IT’S JUST WHAT THEY DO

The Dems back down, and say “Okay, we’ll fund the war until September, but THEN we’ll get really, really serious about setting an end to the war.” This is a political rout, unfortunately; they think that come September things will be no better in Iraq and more Republicans will be forced to support them. But here’s what will happen – Gen Petraeus will issue some trumped-up report in September citing “significant progress in some important respects” (there are always signs of progress to cite SOMEWHERE), and asking for more funds and more time. The cup will be represented as half-full, not half-empty, and we’ll be right back to where we are today

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/washington/22cnd-cong.html

Yes, I said, a ROUT: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/22/184423/123
Democrats Concede On Iraq

Democrats Retreat in Funding Showdown

Bush Wins Congressional Battle Over Iraq

Harry Reid tries to save face: http://tinyurl.com/yokx5g
I think we have to look at the progress that has been made. We now have the timeline that the Republicans have set, and that's this September. And that's the very least. And then, as I've indicated, the defense authorization, we're going to start right where we've left off with this bill, continuing our push to change direction in the war in Iraq. And now we're being joined by Republicans.

More post-mortem: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10881.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/22/162515/628?detail=f

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/22/20613/8150

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/4060

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/22/1968/13557

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/dems-blink-on-timetable-new-iraq-plan.html

Meanwhile, MORE troops to Iraq

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/316612_secondsurge22.html
This "second surge" of troops in Iraq, which is being executed by extending tours for brigades already there and by deploying more units, could boost the number of combat troops to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year. When support troops are included, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- the most ever -- by the end of the year.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10292643
The White House and Pentagon are under increasing pressure from Congress and the public to end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. But the Pentagon is considering maintaining a core group of forces in Iraq, possibly for decades. . . .

What a mess: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101439.html
President Bush and his senior military and foreign policy advisers are beginning to discuss a "post-surge" strategy for Iraq that they hope could gain bipartisan political support. The new policy would focus on training and advising Iraqi troops rather than the broader goal of achieving a political reconciliation in Iraq, which senior officials recognize may be unachievable within the time available.

[NB: Now, NOW!???, they are talking about training Iraqi troops again?]

More: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10873.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011358.php

Finally! Proof -- PROOF -- of an Al Qaeda/Iraq link

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-usa-binladen.html
Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Citing newly declassified intelligence, Fran Townsend, President George W. Bush's adviser for homeland security, said the information backs the administration's assertion that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq for now to prevent it from becoming a ''terrorist sanctuary.'' . . .

[NB: Oops! This is in 2005, BECAUSE of the war we started. . . . I love how they take a story that reeks of their own failures, and try to turn it into yet another reason why we must stay there for the long haul. The better things get, the more reason we have to stay, and the worse things get, the more reason we have to stay. Brilliant!]

Oh, great (thanks to AmericaBlog for the link)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2573299.ece
Farmers in southern Iraq have started to grow opium poppies in their fields for the first time, sparking fears that Iraq might become a serious drugs producer along the lines of Afghanistan. . .

Not good

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2565123.ece
The US Army tried to kill or capture Muqtada al-Sadr, the widely revered Shia cleric, after luring him to peace negotiations at a house in the holy city of Najaf, which it then attacked, according to a senior Iraqi government official.

The revelation of this extraordinary plot, which would probably have provoked an uprising by outraged Shia if it had succeeded, has left a legacy of bitter distrust in the mind of Mr Sadr for which the US and its allies in Iraq may still be paying. "I believe that particular incident made Muqtada lose any confidence or trust in the [US-led] coalition and made him really wild," the Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr Mowaffaq Rubai'e told The Independent in an interview. It is not known who gave the orders for the attempt on Mr Sadr but it is one of a series of ill-considered and politically explosive US actions in Iraq since the invasion. In January this year a US helicopter assault team tried to kidnap two senior Iranian security officials on an official visit to the Iraqi President. . .

Worse and worse

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011350.php
[Joe Klein] This much I can confirm: there is growing pessimism among U.S. officials about the possibility of the long-sought political deal amongst Shi'ites and Sunnis and Kurds. The current feeling is that there's no way to get the Shi'ites to relinquish any significant power. So there may be an American desire to shake things up.

On the other hand — I just love it when I have to start a paragraph so forcefully — there's also the sense that Maliki is the most plausible alternative amongst the various Shi'ite factions. The vain hope, now six months old, that a broader coalition might be built to run Iraq amongst Kurds, acceptable Sunnis, secular Shi'ites and assorted cats and dogs is now officially dead.

Look, as Atrios says, just because we caused the disaster in Iraq, just because we OUGHT to fix it, doesn’t mean we CAN fix it. A serious discussion of the matter would have to take this possibility very seriously

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_05_20_archive.html#7380847867001350077

This is a real reach, even for the Republicans

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/21/115812/836
[Roll Call] But the Republican National Committee looked for the bright side in polling data it released. "We show the increase in people who feel the war is going badly has stopped," the RNC said in a memo released Friday. "Although a majority of the public continues to feel the war is going badly, we have seen a small increase throughout the spring in the number of people who feel things are going better in Iraq."

