving Basra has undoubtedly given him a boost in public opinion. His call for an international rather than U.S. security presence demonstrates a realistic understanding of the situation Iraq is in and is really the only proposal on the table aside from continued U.S. occupation or outright chaos.

If he begins making reconciliatory overtures toward the Sunnis in the coming weeks, it will be very clear that Al Sadr is gearing up to take over leadership of the country. In the same way that the U.S. has allied with former-insurgent tribal sheiks in Anbar province, in a year's time, we might well find ourselves handing over the keys to the country to its most significant insurgent leader.

GAO Says No Progress in Iraq

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:42:41 EDT

The Washington Post got its hands on a draft of the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, report evaluating progress in Iraq and — surprise — it doesn't look good.

According to the report, Iraq has failed to meet all but three of the benchmarks for political and military progress demanded by Congress. And that's quite a different picture than the one presented by the White House.

"The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration," the Post reports.

Moreover, the report also encourages the administration to change the nature of its own assessments, saying it "would be more useful" if they backed up their claims with details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."

That's a direct jab at the upcoming Patraeus report due out in September — that's the White House's own benchmarking report. With 27,662 troops wounded and 3,730 dead, will the WH keep their heads buried in the ground and still try to paint a rosy picture? Or will we finally have a real conversation about Iraq?

Wednesday Interview- Max Blumenthal

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:22:45 EDT

Tuesday, we had a chance to sit down and talk with reporter-blogger Max Blumenthal and his videographer Thomas Shomaker about what the future of journalism, the '08 Election, a "crisis of blackness" and the quiet war on black men, and what the biggest threat to the United States actually is. This is the first in our new installment of Wednesday interviews with journalists, bloggers and anyone else who will sit down with us to talk about what's actually going on in America.

Looking at the ’08 election, what do you think about the candidates? Do you think there’s going to be any "star power" with Thompson and Giuliani?

Max: Fred Thompson is a fresh breath of halitosis. That's pretty much all I have to say about him. Rudy Giuliani is a great example of family values. You know, his daughter calls him a sociopath, his son won't talk to him, won't appear with him in public, he's — what is it? — his third wife? After leaving his second cousin and having an affair with a staffer. So I think the family values wing of the Republican Party, which is the Republican Party, is going to appreciate him a lot. And he's lying about his record left and right. Mitt Romney is going to be the guy. I wish Giuliani were going to be nominee, because I would love to see him systematically dismantled in the general election.

What that guy did to New York deserves some sort of political punishment.

Do you think America's ready to elect a black man?

I don't know the answer to that. My answer to that is that racism is still very real and that particular black man is stuck between a rock and a hard place because he has to be black enough; he has to be authentically black. His blackness has been challenged because he's biracial, at the same time he can't be too black or he'll be pigeon-holed as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, and he won't win over voters in Iowa. So I just think there's a crisis of blackness in the political arena right now that Barack Obama embodies, and if he is elected, he will redefine America's concept of blackness; it's an interesting issue.

Tom: The question I have about that is, I definitely think there are a large, large number of Americans who would not vote for a black man for president; at the same time, an overwhelming percentage of those probably aren't going to vote Democratic anyway. So I think the real question is how many Americans would be subtly uncomfortable by the idea, people aren't outright racists at all; people who probably have black friends, but they would not in some way feel comfortable with that and they might not even recognize that, but it might sway their support to someone else. I think that's the real question, because I think that's the real racism that really is much more widespread.

Do you think Hillary's going to face the same thing being a woman?

Tom: Absolutely. Absolutely. I actually think it might be harder for Hillary as a woman than for Obama as a black man.

Max: I think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are really distractions from the real question, which is: Is America willing to embrace women's rights and is America willing to embrace black men on their own terms? Which means talking about issues like abortion, which democrats are scared to talk about, and issues like prison, which Democrats, particularly at the state level; a lot are in the pocket of the prison guard's union. So you have an enormous amount of black males basically warehoused in prisons for non-violent crimes, over 50 percent of the federal prison population is in jail for nonviolent drug offenses, what's basically going on is a war on young black men.

It's a quiet war that everyone's afraid to talk about, and America is not, I don't know if America's ready to resolve this war in a just fashion. And Barack Obama's election isn't going to do it, if anything, it's just going to be a way of papering over what mainstream America's opinions are of black males. And I'm speaking as a white Jew.

Max and Thomas were hired by the Campaign for America to make a video at the Take Back America conference this summer, but they describe the experience as a "disaster." In the end, the video wasn't even shown.

What happened with that?

Max: Before I say that, I want to say, those sons of bitches have not paid me or Thomas yet the meager amount of money they promised. This is the Campaign for America's future, an organization that purports to care about "working class;" I find it really ironic.

Tom: And since we had expenses, we're actually in the red for this project.

Max: They asked us to do a video and I think some of the younger members of the organization wanted something that would be a little bit humorous, and a light-hearted take on a liberal conference. I thought what we produced was light-hearted, it wasn't as hilarious as our other videos, but I thought it was at least adequate. And the older members said of the video that it didn't meet the threshold of dull earnesty that they think defines liberalism. These are the stereotypical humorless liberals, and at the head of this organization of humorless liberals is Robert Borosage, who is directly responsible; he should be held accountable for bringing us onto this project for not paying us. They're refusing to pay us. The whole thing was a disaster; we were almost forcibly removed for asking Sen. Sherrod Brown why he voted for the Military Commissions Act.

So, do you think people just can't take a laugh?

Tom: I'm not sure. I guess they just thought they were overly cautious. They were so afraid to offend anybody there, a donor, or supporter, anybody. Long story short, it was a good working experience, and when the Huffington Post wanted to hire us for two more videos, this time at R\right-wing conferences, we jumped at the chance.

Max: I think Tom has said it all, and what I said was kind of jumbled and fraught with resentment. But I'm pissed off, I want my damn money!
We should have never gone on board with some liberal organization as their flacks or whatever. It was our mistake.

And then there's the video "Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour" from the 2007 Washington-Israel Summit, a frightening look at the bizarre politics of Christian evangelicals, Jewish Zionists, Pastor John Hagee, Joe Lieberman and Tom Delay.

What do you think of Joe Lieberman?

Max: Joe Lieberman, I have heard from people in Washington, Joe Lieberman privately told people that he thought the war in Iraq would be good for Israel and that explained part of his support for it. I think Joe Lieberman is a malignant figure in Washington, and in our video, he described Pastor John Hagee, a guy who's made blatantly anti-Semitic statements in his books, which I pointed out in my video; he compared him to Moses; he said he commands a flock that's even greater than the flock Moses commanded. What Pastor Hagee wants to do is plump up the Jews like a Thanksgiving turkey and then shove them in the oven. And Joe Lieberman just embodies the cynicism and desperation of the Jews who are like concentration camp capos who fermented this alliance with people who ultimately want to kill or convert them.