“Another CIA ghost detainee”

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/22/122546/593

The Bush gang doesn’t like FISA, they don’t believe they have to follow FISA, and now they want to change FISA (again) to fit their surveillance practices, rather than vice versa

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/21/fisa_changes/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Mike McConnell, the Bush administration's Director of National Intelligence, has a remarkably dishonest Op-Ed in The Washington Post this morning, in which he argues for completely unspecified "updates" and "changes" to FISA in order to expand -- yet again -- the Government's powers of eavesdropping on Americans. McConnell's entire argument for expansion of surveillance powers rests on a patent falsehood. . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10859.html
[Steve Benen] The problem, of course, is that McConnell left out a few details. In fact, he left out all details.

First, as Glenn Greenwald noted, McConnell argued, “The failure to update this law comes at an increasingly steep price.” But therein lies the rub: the law has been updated. Many, many times. FISA may have been passed nearly three decades ago, but it’s been amended repeatedly to adapt to evolving threats and circumstances. McConnell overlooks this altogether. How convenient.

Second, as Kevin Drum noted, McConnell insists FISA needs to be changed, without telling us what kind of changes he’d like to see. “McConnell’s op-ed is a masterpiece of vagueness, distinguished more by what it doesn’t say than by what it does,” Kevin explained. “Most notably, in the course of 600 words he never says what kinds of changes he’d like to see in the law. In fact, he never so much as hints at it.”

Third, McConnell argued, “In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activity who are physically located in foreign countries.” This is wildly misleading — FISA applies if one of the participants in, say, a suspicious phone call, is in the United States. If we’re dealing with communications between “foreigners suspected of terrorist activity,” and none of them are on U.S. soil, FISA doesn’t apply anyway.

And fourth, the real issue here, which McConnell sidesteps entirely, is that the president has ignored the FISA law because he believes he should. If McConnell and the administration have some additional recommendations on amendments to FISA they’d like to see, they can go back to Congress, which can hold hearings and consider proposals.

But the White House is apparently under the impression that the law is inconvenient, and therefore irrelevant. As Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) noted way back in January 2006, “If [Bush] needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law. He needs to come back, work with us, work with the courts if he has to, and we will do what we need to do to protect the civil liberties of this country and the national security of this country.”

If McConnell disagrees, maybe he can write another op-ed on the subject. . .

They won’t stop (until we stop them)

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Americablog/~3/118554830/gonzales-proposing-new-orwellian.html
[CNet] Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.... The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy....

The IPPA would, for instance:

* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place....

* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights....

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture....

* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported.

[John Aravosis] First off, what this legislation is really about: The Homeland Security department getting carte blanche authorization to fish through your computer and tap your phones with impunity, whenever they want, so long as they argue that they think you might have ever tried to download even a single song via Limewire or some of other music-sharing software, or have ever copied a photo off the Internet, or even watched a single clip from any TV show on YouTube. They're going to use this legislation to hunt for terrorists, and won't need search warrants, etc. That's what this is about.

Now to the specifics.

1. Why change the law to an "attempt" to infringe? Copyright law has been fine until now, why change it?

2. As mentioned above, they can wiretap anyone who may be "attempting" to infringe on copyright. That means if they suspect that you may have saved a copy on your computer of one of my orchid photos they can tap your phones, without a warrant I suspect. They can also tap your phone if they think your teenage daughter may be "attempting" to download a song online. They could also tap the phones of every YouTube user who has ever posted a clip from any TV show. Think about that.

3. They can seize your computer, forever, if you "intend" to copy even one song or one photo from the Internet. Not if you DO copy it. Just if you even just plan on it in your mind. And the religious right has a problem with hate crime laws? At least with hate crime laws you actually have to have committed a violent crime like murder or aggravated assault. And Bush is threatening a veto of that bill. But he has no problem with a bill that throws you in jail for just thinking of maybe downloading music or a photo or posting a copy of a Washington Post article to your blog or putting a clip from the Daily Show or South Park on YouTube (that too would permit Bush to tap your phones).

And finally, if Homeland Security doesn't have enough work to do already, and has the time to set up a hotline to the Record Industry Association every time little Suzie downloads a Christina Aguilera song, well, then we might as well just pack it in and put up a big welcome sign for Osama to hit us again.

Was the Comey testimony the “tipping point” for support for Alberto Gonzales?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070520/28justice.htm

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/the_new_details.html
[Emptywheel] [H]ere are some key details that were new with Comey's testimony:

George Bush was actively involved. . . .

Bush reauthorized the program without DOJ certification. . .

Comey and FBI Director Mueller believed there might be coercion. . . .

The key disagreement relates to issues that Bush won't confirm. . . . [read on]

Interesting: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/21/fredos-revenge/
[US News] Indeed, congressional sources tell U.S. News that Democrats will ask the Texas Bar Association to determine whether Gonzales violated his code of professional responsibility or broke laws by bringing up the NSA program in the hospital in front of Ashcroft's wife, who lacks security clearances. . .

What WAS the program DOJ wouldn’t approve? http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003268.php

“No confidence” vote postponed?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003264.php

Bush continues to talk tough

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/21/bush.gonzales.ap/index.html
"He has done nothing wrong," Bush said in an impassioned defense of his longtime friend and adviser during a news conference at his Texas ranch. . . . "I stand by Al Gonzales, and I would hope that people would be more sober in how they address these important issues," Bush said. "And they ought to get the job done of passing legislation, as opposed to figuring out how to be actors on the political theater stage."