And, you know, Joe Lieberman — our video is the perfect document of Joe Lieberman's malignance.

Tom: Especially also when he decided to commend former Sen. Rick Santorum as a long-time fighter for the American people.

Max:Yeah, and all the good he's done in America; like comparing homosexuality to man on dog sex, for instance. I mean what Rick Santorum is doing? Now that he’s out of the Senate, he's devoted his career to mainstreaming bigotry and islamophobia, and he's producing a film that's going to essentially fan the flames of bigotry by portraying Middle Eastern Muslims as terrorists, and you know he's doing it all as fodder for a unilateral war against Iran, which is just not in the interest of anybody.

So when you guys go someplace like the CPAC conference, how do people respond when they see you? Do they know who you are when you walk in?

Max: In the Generation Chickenhawk video, they recognized who I was from my video at CPAC, and forced us to stay in a corner since they didn't have any excuse to kick us out. They said you couldn't film, which prompted me to entertain myself and others in the general vicinity by invoking the ghost of Jose Limon and doing an interpretive dance, also incorporating Ralph Macchio into the repertoire that I displayed, and I think that they were so jealous of my dance styles that they had to remove me, and Thomas managed somehow to fight through this phalanx of Republican lobotomy patients and film it all. It made great footage.

(Max also told us how he got into journalism in the first place — and it wasn't just growing in the house of well-respected reporter and Clinton aide. After Max finished at Penn, he got involved in the world of hip-hop — sadly, he did not perform for us — he even had a developmental deal with Artemis records. They liked the political themes in his music, and it wasn't long before those were back in his professional life, too.)

Max: I got into journalism sort of as a side job. My girlfriend at the time was really an innovating video artist who went to Juarez, Mexico, to do a video on the serial killings of women, and she said, "You know, your music is cool and all that, but you're really a writer." And she brought a tape recorder against my will, and we would go meet families of victims and she'd break out the tape recorder and say, "you’re going to interview them. You're going to write an article."

And we went on a hunt for dead bodies with these families, looking for their daughters, we went into the maquiladoras where the dead women were all working which sprung up after NAFTA was signed.

I e-mailed David Talbot who was running Salon.com at the time, before John Walsh turned it into a San Francisco culture rag, and he said, "Just give us an article."
And I gave them a a 4000-word article, got like $300 for it, and a year later, it won the online journalism award from the Online News Association-USC Annenberg. And it was a really good moment for my family, because the award ceremony was in Chicago, where my family's from, and my uncle and grandfather had just died.

So it was a good moment for us and it sort of motivated me to do more journalism; more political journalism, and watching the forces that had tried to destroy Bill Clinton and indirectly destroy my father come into power was really illuminating for me. And it illuminated what my parents had always been trying to tell me about what the Right's agenda was and their mode of operation and how anti-democratic they were.

And so, I was there, living in Los Angeles basically renting out an attic with two friends who were essentially apolitical. Most of the people I knew were either in community activism and had very little interest in national politics, and I was just alone writing these articles; but sooner or later, I started to blog and began attracting an audience and making an impact — and that became a full time career. But to support that I had to deliver pizza, I had to teach disturbed kids, I had to do moving jobs, industrial work, anything I could to support that.But I really, really think it's starting to pay off now, and that's sort of my story.

I don't think I've ever told that story before.

Clinton wins first union nomination

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:00:00 EDT

The first union backing for 2008 has been announced, and the award goes to Hillary Clinton.

The United Transportation Union has stated they will be supporting Clinton with their "considerable resources." The UTU "has a long history of picking winners early," said the union president. In the last election, they supported Kerry. Why Hillary? "Hillary will be a president that America's working families can count on," he stated. The union has more than 125,000 members and is capable of monetary donations as well as a strong political presence on the hill.

The UTU also is one of the top political donors in organized labor, contributing $1.3 million in the 2004 federal elections, with 84 percent of the money going to Democratic candidates. The union gave $1.2 million in the 2006 elections, with 89 percent directed to the Democrats in a year in which the party reclaimed the House and Senate from the Republicans. Yahoo

Shortly after the support for Clinton was announced, Chris Dodd gained the backing of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Both endorsements are sure to carry a sharp sting for Edwards, who has been courting the labor vote.

Edwards works to "lift up working families because it's the right thing to do,'' campaign spokeswoman Colleen Murray said in response. Edwards "will continue to fight for universal health care, to raise the minimum wage, make college more affordable, reform our tax code, make sure our trade policies are smart and safe and strengthen labor laws,'' she said. Bloomberg

Why Clinton? Well, a major asset is that she is leading in the polls. The unions stand to gain by supporting the winner, and it seems their bet is on Hillary. Edwards is suffering a huge setback if he was counting on labor to pull him up in the polls. He worked relentlessly in terms of courting the vote, perhaps he just wasn't strong enough to gain their support.

The largest collection of labor — the AFL-CIO — has yet to hand out an endorsement. Instead, they are allowing any of their 55 member unions to endorse individually. The majority of unions are still waiting before they decide where their support lies, and that support really adds up:

In the 2004 elections, organized labor gave $53.6 million to Democratic candidates and party committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That amount increased to $66 million for the 2006 elections and is expected to increase again for 2008. Yahoo

So, while union membership is at a historical low point, they are still incredibly influential. Their ties with Clinton will work to strengthen her image of a "woman for middle class America." Clinton has gained a lot of publicity by winning the first union nomination, not to mention cold, hard cash.

Little Britain

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:57:14 EDT

As a Brit, I am a big fan of the show "Little Britain." Someone pointed out this episode to Josh, which I couldn't resist embedding here. Re: Sen. Larry Craig's statement Tuesday.

http://www.youtube.com/v/8cQ3Y4OIhgU"> name="wmode" value="transparent">http://www.youtube.com/v/8cQ3Y4OIhgU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Whatever happened to 'Democracy for America'?

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:23:02 EDT

Florida. Why is it always Florida? Recently, the Republican-controlled Florida legislature moved their presidential primaries up to Jan. 29, earlier than the Feb. 5 start date the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, set. As a result, the DNC, as it said it would, will not count the votes of Florida's delegates at next year's nominating convention.

It's a crafty move by the Republicans. By changing the date of primary elections, they have instigated an internal squabble in the Democratic Party, feeding into the talking point that the Democrats are a disorderly party that can't run itself, much less the country, AND driving a wedge between Florida and the eventual Democratic nominee. It's a master stroke, and the Florida State Democratic Party was helpless to stop it.

The DNC is upset because the switch messes up their plan to have early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. But even that plan is running into problems; South Carolina moved up their primary date, and Michigan is jumping ahead, too. Now, New Hampshire and Iowa have to move their primaries early, raising the very real possibility of a December primary in Iowa. These problems are symptoms of a larger problem with the primary system as a whole, and the jockeying won't stop until the system is changed.

The modern "system" of primaries emerged after the 1968 McGovern Commission recommended new standards for how convention delegates should be selected in the states. The primary system had been developing in the states since the Progressive era in the 1920s as a democratic reform to take presidential nominations out of "smoke-filled back rooms."

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada combined wield 24 Electoral College votes, three fewer than Florida alone. And yet, these four states are given an earlier, more important role in the selection of the next nominee. By having these four primaries early and stringing the rest out over half a year, the DNC imagines they are making it possible for a candidate without an established national identity to gain momentum and create a national groundswell.

But as it is won't to do, the world has changed since the 1960s. Mass media, cable TV, 24-hour news networks and the Internet have completely remade the face of presidential campaigning. Information about candidates is widely distributed and the field is well known before the first primary begins. In the 2004 campaign, we how the Internet can be harnessed to create a national movement out of a fledgling campaign (Howard Dean) and how a strong campaign in Iowa alone can launch an otherwise mediocre candidate into the lead. Why should one state have so much influence?

The primary system encourages candidates to ignore large swaths of the country in favor of small, idiosyncratic states and their special interests. The primaries have only succeeded in changing the cabal of special interests (from the party leadership to Iowa farmers) that select the nominee; they have not created a democratic process.

The Association of State Secretaries of State, the people responsible for conducting elections, has proposed a rotating primary, where the order of state voting by region would change each election cycle. But they leave in place the stranglehold Iowa and New Hampshire have on the process. It is a half-measure that avoids the root problem: that an asynchronous primary schedule is undemocratic.

The aspiration to make primaries more democratic is just as valid today as it was in 1968. The barriers to the flow of information that have historically justified a prolonged primary season no longer exist. The strung-out primary system is outdated and should be replaced by a true national primary.

My own private Idaho

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:12:24 EDT

Sen. Larry Craig gives a news conference. Someone should have told him not to go with that first line ...

Larry Craig on Mitt Romney

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:31:11 EDT

TPMtv have dug up this vid. of Sen. Larry Craig endorsing Mitt Romney. Craig quit the Romney campaign Monday and has been edited out of the campaign videos.

Louisiana Dem Switches Parties

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:56:40 EDT

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., may have a new Republican opponent — her former ally, John Kennedy. Kennedy announced he'd be switching parties and seeking re-election to the State Treasury as a Republican ... with senatorial hopes in his future.

"For the past several years, it has increasingly been the case that those public servants who have embraced my ideas and my philosophy of trying new approaches are primarily Republicans," Kennedy's statement read. If by new approaches, he means unfunded levies and disaster-relief disasters, absolutely.

The most salacious detail in all of this is that, according to Politico, while not busying himself with the DC Madam, David Vitter played a key role in convincing Kennedy to change parties and take another shot at the Senate. Makes you wonder about his powers of persuasion.

Craig, R-Idaho, Innocent after Pleading Guilty? Hardly.

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:48:36 EDT

An innocent man pleading guilty? It happens in cases of torture or interviews that go on for 30 hours, but in a bathroom?

GOP Sen. Larry E. Craig, R-Idaho, pleaded guilty earlier this month to charges of misdemeanor disorderly conduct. What did he do? According to the undercover cop in the airport bathroom with him, he came onto him.

The undercover officer was monitoring the restroom on June 11. A few minutes after noon, Craig entered and sat in the stall next to him. Craig began tapping his right foot, touched his right foot to the left foot of the officer and brushed his hand beneath the partition between them. He was then arrested. WP

Now, Craig says that in hindsight he should have sought the opinion of a council instead of simply pleading guilty (go figure). However, for whatever reason (that he was guilty and ashamed, for instance) he plead guilty and tried to keep the incident to himself.

He had a brilliant strategy:

While he was being interviewed about the incident, Craig gave police a business card showing that he is a U.S. senator. "What do you think about that?" Craig asked the officer, according to the report obtained by Roll Call. WP

It seems what the arresting officer "thought about that" was "I don't give a damn." Maybe in the Congressional halls, this conduct is allowed with young boys, but apparently in airports it is more strictly regulated. Craig has paid $500 in fines and is on probation for a year.

When the news broke yesterday on Capitol Hill, there was quite the uproar. Craig was head of Romney's campaign in Idaho, and within hours, Romney's staff had edited Craig out of all their campaign videos. Craig resigned from the campaign, and seems to be hoping his guilty plea while innocent story will hold up in Congress. The Senate ethics committee has the right to review Craig since he plead guilty. Normally, this one incident would not be cause for a huge ethics review. The thing is, Craig has a past when it comes to this topic.

In 2006, a gay activist said he had spoken with men who had sexual encounters with Craig, including in the restrooms at Union Station. Craig's office told the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash., that the allegations were "completely ridiculous."

The activist, Mike Rogers, who runs the Web site BlogActive.com, has complained about Craig's opposition to same-sex rights. The conservative senator has supported an amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s. Craig, who served in the National Guard, has also spoken out against homosexuals serving in the military. WP

This brings back memories of John H. Conditt Jr., the FBI agent found guilty of child molestation who had spent his time in the bureau heading the Office of Professional Responsibility and writing pamphlets covering topics such as how police agencies could investigate their own conduct.

It is in the air if Craig will have any good friends to back him up on Capitol Hill, but I would guess not. It is pretty hard to defend someone who has pled guilty on his or her own accord.

Who is Paul Clement?

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:19:08 EDT

The new, acting attorney general of the United States is not one you might know, but for the next 210 days (maximum), or until Bush successfully appoints a permanent replacement, he's going to be filling Gonzo's shoes. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Clement is one of the few in a long line of Bushiticians to actually win support on both sides of the aisle. Pedigreed in all the right ways, Clement went to public school in Wisconsin and made his way through Georgetown, Cambridge and eventually Harvard law; with fabulous grades and a near-sterling reputation.

That's one that has followed him to this day. As TPM reports, a 2004 Legal Times article demonstrated the respect of those he's won over on the left, despite the fact that he, personally, is a conservative. At his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005, when he was appointed to be solicitor general, Russ Feingold, D-Wis., praised his legal work as "superb" and offered that his "professionalism and integrity" were vouchsafe — even on issues where the two disagreed.