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/21/175415/834

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/21/abu-go-bye-bye/

Gimme a break: Bush condemns “political theater.” What nerve!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/leading-man-by-digby-this-is-probably.html

“Why this scandal matters”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21mon1.html

Later today: Monica 2.0. A few questions for her

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/questions_for_m.html

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003269.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201601.html
When Jeffrey A. Taylor, interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, wanted to hire a new career prosecutor last fall, he had to run the idea past Monica M. Goodling, then a 33-year-old aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

The candidate was Seth Adam Meinero, a Howard University law school graduate who had worked on civil rights cases at the Environmental Protection Agency and had served as a special assistant prosecutor in Taylor's office.

Goodling stalled the hiring, saying that Meinero was too "liberal" for the nonpolitical position, said according to two sources familiar with the dispute.

The tussle over Meinero, who was eventually hired at Taylor's insistence, led to a Justice Department investigation of whether Goodling improperly weighed political affiliation when reviewing applicants for rank-and-file prosecutor jobs . . .

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011362.php
[Karen Tumulty] How much will we learn [Wednesday] when Monica Goodling, the Justice Department's former White House liaison, testifies in front of the House Judiciary Committee under a grant of immunity from prosecution? A spokeswoman for the Committee says it has been given "every indication" that she will be forthcoming.

The documents she still won’t provide: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/05/22/conyers/index.html

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/22/do-the-perp-walk/

Another document dump from DOJ, and some fascinating tidbits hidden in there

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/did_orrin_hatch.html
[Emptywheel] Did Orrin Hatch and Byron York Get Their Oppo Research from Monica? . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10870.html
[Steve Benen] I haven’t had a chance to delve into the docs in any real detail, but Tim Grieve noticed a couple of interesting emails.

On Feb. 26, [Christopher Oprison at the White House Counsel’s Office] sent a message to Goodling in which he said he needed “to chat about the ‘performance evaluations’ for the departing U.S. attorneys.” He asked her to call him — some things are better handled outside the White House e-mail system, apparently — and said that it’s a “time sensitive issue for Tony.” Tony? Tony? The first Tony that comes to our mind is White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, who might indeed have been expecting, at that point, to be facing questions about the purge.

That’s certainly likely, but why were the words “performance evaluations” in quotes?

Also, this was an amusing one.

On Dec. 18, 2006, the Justice Department’s Rebecca Seidel sent an e-mail to several of her colleagues warning them that Republican Sen. Jon Kyl was “significantly disturbed” over the firing of U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton and might raise the matter at an upcoming hearing. “We should ensure that the AG is adequately prepared to deal with a question over the firings of the USAs,” she wrote. “Do we need a paper on it, or is the AG prepared?”

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/whats_here_is_c.html
[Emptywheel] Remember way back before we knew about the partisan tests for hiring, when the biggest reason for Monica Goodling to plead the Fifth was the accusation that she had prepared Paul McNulty to state falsehoods in his testimony before the Senate?

Well, why do you suppose we only got this document on the eve of her testimony, after she had already been granted immunity? . . .

More: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/speaking_of_bac.html

The evidence that this all started with Republican attempts to trump up phony voter-fraud cases keeps accumulating – and by the way, they haven’t stopped trying to use that despicable ploy, either

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/22/152031/076
[Clammyc] It is pervasive, deep, goes against the very first and most basic premise of democracy and is a concerted effort by many individuals and organizations throughout the republican party, its affiliated "associations" as well as many levels of government whose primary purpose is to ensure that this most basic premise of democracy is not subverted. . . [read on]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_20.php#014254
[Josh Marshall] It's really enough to make you sick. . . [read on]

More: http://www.slate.com/id/2166589

Subpoenas coming – then what?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003260.php
The House Judiciary Committee is prepared to use subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove and other White House officials. . .

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003254.php
[Laura McGann] Former general counsel to the House Charles Tiefer explained that these face-offs never culminate in court.

"In theory, what happens is, after the House, or the Senate, goes through a certain process, [the case] is kicked over to a prosecutor," Tiefer said. But to think that will actually happen "is a naive way" of looking at Congressional investigations.

No top government official has ever been indicted for failing to respond to a Congressional subpoena. Tiefer, who signed off on more Congressional subpoenas than anyone else while counsel to the House from 1984 to 1996, explained that these investigations mount pressure to achieve results.

When asked if a Congressional subpoena has teeth he asked his own question: “Does a vise have teeth?” Well, no, but, “you could crack stones in a vise.”

The investigation process ramps up political pressure with letters, media outreach, subpoenas and contempt until one side cracks. The more bipartisan support an investigation has, the heavier each move weighs. The more the public supports the opposing branch, the more likely a committee will be to back down.

Usually a negotiated agreement is reached before the investigation hits a serious phase. . .

Never forget the real target at stake here – the Great White Whale

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/05/the_final_days_.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052107A.shtml

Rove aide takes the Fifth. How long can people keep saying “there’s no evidence of any crime,” when key players fear self-incrimination? (She’s looking for immunity, like Monica 2.0)

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003267.php

More: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_Rove_aide_pleads_Fifth_on_0522.html

Lurita Doan, the GSA chief who sponsored partisan workshops for her staff about how they could use government procurement to “help” the Republicans in the 2006 election, gets an internal report telling her she violated the Hatch Act. Uh, that’s a CRIME folks – can we see the report too?