Former acting solicitor general and practicing attorney Walter Dellinger agrees. "Whenever I think of an argument from Paul, one word that springs to mind is clarity," Dellinger said. "He has extremely precise and clear intellect. Paul is never murky in thought or expression."

And that's true for the positions he's argued thus far — including the idea that the administration can hold U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without promise of trial. He might be big on executive power and broad war-time powers, but Clement says of his legal work so far, "If you've got a statute to defend, it doesn't much matter how you would have voted on the statute if you were a Congressman," he told Legal Times. "Your job is to marshal the best argument for the defense of the statute or the policy that gets the job done."

And for the next few weeks, Clement will be doing just that for Bush and co. And for the first time in years, Washington's legal reporters will be bored. They'll no longer have murky declarations and nebulous legal objections to work through. At least not until the next appointee. Is this the end of Texasopoloy?

Many rumored the permanent replacement will be Chertoff, but conservative Human Events offers Fran Fragos Townsend as a second choice. Not a bad idea, given how hard Chertoff will be to push through Congress after the heckuva-good-job with Katrina. But therein lies the heart of the new problem: How will Bush get anyone through Congress? The Dems will bring up that person's (legitimate) failings, the Republicans will say stop whining, and Capitol Mayhem will ensue as it always does when W walks up to the Hill.

As reader Amanda Phelps commented on this site earlier, now the Republicans have a perfect, pre-election opportunity to point their fingers at the Democrats, wiggle them, and say, see, they won't approve him or her, they just want to argue; they don't get anything done.

Because that looks just great to voters.

A glimmer of hope for Iraq?

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:10:58 EDT

Elected leaders on Sunday representing the main factions in Iraq announced they had reached a deal on some of the most contentious issues facing the government. The compromise must be approved by the parliament, but that it enjoys the support of leaders in all three factions — especially the Sunni Islamic Party — is a hopeful sign.

The proposed de-Baathification process would allow greater participation by former Baathists, paving the way for a government more inclusive of Sunnis. Likewise, the release of uncharged Sunni detainees and holding provincial elections are overtures to the Sunnis to encourage their participation in government. And talks are continuing on constitutional reforms that would further address the balance of Sunnis, Kurds and Shia in the government. The proposed oil law would provide for oil wealth to be distributed across the country, bolstering the national and regional governments, and encourage foreign investment. As oil is possibly the most contentious issue in Iraq, agreement on an oil law would be a major demonstration of effective governance.

These reforms are overshadowed by the security situation and the larger issue of the continuing insurgency. While General Patraeus' surge strategy has seen some success, its potential is limited in scope and duration. Neutralizing insurgents is traditionally a brutal and bloody task; examples include the U.S. in the Philippines around 1900, Russia against the Chechens in 1999 or Saddam against the Shiites and Kurds in 1993. In Iraq, the U.S. task is complicated by the quite proper need to defeat the insurgency without widespread torture, carpet-bombing, mass executions or other tactics of excessive brutality which might effectively demoralize surviving insurgents (not to mention echo the regime we overthrew).

The progress made in the Anbar province is a best-case scenario of successful counter insurgency. By decentralizing troop deployments, building relationships with tribal sheiks and displaying an overriding interest in security, U.S. troops have won the support of some insurgents and are seeing a visibly-improved security situation. But we lack the manpower and will to completely conquer the insurgency nationwide, and as our occupation persists beyond what our new allies expected, they will begin to return to their insurgent ways. Despite its moderate success, the surge is not enough to win the war.

In an exciting turn of events, last week, enigmatic Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for a United Nations peacekeeping force in Iraq. "I would support the U.N. here in Iraq if it comes and replaces the American and British occupiers." This revealed a significant opportunity to co-opt the wider Shiite insurgency as part of a larger, national-security apparatus, much as tribal insurgents in Anbar have partnered with U.S. troops there.

The new French administration has indicated a willingness to mediate in Iraq, help the Iraqi police and a desire for a greater international role in the country. Editorials supportive of an international role in Iraq are appearing in Arab media. The U.N Secretary General has indicated he is expanding the organization's role in rebuilding the nation. The stars are aligning for Iraq; this fall would be a good time for President Bush to follow in the footsteps of his father and start laying the groundwork for a robust international presence in Iraq, to smooth the transition from U.S. occupation to complete Iraqi independence. An agreement to draw down U.S. troops while bringing in U.N. peacekeepers would signal a paradigm shift in internal Iraqi politics, take the wind out of the insurgents' sails, and send a message to the Shiite insurgents and boycotting Sunnis that the time is indeed at hand to start thinking about Iraq after the occupation.

The past few weeks have held good news for Iraq, though there remains much to be done, with many opportunities for success or failure undoubtedly to come. But the elements necessary to create a functioning nation from the chaos of insurgency are slowly emerging. The military and political progress seen recently is a sign of hope that we might not have to leave Iraq a shattered hull of a nation.

Viewer Vid.

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:28:47 EDT

Thanks Faster Democrat Kill Kill (What's up with that name?) for submitting this vid of bad, old Republicans to us. Great editing. I guess Gonzo missed the cut?

Troops Cheer for Withdrawl from Iraq

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:05:44 EDT

More than 4,000 National Guardsmen cheered in standing ovation Saturday when Puerto Rico's governor called for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Speaking at the 129th National Guard Association general conference, Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila told the audience that the U.S. administration has "no new strategy and no signs of success." Moreover, he said that prolonging the war further will only succeed in putting more troops in harm's way.

Acevedo has called on Washington to withdraw troops before, but he has never been this vocal a critic, CBS News reports.

"By increasing the number of National Guard and reserve troops, we put our soldiers in danger for the umpteenth time since the beginning of the global war on terrorism," the governor said, adding that there needs to be troops at home in the event of national disaster or domestic disturbance.

"The daily death toll of Americans and their allies has caused irreparable anguish here in Puerto Rico, and throughout the country," Acevedo concluded "The same could be said for the people of Iraq."

CBS reported the story with the help of Col. David Carrion Baralt, the Guard's top official in the territory. We've contacted the Guard's press office for details, and we're looking for a transcript of the speech.

Petraeus vs. Pace: More or less in Iraq?

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:33:06 EDT

General Petraeus is leading much of the discussion on Iraq, and recently, there has been disappointment that his analysis on the state of Iraq will be written by the White House. It seemed no real analysis would emerge to give American voters an honest assessment of the war. Then, Marine Gen. Peter Pace spoke up.

Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will advise President Bush of the need to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq. He wants to cut the number of active troops in Iraq in half, something that is obviously going to cause a rift in White House policy.

Petraeus is expected to support a White House view that the absence of widespread political progress in Iraq requires several more months of the U.S. troop build-up before force levels are decreased to their pre-build-up numbers sometime next year ... According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. LA Times

Pace will not be issuing a formal report, instead opting to discuss the matter privately with Bush. There is an obvious conflict of opinion, and Bush will have a hard time publicly discrediting advisers that he, until this point, always claimed to rely heavily on for correct information.

What started as a question of "Do I stay or do I go?" has become "More or Less?" At least the realization that we are not making great strides in Iraq has set in, and the focus can now turn to the proper action. With such high officials offering opposing opinions, the elections are sure to get even more confrontational.

As the top American combat general, Petraeus wields wide authority and commands considerable attention in Washington. But U.S. law gives the Joint Chiefs responsibility to ensure the long-term well being of the military and makes their chairman the president's principal military adviser.

"Petraeus and [Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker are coming to testify, but this is the president's decision," said a senior military official in the Pentagon. "As the chairman, Gen. Pace, by law, has a big role in that, and he will provide his advice to the president." LA Times

This might be the last time the president is in a room with serious dissenting discussion — Bush did not nominate Pace for a second term so Pace will be leaving in September. His replacement will be Navy chief Michael Mullen, who has been voicing many of the same concerns as Pace. Only time will tell if he will remain a critic of the administration after his appointment.

Petraeus and Pace will face off with Bush, and one can only hope that the discourse will result in intelligent actions in Iraq — whatever that might be.

Gonzo's Statement

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:02:12 EDT

Gonzo's Greatest Hits

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:54:27 EDT

Paul Kiel at our sister site TPM Muckraker has compiled an impressive and painstaking list of Gonzales' fabrications. Kiel writes

"To do this, we were forced to constrain the endeavor. Gonzales' amazingly faulty memory is clearly cause for strong suspicion — but his countless "I don't recall's have not yet been proven to be dishonest. And there have been a stream of dubious statements — such as that he'd never fire a U.S. attorney for political reasons or his insistence that they were fired for "performance" reasons — countered by weighty circumstantial evidence. But we've set a high bar. Certainly we expect our little list to lengthen in the future as more evidence is produced — and as Gonzales continues to speak publicly.

We arrived at the six statements below. Some can be judiciously described as lies, i.e. apparently consciously false statements made with the intent to deceive. Some are better described as "wily" prevarications, or as literally true statements made with the intent to deceive or cover up."

See the full list here.

It's Official: He's Out

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:34:22 EDT

It's official. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the long-time friend of W accused of politicizing the U.S. Justice Department and misleading Congress, is stepping down. Requesting anonymity, Bush administration officials have just confirmed the NYT report. Gonzo will be holding a news conference at 10:30 a.m. — look for more after that.

Update: Dean on Resignation:

"It's about time ... Gonzales now joins a long list of Republican officials resigning under a cloud of scandal, but these resignations cannot purge the Bush administration of its problems. The true problem rests with the Bush White House itself, which continues to put what's best for the Republican Party ahead of what's best for America."

(C/O of Kos)

Gonzo Resigns

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:14:52 EDT

The NY Times is reporting Alberto Gonzales has resigned. Word is that Gonzo called the president on Friday to offer his resignation.

Interesting why is this coming out on a Monday? Most resignations are saved for the Fridays of the dog days of summer, but along with Rove, this administration has been losing people on Mondays.

Did he walk or was he pushed? For the past six months, he seemed as if he was untouchable, never going to go despite hearing after hearing that made C-Span hearings look like watching a baby seal getting clubbed to death -- but then, if he was going to leave, why let it get to this point?

Possibly to prevent the White House fulfilling subpoenas from the Judiciary Committee, but why won't those still be enforced? Part of a deal? Or is Bush just getting further pushed by GOP members who are tired of it all ... ?

A few weeks ago, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told administration members that if they were thinking about resignation, they should do it before Labor Day or stay until January 2009.

Replacement? Watch out for former federal judge, prosecutor and Katrina veteran Michael Chertoff.

Gonzo press conference scheduled for 10.30am EST.

Monday's Must Reads

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 05:52:34 EDT

Round up from the weekend's papers: all the things you need to know as we head into the week.

Losing Sight of the Constitution [Sacramento Bee]    Should House Speaker Nancy Pelosi take impeachment off the table? Pelosi is proving to be the surprise O. Henry ending to last November's elections. The American voters gave Democrats clear control of Congress, rebuked President Bush and voiced an unequivocal public craving to trade in customary narrow-minded politics for something more inspiring.

Is Our Generals Cognitively Disabled? [DailyKos]     A few of you who know me well might remember that I’ve been working on a project for the last year about Operation Anaconda. Anaconda was the largest mission in the Afghanistan war to date and was the first incident in the "War on Terror" when U.S. troops were deployed to fight against a force with superior numbers and tactical superiority, in defiance of multiple U.S. military doctrines and both signals and human intelligence reports.

Hey, Dems: Run against Bush -- and toughen up -- or lose in '08 [Salon]     Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain," evaluates the Democratic presidential candidates' ads and the party's messaging in general. Short version: More Jim Webb, less John Kerry. Fifteen months before the 2008 election, the Democrats are odds-on favorites to put one of their own into the White House. A solid majority of the country rejects the Bush administration and the war in Iraq he initiated. But psychologist Drew Westen says Democrats could lose yet again if they don't learn how to stand up for themselves and connect with voters emotionally.

Economic Desperation Drives Terrorism [TPMCafe]     For six years, many have told us that global economic inequality and poverty was irrelevant to the rise of terrorism, so that military means, not social change, was the key to taking on extremist Islam. But now, military leaders in Iraq are admitting that economic desperation is the key factor driving terrorist recruitment there.

Bloomberg And Hagel For 2008? [WaPo Op-Ed]      Chuck Hagel, the senator from Nebraska, describes himself as a "tidal" politician, one who believes that larger forces in society shape careers more than the ambitions of individuals. "The only mistakes I've made," he told me in an interview last week, "were when I tried to go against the tide." Today, that tide might be carrying him away from his Republican Party and toward a third-party or independent ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- a development that could reshape the dynamics of the 2008 presidential race.

GOP Activists Root for Clinton to Win [Politico]     He might be on his way out the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in coming days, but the party Karl Rove has labored to build over the past eight years seems to have picked up his talking points on next year’s presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee and that could be the GOP's saving grace in an otherwise uphill battle.

The CIA's Open Secrets [NYT Op-Ed]      When a federal judge dismissed Valerie Plame's lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency earlier this month, she ruled that the agency was entitled to stop Ms. Plame from publishing the dates of her agency service, even though these dates had been supplied to Congress in an unclassified letter from the C.I.A. and had been published in The Congressional Record. Ms. Plame is just one in a long line of ex-C.I.A. employees to lose similar suits, in which the agency successfully defended the position that information in the public domain was classified.