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2777859

[NB: And by the way, what about Rove staffer Scott Jennings, who GAVE the presentations? Are we supposed to think this wasn’t his intention too? And whose idea was it anyway. . . as if we didn’t know]

Kos thinks Harry Reid’s plan to block any future recess appointments won’t work

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/21/131611/501
Bush will prove that he doesn't give a sh-t about any "tradition" of recess appointments being done only during recesses longer than 10 days. Heck, before long he'll be using long weekends as an excuse to bypass Senate approval of his regressive acolytes (the ones that couldn't win Senate approval even when it was controlled by Republicans).

Bye-bye Boykin

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8205
[NB: General “My God is bigger than your God”. Good riddance]

I’m with Mark on this one: glad to see the Republicans re-nominate corrupt and stupid officials so the Dems have a chance to beat them. Fletcher’s one of the worst . . .

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2007/05/christmas_in_may.php

Joe Lieberman is so full of it

http://tinyurl.com/yqqwa3

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011355.php

Theocracy watch: cloning Monica 2.0

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/21/114218/090
[Jeralyn Merritt] This is about the scariest article I have read in a while.

It begins with Jerry Falwell and his Liberty University dream of "training a new generation of lawyers, judges, educators, policymakers and world leaders in law from the perspective of an explicitly Christian worldview."

Then it lists the other law schools in the mold. The number is growing. Check out the quotes from the students. . . .

Does John McCain have a temper problem? %**$@!&# yeah he does!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10865.html

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-outburst22may22,1,1135212.story

I’m sure things will change, but right now 2008 is looking like a landslide

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/21/dems_fundraising_edge_over_gop_for_house_races_grows
[Greg Sargent] Being in the majority continues to help the Democratic Party stockpile cash for 2008 -- and its advantage over the GOP for the 2008 House races continues to mount. . . .

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/21/senate_dems_hammer_gop_in_april_fundraising
[Greg Sargent] [W]e brought you the tidings that Dems have upped their advantage over the GOP for the 2008 House races. Well, we've just received the numbers for the Senate races -- and the picture is more striking.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/21/dems_outraising_gop_in_the_south
[Greg Sargent] Now here's an interesting subplot to the story of the success Dem Presidential candidates are having -- the Dems appear to actually be outraising their GOP counterparts in, of all places, the GOP stronghold of the south. . .

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/21/election_central_morning_roundup
[Eric Kleefeld] The Washington Post reports that the GOP is having a hard time keeping up with the online activism of the Democrats. For example, the top three Dem Presidential candidates raised $14 million online in the past quarter, while the top three Republicans raised only $6 million. The Post posits, "an underlying cause may be the nature of the Republican Party and its traditional discipline — the antithesis of the often chaotic, bottom-up, user-generated atmosphere of the Internet." . . .

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/22/happy_hour_roundup
[Eric Kleefeld] President Bush has reached a new low in Rasmussen polling — the firm that has tended to give him the best approval numbers at any given time — with only 33% approval. The kicker: He is breaking the record low 34% Rasmussen approval number that he set for himself ... three days ago. Bush has also hit a new low of 31% approval in American Research Group's polling.

The best and the brightest

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/us_government_g.html
Al Hurra television, the U.S. government's $63 million-a-year effort at public diplomacy broadcasting in the Middle East, is run by executives and officials who cannot speak Arabic, according to a senior official who oversees the program.

That might explain why critics say the service has recently been caught broadcasting terrorist messages, including an hour-long tirade on the importance of anti-Jewish violence, among other questionable pieces. . . .

Duke Cunningham: what a guy

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003262.php
“Wilkes was totally disgusted by the hot tub Cunningham put on the boat's deck during the autumn and winter. What repelled Wilkes -- and others invited to the parties -- was both the water Cunningham put in the hot tub and the congressman's penchant for using it while naked, even if everybody else at the party was clothed. Cunningham used water siphoned directly from the polluted Potomac River and never changed it out during the season.”

Bonus item: Predictable, but still very funny

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_20.php#014248

Extra bonus item: Think THAT was hilarious? Read this

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/believe-me-by-digby-dont-you-just-hate.html
[Newsweek] After the incident, there were recriminations over what Comey portrayed as an attempt by Bush's top lawyer and chief of staff to "take advantage" of a very ill man. Comey didn't tell the Senate panel that the bad feelings were stoked even more the next morning when White House officials explained the hospital visit by saying Gonzales and Card were unaware that Comey was acting A.G. (and therefore the only person authorized to sign off on the surveillance program), according to a former senior DOJ official who requested anonymity talking about internal matters. Top DOJ officials were furious, the source said. Just days earlier, Justice's chief spokesman had publicly said Comey would serve as "head of the Justice Department" while Ashcroft was ill. Justice officials had also faxed over a document to the White House informing officials of this. When a Gonzales aide claimed the counsel's office could find no record of it, DOJ officials dug out a receipt showing the fax had been received. "People were disgusted as much as livid," said the DOJ official. "It was just the dishonesty of it." A Gonzales aide at the time (who asked not to be ID'd talking about internal matters) said there was a "miscommunication" and "genuine confusion" over who was in charge. Democratic senators plan a no-confidence vote in Gonzales. They also want him to explain his testimony last year that "there has not been any serious disagreement" about the terrorist-surveillance program.

[Digby] This is so lame that you have to believe it was one of those tests. The White House counsel didn't know that the Attorney General, who was in the ICU, had officially turned over his duties? Please. If he didn't he should have been fired for incompetence.

But this whole thing fails to account for the shocking fact that in this event, they were willing to have a man who was extremely ill and high on drugs sign off on a secret program that was so controversial that the upper echelon of the DOJ were all refusing to recertify it (including, as it turned out, John Ashcroft himself.)Is that supposed to be acceptable even if he hadn't technically turned over the office to his deputy? Who are these sick people?

This was a typical Bush/Cheney/Rove style power play. They tried a completely unethical end-run that didn't work and then they attempted to make the Justice Department swallow a lie that was so lame that it could only have been a loyalty test. How infuriating. . . [read on]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011353.php
[Kevin Drum] This sounds just like our Alberto, doesn't it? He's consistently demonstrated an inability to construct explanations for bad behavior above the level of a junior high school student. "We didn't get the fax" is par for the course.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***

THE MIND BOGGLES

The conceit of the geniuses from Project for a New American Century was that a bunch of egg-heads could sit around and redesign the Middle East to suit their interests, then go in with a combination of military, political, and economic strategies and turn these people around to their way of thinking.

Well, we’re still mired in the wonderful war they gave us. As should have been obvious, we’re being opposed by very clever and resourceful people who have found ways to turn the naïve, arrogant aspirations about a restructured Middle East into fodder for their own interests. In the process, the PNAC legacy has made almost every major problem in the region worse. Thanks, guys

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-binladen20may20,0,5046563.story
A major CIA effort launched last year to hunt down Osama bin Laden has produced no significant leads on his whereabouts, but has helped track an alarming increase in the movement of Al Qaeda operatives and money into Pakistan's tribal territories, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the operation.

In one of the most troubling trends, 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. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells. . .

Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda's core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles.

"Iraq is a big moneymaker for them," said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official. . .

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_20.php#014232
[Steve Benen] Indeed, we learned last September from the National Intelligence Estimate that the war is "shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives," creating a "cause celebre" for jihadists, which in turn "cultivat[es] supporters for the global jihadist movement." Or, put another way, the war in Iraq is making it harder, not easier, to combat global terrorism, and in the case of al Qaeda, our presence has become something of a cash-cow. . . .

[Kevin Drum] Say it with me: We. Need. To. Get. Out. The sooner the better. Our presence in Iraq is doing nothing for Iraq itself, which is doomed to sectarian civil war no matter what we do. It's actively hindering the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which will almost certainly proceed more quickly and more ruthlessly once we leave. It's made Iran into a more powerful regional player than it ever could have dreamed of. It's produced a relentlessly worsening foreign policy catastrophe by swelling the ranks of Middle Eastern Muslims who support anti-American jihadism in spirit, even if they don't directly support al-Qaeda itself. And it's turned into a bonanza of recruiting and fundraising among those who do directly support al-Qaeda.

In almost every way you can think of, our continued presence in Iraq is bad for Iraq, bad for the Middle East, and bad for America's own national security. I can't even think of anything on the plus side of the ledger anymore, and every additional day we stay there only makes the ledger look worse.

Who was PNAC? http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
[1997] Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

[NB: I count at least eight who went on to serve in the Bush administration]

Hmmm. . . . the PNAC’s celebratory publications on the Great Victory in Iraq seem to have petered out in 2005. Wonder why? http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm

The coming collapse of the Iraq government?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_20.php#014229
[Steve Benen] Sudarsan Raghavan has an important front-page piece in the Washington Post today on what appears to be a major overhaul of Moqtada al-Sadr's political tactics. Sadr seems to be making a new play: giving up on Maliki's government and "moderating" the Mahdi image. Raghavan calls it one of the most "dramatic tactical shifts since the beginning of the war" for Sadr's movement. . .

As Juan Cole noted, Sadr may very well be "maneuvering to have a Sadrist PM succeed al-Maliki if the latter's government fall." . .

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/incredible-vanishing-iraqi-political.html
[Juan Cole] Abdul Aziz al-Hakim has chosen to seek chemotherapy for his lung cancer in Iran rather than in the US. . . . He is likely to be absent from Iraq in Iran for several months, and says he is going there so as to be closer to his family than he would be in the US.

Al-Hakim leads the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the most powerful Shiite party in Iraq, which controls Baghdad province and 8 other provinces (Iraq has 18 provinces). The party also has some 30 seats in parliament, but that is not as important as al-Hakim's leading role in the United Iraqi Alliance, the leading Shiite coalition in parliament, which has formed both federal governments in the past 3 years.

Despite its elected government, Iraq is actually run by a small handful of movers and shakers. These include the two Kurdish leaders, Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani. Then on the Shiite side you have al-Hakim and Da'wa Party leader Nuri al-Maliki. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and Sunni Arab vice president Tariq al-Hashimi are on the margins of the top Shiite/Kurdish club.

So of the central club, al-Hakim is now absent. And, Jalal Talabani is flying to the US to spend three weeks, allegedly in a bid to lose weight. I'm tempted to speculate that something is in the works such that someone thinks it desirable that Talabani be out of country, since the idea that Mam Jalal suddenly decided he needed to go to a fat farm in Minnesota strikes me as far-fetched. But I will control myself; speculation in the absence of information is not very useful. . .