Family Week at the Times

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:56:54 EDT

From diapers to dedicated wives, the Times staff has analyzed every facet of family life on the campaign trail in this Sunday’s paper.

"They stand by their men, loudly," the NYT reports of the bevy of potential first ladies. All except Clinton, of course, whose role as the supportive wife after Monica is feminism's double-edged sword -– the one Michelle Obama has lately been swinging in Hil's general direction.

Mrs. Obama, on the record:
"One of the most important things we need to know about the next president of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is he a good and decent person? Our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."

One might argue that Bill did pretty well at the presidential helm even if his marriage was run aground. And one might push a little further, noting that not only did his misses run a home in which their daughter ended up wildly successful despite the media's Ugly Duckling fetish, but one where formidable mistakes can be overcome and new history made. The house that's seen hardship and come through it might be the most successful of all.

Arguing about a marriage we will never see the inside of -– and that holds true for the Obamas as well -– is a distraction from what this conversation is really about: the shattering reality that right now, on the Left -- the home of that progressive, liberal mindset -- we're actually judging these women on how good a wife they are. Talk about conservative politics.

"If the wife comes through as being too strong and too intelligent," Nixon remarked, "it makes the husband look like a wimp."

15 years later, the assumption appears to hold.

But the Times didn't just focus its Sunday coverage on good housekeeping, it also dealt with the problem of the under-10 set on the campaign trail. Five presidential candidates have children 9-years-old and younger, and what to do with them while Daddy's campaigning is the new trail challenge.

"I don’t want to do this," Jack Edwards protested to his father. "I don’t care whether you want to," John Edwards replied, followed by that perennial parental line, "Mr. Jack, do we need to go in the back and have a conversation?" -- The back of the campaign bus, that is, where Jack and his sister had built themselves a tent on presidential wheels.

With so many young'uns running around, what the candidates are doing with their children is apparently just as critical to their future as presidents as how their wives (or husbands) are behaving. And most of the kids, like the Edwards' two children, are accompanying their parents on the road to the White House. All except the Obama girls, it seems, who are staying home in Chicago with their mother (when she's not out making history with hubby) and grandmother.

Granted, the excitement of seeing famous butter cows at the Iowa State Fair might have been too much for the little ones (who can resist bovines in butter?), but what importance does this really bare on the candidates? When did family values become the subject of the Times, the mantra of the Left, and, most critically, the battle ground of the party? I love the cute shots Grace Dodd as much as the next person, but if my vote were measured by a candidate's family values, I'd be opting for one that's home for supper and steers clear of politics in the first place.

Kids in the Ballot Box?

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:33:25 EDT

To vote or not to vote? That is the question –- or, at least it may be for Americans as young as 16 if politicians like NYC Councilwoman Gale Brewer have their way. Nine states already allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they’ll reach the age of majority by the general election, and vote-at-16 proposals have made their way through NYC, Baltimore, Minnesota, Texas, Maine and California, the NYT reports.

And last month, Austria became the first country in the EU to open its doors to the Sweet Sixteen set. They're part of a growing international crowd that entrusts its youth with differentiating the issues posed by "Pretty in Pink" and those in politics when they get to the ballot box. Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua, the Isle of Man and Germany already do –- and a recent proposition by British PM Gordon Brown indicates he might be interested in the MySpace generation also.

But in America, the proposals haven’t gotten very far, despite the fact that 17-year-olds can now enlist in the Army. [What the Times didn’t say –- they implied, but it should have been said -- is that if we’re willing to send our high schoolers to wage a war at Congressional behest, shouldn’t they have some say in how it’s run? To dream, perchance, to vote?]

Supporters of the change argue that "adolescents are not only competent to cast ballots, but would focus old fogies' attention on issues relevant to children's health care, education and the environment, perhaps even a moratorium on Lindsay Lohan's changing hair color.”

Moreover, they hope once they start voting, they won’t stop. "These advocates say that if adolescents get bitten by the civic bug, they will be less likely to kick the habit as they grow up."

Critics argue that hopes for voting 16-year-olds are made irrelevant by statistics that show they are the least likely to get to the polls. And then there’s that whole maturity thing. Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University, said that adolescents aren't "mature enough to make voting judgments because they don't have any historical perspective and they don't have any comparable civic responsibility." He obviously missed Max Blumenthal's fabulous, but slightly frightening, video from the College Republican Convention.

Really what this comes down to is that we'll let 17-year-olds fight, we'll let 16-year-olds drive, but we won't let them make their own political peace. Essentially, they'll get the benefits, but none of the responsibility.

I come from a big, modern American family (more divorces than you can count and almost enough kids to make our own soccer team), and my younger siblings, stellar though they are in my eyes, are pretty average kids. The idea of my 17-year-old brother driving makes me cringe (he's actually an excellent driver), but he's arguably the most politically aware person I know. [Family rumor has it that in the last election, he even compelled our father to vote left.] And my stepsister, very much the Sweet Sixteen, is just as savvy is he is.

It might shatter a little self-esteem in the Beltway, but they're just as ready to vote as every 20-something I know. And they've got the benefit of Am Civ classrooms to test out, battle and transform their ideas around others.

So what it really comes down to is this: Are we willing to let the kids take their lives (and ours) into their hands on the road and taste the freedom of the lost highway without a dose of responsibility to go with it? If they can get to the DMV to get their license, if they can plot their way through the college admissions process and especially if they can make their way to Iraq on our military planes, they can probably chose a candidate for fairly legitimate reasons. And all before rehearsal for "High School Musical 2."

FOX Ranks the Dems: Clinton, Obama, Richardson?

Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:06:29 EDT

When you're Fox, and there's a candidate you hate that just won't go away, what do you do? Declare him null and void! That's just what Fox & Friends have done to John Edwards. Although he ranks third in all major polls, "You Decide" segment's Jason Wright told Fox viewers that Edwards doesn't have any footing, and that really, Richardson's the third-runner. Actually, he said we should "inject a little spice, a little Southwest flavor," but Richardson is more Beltway boxer than Tex Mex hot sauce. Newshounds has a full round-up of Fox's Democratic Candidate Review.

Warner Defects from Bush's Camp

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:51:45 EDT

Sen. John Warner called point-blank Thursday for a partial withdrawl of troops from Iraq, saying that 5,000 soldiers should be home by Christmas.

Just as media coverage began to shift momentum back to Bush's stay-the-course position, the senator spoke out. Viewed as "the most influential Republican senator on military affairs," his message was sharp and clear ... and might be a welcomed relief to more vulnerable Republicans who have been searching for some middle ground. "The senator from Virginia may have just given them political cover," Politico reports.