More: http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/4052

Another little lesson from history: every time a new “policy czar” is appointed in Washington, whether it’s a Drug Czar, an Energy Czar, an Inflation Czar – they ALWAYS fail. Apart from the unfortunate (and profoundly undemocratic) associations of the title, it’s a sign of desperation and failure by the actually responsible government agencies. General Douglas Lute, our new “Iraq War Czar,” will just be the latest

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/weekinreview/20leibovich.html

More: http://www.slate.com/id/2164058/

It gets worse. Desperate, flailing, and with no friggin’ clue about what to do next, the Bush gang NOW says they want to take another look at the Iraq Study Group report, which they scorned and then ignored when it was released

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001406.html
After an initially tepid reception from policymakers, the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are getting a second look from the White House and Congress, as officials continue to scour for bipartisan solutions to salvage the American engagement in Iraq. . .

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/05/zombie_commission.php
[Matt Yglesias] You'd think the people working in this White House would just be too embarrassed to wake up some mornings.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/21/2950/37935
[Jonathan Singer] It truly amazes me that there are people -- particularly people inside the Beltway who purport to watch politics closely -- who still believe that President Bush will ever be willing to budge one inch from his position on Iraq. . .

[T]his story provides yet another example of the establishment media allowing itself to be bamboozled by the President over Iraq. There are simply too many previous instances of this trend to recall here in this post, but just since the end of the year many in the media have failed to comprehend that the real reason behind President Bush's escalation policy is to enable him to keep American forces in Iraq for at least two to three more years. This fact was hammered home again this month when the military all but admitted that they will push forward with the escalation through at least the middle of next year regardless of the planned assessment of the policy this September.

If I haven't said it clearly enough, my apologies. President Bush intends to stay in Iraq for the duration of his term in office and will say just about anything -- including that he is rethinking his opposition to the ISG report -- to achieve this goal. . . .

The hidden costs of war: 13,000 additional “contractor” casualties

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/19/africa/contractors.1-57039.php

What will the Democrats do now with the Iraq war funding bill?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/20/172725/929

Look, I know that there’s an unwritten rule against former Presidents criticizing current ones – but the lesson of Jimmy Carter’s recent outburst against Bush ought to be, How big a muck-up has Bush made of things that Carter felt compelled to speak out? On the other hand, it does provide an opportunity for the Bush gang to show that they can rise above such criticisms, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/20/carter.bush.ap/index.html
White House spokesman Tony Fratto shot back Sunday from Crawford, Texas, where Bush spent the weekend.

"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there," said Fratto. "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments." . .

Well-said (thanks to Buzzflash for the link)

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/OPINION/705190303/-1/LOCAL17
[Marie Cocco] It is time to stop referring to the "fired U.S attorneys scandal" by that misnomer, and call it what it is: a White House-coordinated effort to use the vast powers of the Justice Department to swing elections to Republicans.

This is no botched personnel switch. It is not even a political spat between the fired U.S. attorneys and Bush administration officials who deemed some of them insufficiently zealous in promoting the department's law enforcement priorities. Connect the dots and you see an insidious effort to corrupt the American electoral system. . . .

The emerging picture is one in which widespread Republican claims of "voter fraud" -- unsubstantiated in virtually every case examined closely by law enforcement officials, local journalists, state elections officials and academics -- were used to stymie Democratic-leaning voter registration groups and create a taint around Democrats. The Justice Department's own statistics show that only a handful of people were convicted of voting illegally since it began a "voter integrity" initiative in 2002. Its top election crimes official, a career prosecutor, has told the U.S Election Assistance Commission that the proportion of "legitimate to illegitimate claims of fraud" hasn't changed. . . .

More: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/shaving-odds-by-digby-via-tpm-i-see.html

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/are_they_using_.html

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/20/the-new-ones-get-impatient/

The White House calls a no-confidence vote against Alberto Gonzales “a political stunt.” Then they say it’s un-American (even though there is precedent). But the question now is, will Gonzales stick around long enough to receive one?

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN2026394520070520
"As for no-confidence votes, maybe senators need a refresher course on American civics," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, with President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas. "What I mean is I think you find no-confidence votes in parliamentary systems, not the American system of government."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/21/7123/52125
[Big Tent Democrat] Very true. Our system of government provides for a different mechanism. . . I agree with the White House that impeachment of Alberto Gonzales is the proper course.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_20.php#014228
[Steve Benen] After Sens. Schumer and Feinstein unveiled their no-confidence resolution, all eyes were on Senate Republicans to see how much, if any, GOP push-back there'd be. The White House dismissed the measure as a "stunt," but the Senate minority has barely lifted a finger to oppose the resolution. Indeed, the afternoon it was introduced, more GOP lawmakers abandoned Gonzales. (For those keeping score at home, there are 10 Republican senators who've said, publicly, they think it's time for Gonzales to go, one way or another.)

This morning, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Gonzales' days as AG are numbered. . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/20/135536/558
SPECTER: ... You already have six Republicans calling for his resignation. I have a sense, Bob, that before the vote is taken that Attorney General Gonzales may step down.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

SPECTER: Well, it is a very forceful, historical statement. Votes of no confidence are very rare. More than a century ago one was leveled against a sitting president. I think historically that is something which Attorney General Gonzales would like to avoid. . . .

SCHIEFFER: What leads you, senator, to the conclusion that he will probably step down before such a vote is taken?

SPECTER: Because of the likelihood, a very substantial vote of no confidence. I think that if and when he sees that coming, that he would prefer to avoid that kind of an historical black mark.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/does_specter_kn.html
[Emptywheel] I suspect that Specter is speaking from the position of someone who has been in negotiations on such a topic. There are several elements that make me believe that Specter is sending Gonzales a next to last ultimatum here, rather than just blabbing like he normally does. . . . [read on]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/20/135536/558
[Mitch McConnell, minority leader] Look, that’s for the president to decide. The attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president. If the president says he’s satisfied with the job the attorney general’s doing, the opinions of senators are interesting and certainly make good fodder for Sunday talk shows.

But as long as he’s satisfied the president, I think he’s going to continue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’ll vote against the no-confidence resolution by Senator Schumer?

MCCONNELL: Well, we won’t have a no-confidence resolution in the Senate unless there are other resolutions. In the Senate, nobody gets a clear shot. If there’s a resolution on Attorney General Gonzales, there will probably be another kind of resolution. So we’ll see what happens.

With McNulty out and a Gonzales vacancy a distinct possibility, the last thing the Bush gang wants to do is have a new nominee go through confirmation hearings (imagine the questions: “Where do you stand on torture, warrantless surveillance, the US Attorney firings, the unitary executive theory?”). So they’d like, I’m sure, to pull another recess appointment – well, Harry Reid (D-NV) has different plans

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/washingtonwhispers/070520/bushs_summer_hires_targeted.htm
[Paul Bedard] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a little trick up his sleeve that could spell an end to President Bush's devilish recess appointments of controversial figures like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summer hires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie "pro forma" session every 10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers and Republicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he's the new sheriff in town.

Henry Waxman (D-CA), our hero

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-heart-henry-by-digby-republicans-have.html

Here’s how much the next election means: the next President might have a chance to replace three relatively liberal Supreme Court justices

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_20.php#014233

The immigration “compromise” – hold your nose

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/20/194016/086

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/21/2954/84643

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/20/194725/716
[Jeralyn Merritt] Among the provisions of the compromise immigration bill is one calling for the building of more detention camps. . . .

Warning: this story will shock and depress you. It can’t be happening in America

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/best-health-care-system-in-world-by.html

Theocracy watch: Falwell’s gone, but Newt’s ready to pick up the cross and lead the parade

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_20.php#014231
[WP] In a speech heavy with religious allusions but devoid of hints about his presidential ambitions, Gingrich drew applause from the graduates and their families in the school's 12,000-seat football stadium when he demanded: "This anti-religious bias must end."

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive," Gingrich said, deriding what he called the "contorted logic" and "false principles" of advocates of secularism in American society.

"Basic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard," he said during his 26-minute speech. "It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers."

[Steve Benen] Impossible to miss? It can't be that impossible; I have no idea what on earth he's talking about. Religious beliefs don't have a chance to be heard? Since when?

I'm hard pressed to imagine what country Gingrich and the 12,000 people who applauded his worldview are living in. Out of the 535 members of Congress, 50 governors, the president, vice president, the Bush cabinet, and nine Supreme Court justices, there is exactly one person -- not one percent, just one guy -- who does not profess a faith in God. If polls are to be believed, less than 5% of the population describes themselves as non-believers.

In the last presidential election, one candidate announced during a presidential debate, "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth.... I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith." This was John Kerry, the more secular candidate of the two.

As for "discrimination," the New York Times had an interesting report last week showing that so much public money is now going to ministries, religious groups are hiring lobbyists to get more.

In our culture, religion is common in the media — I can’t remember the last month Time and/or Newsweek didn’t feature religion as a cover story — almost exclusively in a positive light. In sporting events, celebrating athletes routinely express their religiosity. At awards ceremonies, entertainers routinely “give thanks to God” from the outset, usually to considerable applause.

Gingrich sees all of this and believes an “anti-religious bias” dominates U.S. society. I have no idea why.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***

BARE RUINED CHOIRS

Bush's magic touch

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900212.html
Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy.

The criticism from Carter, which a biographer says is unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing" faith-based initiative funding. . . .

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/20/390/15308

Let’s see, he’s ruined the nation’s international status, he’s ruined the domestic policy apparatus, he’s ruined the military, he made a hash of Katrina – and now we see that Bush has worked his magic with the Justice Dept too

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_13.php#014225
[Steve Benen] In March, we started hearing about the panic and paralysis that had taken over the Justice Department in the wake of the prosecutor purge scandal. "You have no idea," said one Justice official, "how bad it is here." By one account, top DoJ officials -- the ones who haven't resigned -- were turning on each other. "It's unreal -- it's open warfare over there," a former Justice official with close ties to Gonzales' team said. . . .

The overall picture is becoming crystal clear

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_13.php#014220
[Steve Benen] It's not as if we need additional evidence that former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was fired for failing to politicize his office, but proof keeps piling up anyway.

Weeks before the 2006 midterm election, then-New Mexico U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias was invited to dine with a well-connected Republican lawyer in Albuquerque who had been after him for years to prosecute allegations of voter fraud.