"This is not a timetable," he said, but it is a voice of reason. According to the WaPo, "Democratic and Republican leadership aides said that Warner's new stance" -- and the new intelligence assessment on Iraq -- "may have stalled any political momentum Bush seemed to have been building in recent days."

Warner says he's been thinking about it for months, so his statement wasn't meant to surprise people, but the NBC Nightly News reported it as a "major defector from Bush's camp."

Anyone want to play follow the leader?

Friday Cartoon

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:00:50 EDT

McConnell Under Fire

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:40:44 EDT

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell drew sharp criticism on Capitol Hill Thursday after an interview with the El Paso Times in which he disclosed formerly classified material about the warrantless wiretapping program.

Among the revelations were that fewer than 100 people in the United States were actually under NSA surveillance at any time (versus thousands overseas), but he also confirmed for the first time that the private sector complied with the government carrying out the program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecom companies that were implicated are now being sued for their involvement. "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell told the paper. He believes they deserve immunity for their help, MSNBC reports.

But he also disclosed details about a previously classified decision from a special intelligence court that ruled the program was, actually, illegal. Court deliberations are usually kept secret, but McConell revealed that as of May 31, the government is required to get court warrants to monitor communications between two foreigners who come across telecom lines in the United States. Because of the "robust" nature of the telecom system, that's millions of calls each day, all potentially up for review. The LATimes has more.

The Hill's furious. The debate isn't even that the information was revealed, so much as how. "I'm shocked," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., chairwoman of an intelligence panel on the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security. "It's stunning to me to read that he has decided to share these details with a small-town newspaper." Harman added that she thought the numbers of people under surveillance were as classified as any other part of the tough-to-crack program. What she meant to say: If you can tell us THAT, why can't you tell us what we've wanted to know?

Read the El Paso transcript in full.

Campaign Ads that Work?

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:18:35 EDT

Lefty blog Firedoglake asked a great question Thursday: When it comes to the battle-ground states, which campaign ads actually have impact? Their choices:

1. Ari Fleischer's "Freedom Watch" above

2. VoteVets

3. Americans United for Change

What do you think? And how will the other side respond?

Al-Jazeera English on Iraq War

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:09:36 EDT

AJE offers an interesting look at international opinions on the quagmire in Iraq.

Iraq government going down?

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:56:54 EDT

A national intelligence report says that the Iraqi government's position will become more precarious over the next six months (just the time the surge is supposed to be working?).

The full report can be downloaded at the NY Times site. Meanwhile, John Warner has called for President Bush to begin withdrawing troops by Christmas.

Bush: Okay, So It IS Like Vietnam

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:37:41 EDT

It appears President Bush finally caught the sanity bug … in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he compared Iraq with Vietnam, something protesters have been doing since … well, since the beginning.

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields," he told the receptive convention.

The speech comes as his administration tries to drum up support for the president's plan for Iraq, especially among Republicans losing faith and Democrats calling for a drawdown in troops.

Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, had the best retort: "The president is drawing the wrong lesson from history."

The WaPo has the full story -- along with some great video of Bush suddenly supporting al-Maliki again (maybe it hit him that the failure of the guy he supported so long reflects poorly on him, too).

MTV and MySpace Host Candidate "Chats"

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:51:12 EDT

In apparent attempt to win an audience that can't yet vote, MTV and MySpace have teamed up for a series of live TV and online video chats between young adults and the '08 candidates. The hourlong talks will be at colleges nationwide and will run on mtvU and MySpaceTV. Every major candidate -- Democrat and Republican -- has signed on, they report.

The first "chat" (will there be a fireside? a digital one, at least?) will be with former Sen. John Edwards on Sept. 27 in New Hampshire. The rest of the list: Brownback, Clinton, Dodd, Giuliani, Hunter (major candidates, what?), McCain, Obama, Paul, Richardson and Romney. When Thompson finally declares, maybe they'll just have him on the "Law and Order" set.

"These presidential dialogues will bring individual candidates directly to voters one at a time," says MySpace's Chris DeWolfe. And MTV says their viewers know to come to them for substance, so the match is only natural. "For years, young people have trusted MTV to inform and engage them on the issues that matter most, from politics to sexual health to the environment," reports MTV President Christina Normal. "We're extremely proud to partner with MySpace on our always-evolving, Emmy-winning 'Choose or Lose' campaign as we join forces and empower our audiences to connect with presidential candidates in a much more meaningful way." Next up: Candidates interpret BarelyPolitical's Obama Girl series through their own Sell-Yourself!-TRL-danceathon.

The concept is interesting … we'll see if it ends up any less staged than the debates we already see though. Basically, the most interesting thing about this is that Viacom and News Corp. are behaving well together.

- Raleigh-Elizabeth Smith

More on "Skube-gate"

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:45:50 EDT

In the LA Times on Wednesday Jay Rosen wrote a response to Professor Michael Skube. Rosen writes:

"Blowback! That's what you're in for when a great American newspaper runs a Sunday opinion piece as irretrievably lame as "Blogs: All the noise thats fit" by Michael Skube … " The post features Josh's exchange with Skube and an excellent list of bloggers doing original reporting.

McConnell sheds some light on spying.

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:37:07 EDT

Mike McConnell has affirmed that a federal court ruled the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program illegal. Initially, he explained, the wiretapping program was upheld by a federal FISA judge. The second time around, however, a judge decided that the warrantless wiretapping program was definitely not within the realm of the law.

"The second judge looked at the same data and said, 'Well, wait a minute. I interpret the law, which is the FISA law, differently,'" McConnell said. LATimes

How did this judge interpret the law? He said that to wiretap a U.S. citizen, even if he or she is overseas, you need an individual warrant. He further declared that if there are two people overseas whose calls or e-mails pass through the U.S., an individual warrant is needed then as well.

Back when this decision was made, a court gave the government a temporary stay so that it could continue to trace e-mails and calls without individual warrants until May 31. McConnell then began a push on Capitol Hill to reform the now-crippled counter-terrorism bill.

Those warnings fueled a frantic, end-of-summer push in Congress to rewrite laws passed three decades ago, after U.S. intelligence agencies had been caught spying on student groups and other domestic targets. The emergency legislation, which is set to expire in six months, allowed the government to resume its eavesdropping operations without individual warrants. LATimes

While many are upset over the continuation of the spying deemed illegal without an individual warrant, McConnell tried to remove doubts by assuring the American public that fewer than 100 U.S. citizens are being monitored. He claimed that for every U.S citizen being monitored, an individual warrant was obtained. He continued to say that as far as the "foreign side," the surveillance was in the thousands.

This is the first time the administration has publicly put a number on citizens under surveillance, and fewer than 100 is a very comforting number, especially if there were warrants in each case. In this sense, McConnell seems to have made a rational decision in discussing the program with the public. Unfortunately, he took a turn for the radical at the end of the interview, stating:

"The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he said. But because of the "claim, counterclaim, mistrust, suspicion" surrounding the program, he said, "the only way you could make any progress was to have this debate in an open way."

I am having a hard time seeing how releasing the estimated number of those under surveillance will directly cause American deaths, especially with his claim that "foreign side" surveillance is in the thousands. If his main concern is that 'doing it this way' means getting individual warrants to conduct surveillance on any e-mails or calls that pass through U.S. servers -- even if both parties are abroad -- then the FISA process should be reviewed.

McConnell is concerned with the time frame if the government is required to obtain individual warrants, saying a warrant for one phone number can take more than 200 man hours. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, allows surveillance without a warrant if a warrant is filed within 72 hours of the start of surveillance, and until this point, most assessments had found the FISA courts very quick and almost always granting the needed warrant. If McConnell's statement is true, then maybe there needs to be changes to the warrant program -- not an avoidance of it.

Elizabeth Edwards: First Lady or VP?

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:17:01 EDT

WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show just did an excellent segment on John Edwards' wife. She gives her scoop on the latest developments in Iraq, the CIA inspector general's calls for a George Tenet rebuke, and the ever-expanding primary campaign. Elizabeth Edwards, they ask: Candidate for First Lady or VP?

Party-Free Political Advertising?

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:05:46 EDT

Democratic candidate Steve Beshear is running for Governor in Kentucky... in theory, on his own merit. The man's been the state's attorney general, lieutenant governor, and served on the state House of Representatives, and no where in his ad does the Democratic party come up - not once.

Does he present an opportunity to leave party politics behind, or is he just sweeping the dust under the table?

Britain's Army Stretched Too Thin

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:45:36 EDT

From Al-Jazeera English, what once were cracks in the coalition of the willing are now becoming very wide gaps. The head of the British army says he has no fresh soldiers for battle, and with new leadership on Downing Street, British troops may soon be leaving Iraq. The US may have lost its "special friend" - and the Pentagon would be wise to pay attention.

Would the Clergy Support Martial Law?

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:32:21 EDT

Could martial law ever become a reality in America? And if so, how would the clergy - proprietors of the only property protected from the U.S. government - react? KSLA-TV out of Shreveport, LA, reveals that some would actually see it as their God-given moral right to uphold martial law and aid in its institution.

Reporter Jeff Ferrell spoke with Dr. Durell Tuberville, chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo, LA, Sheriff's Office, about the clergy's role in the institution of martial law because of the role the they played during Katrina. There was - did you know this? - a 'Clergy Response Team' during Katrina, and Tuberville says that the Clergy's position therein described is, "let's cooperate and get this thing over with and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over." This is what they did for gun confiscation and forced relocation in the wake of Katrina - in other words, action now, thought later.

Clergy play an integral role in communities across America; the enjoy the trust and confidence of many citizens with their most private and troubling problems. That's an obvious plug for any government official looking for help in the midst of political tumult - but where does the clergy's responsibility towards their own flocks sit if they act with the government before consulting with their community?

Tubberville cites Romans 13 as the reason the clergy must support the government:

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

It seems more than a little ironic that when the church tries so hard to keep government fingers out of their pot, they're so quick to defend big brother.

- Raleigh-Elizabeth Smith

Bush on Frustrations with Iraq

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:25:18 EDT

Great video from TPMtv of Bush on Iraq. He asks, the government of Iraq reflect the demands of the people? We ask, will ours?

- Raleigh-Elizabeth Smith

Bush Distancing Himself from Maliki

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:16:11 EDT

As politics become increasingly volatile in Iraq, frustration is flaring with the once-beloved prime minister, Nuri Kamal Al-Maliki. Last November, President Bush stood side by side with him, declaring that he was "the right guy for Iraq," but by Tuesday, that support had dissipated almost entirely. At a meeting of North American leaders in Canada, W all about admitted that his choice has been a failure...

"Instead, Mr. Bush acknowledged "a certain level of frustration" with the Iraqi government's failure to unify its warring ethnic factions. His comments at a meeting of North American leaders in Canada came just hours after the top American diplomat in Baghdad, American Ryan C. Crocker, called political progress in Iraq "extremely disappointing" and warned that United States support for the Maliki government did not come with a "blank check" the NYT reports.

It's no coincidence that he's trying to distance himself from the Maliki administration before September - when GenP's report will induce inevitable chagrin on Capitol Hill - so prepare yourselves. We're about to hear more "it's not us, it's them," than we have before.

To wit:

According to excerpts of a speech for a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansis City, Mo., we have a taste of what's to come... "Our troops are seeing progress on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question. Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they are gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?"

Or, we could acknowledge the whole thing's a mess.

“It strikes me that this is more throwing up his hands in exasperation than washing his hands in disgust,” Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization in Washington, told the Times. “I don’t think the decision has been made to move beyond Maliki, but it seems to me that the president has to put himself back in the center of the Iraq debate.”

But from an administration that will acknowledge "mistakes were made," instead of saying "oh, and I made them," that's just not likely.

- Raleigh-Elizabeth Smith

CIA Made Mistakes

Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:55:19 EDT

The CIA released a report today admitting that they did not do enough to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. It may have taken six years and a new CIA director to own up to the failings of George Tenet and Co., but that they are doing so at all in this administration is nothing short of an administrative miracle... thanks to Congress.

In a news release that was paired with the agency's 9/11 post-mortem document, CIA chief Gen. Michael Hayden urged Congress to keep the document secret, insisting "that we keep our focus on the present and the future." But in a bow to transparency if not sanity, last month, Congress ordered him to release the report.

Bottom line: No officers broke the law, none faced formal review, but some of the work was definitely sub-par.

"The CIA's top leaders failed to use their available powers, never developed a comprehensive plan to stop al-Qaida and missed crucial opportunities to thwart two hijackers in the run-up to Sept. 11," reports the AP. And according to the document, they didn't even play nice. "The agency and its officers... did not always work effectively and cooperatively," according to the report, which you can download in full here. George Tenet's 2005 statement on the CIA's report can be found here; he says it's flat wrong.

It's great that we're finally admitting to some failure - although there was no "silver bullet" of fault - and not just pointing fingers at different administrations, but what use is all of this unless we actually do something with it? How are we ever going to get through Iraq if we can't even communicate amongst our own, tax-payer funded officials? Not to belittle what Congress did - this absolutely should be made public - but it is beginning to seem like they're just passing the buck, too.