"I had a bad feeling about that lunch," said Iglesias, describing his meeting at Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen with Patrick Rogers, a lawyer who provided occasional counsel to the New Mexico Republican Party.

When the voter fraud issue came up, Iglesias said, he explained to Rogers that in reviewing more than 100 complaints, he hadn't found any solid enough to justify criminal charges.

What Iglesias did not know was that Rogers and Mickey Barnett, another prominent GOP attorney in New Mexico, had taken their concerns about Iglesias and "voter fraud" directly to DC. Monica Goodling (who else?) helped arrange some meetings for them.

One of those they met with was Matthew Friedrich, a senior counselor to Gonzales. Friedrich would meet again with Rogers and Barnett in New Mexico, where, he told congressional investigators, the pair complained about Iglesias. They made it clear "that they did not want him to be the U.S. attorney.... They mentioned that they had communicated that with Sen. Domenici, and they also mentioned Karl Rove," Friedrich said, according to a transcript provided by congressional investigators.

When Iglesias said he believes "all roads lead to Rove," he wasn't kidding.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/19/meeting-with-monica/
[Scarecrow] Looking for smoking guns? Here we have Bush loyalist and DoJ WH liaison, Monica Goodling — the person with as much influence as anyone in Gonzales’ DoJ for hiring/firing decisions — with the help (direction?) of an aide to WH political director Karl Rove, arranging a DoJ meeting for Rogers, the attorney responsible for pressing the phony voter fraud allegations for the Republican Party in New Mexico, for the purpose of discussing why the US Attorney for New Mexico should be fired for failing to pursue the phony claims that just happen to be Mr. Rove’s favorite political scam. Of course, right after the elections, and another meeting in which Iglesias is urged again by Rogers to pursue the phony claims — but again refuses — Iglesias just happens to wind up on the final list of those to be fired. . . .

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-usattys19may19,0,1657142,full.story

By all means, let’s continue going after Gonzales and Rove: but let’s not forget the misconduct of others

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/19/173740/486
[McJoan] In the focus on the Gonzales job death watch and Karl Rove's role in the firing of U.S. Attorneys, focus has shifted away from the involvement of a handful of legislators in the firings. Early reports included both Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici in the Iglesias firing, and Doc Hastings in John McKay's. As more information unfolds, it looks like Domenici, in particular, was closely involved in the firing. . .

More: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/and_if_domenici.html
[Emptywheel] Which is all kind of interesting because Pat Rogers was one of Domenici's four choices to replace Iglesias. And it appears that someone with a six-letter name--either Rogers or Peifer--was Domenici's "overwhelming choice" on January 8. It sure sounds like Domenici has been pushing for Rogers for a while. . . .

Because that would be especially neat, wouldn't it? If Rogers got Iglesias fired because he wouldn't trump up voter fraud cases against Democrats . . with some kind of expectation he might replace Iglesias? . . .

What if they CAN’T replace McNulty?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_13.php#014225
[Think Progress] Few in Washington have envied Paul McNulty over the past three months. But with the deputy attorney general's resignation last week amid the scandal over the firings of at least eight U.S. attorneys, there's one person whose position might be even less desirable: McNulty's yet-to-be-named successor.

"I'd rather trade places with Jose Padilla," jokes Viet Dinh, a former senior Justice official under then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

[Steve Benen] I can't imagine what's holding potential applicants back. The last DAG was blamed for the purge scandal despite having been "largely left out of the loop," and his predecessor was James Comey, who had a rather unique experience with Gonzales and the Bush White House during his tenure.

Yeah, right

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_13.php#014226
[Steve Benen] The AP had an interesting item today, highlighting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' perspective on being close friends with the president. As the embattled Gonzales sees it, his close relationship with Bush, which spans decades, is inherently "a good thing" for everyone.

"Being able to go and having a very candid conversation and telling the president: 'Mr. President, this cannot be done. You can't do this,' -- I think you want that," Gonzales told reporters this week. "And I think having a personal relationship makes that, quite frankly, much easier . . .”

[NB: Okay, everyone, raise your hands. How many of you think Gonzales EVER said to Bush, “You can’t do this”?]

The kind of man he is

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801394.html
[Eugene Robinson] It just gets worse and worse. We already knew that Alberto Gonzales -- who, unbelievably, remains our attorney general -- was willing to construe the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions however George W. Bush and Dick Cheney wanted. We knew he was willing to politicize the Justice Department, if that was what the White House wanted. Now we learn that Gonzales also was willing to accost a seriously ill man in his hospital room to get his signature on a dodgy justification for unprecedented domestic surveillance.

The man Gonzales harried on his sickbed was his predecessor as attorney general, John Ashcroft. The episode-- recounted this week in congressional testimony by Ashcroft's former deputy, James Comey -- sounds like something from Hollywood, not Washington. It's hard not to think of that scene in "The Godfather" when Don Corleone is left alone in his hospital bed, vulnerable to his enemies, and Michael has to save him. . . .

The image I can't get out of my head is of Alberto Gonzales carrying a document for Ashcroft's signature into the man's hospital room, attempting a sneaky end-run around the deputy whom Ashcroft left in charge of the department, knowing full well that Ashcroft was seriously ill and almost certainly medicated. What did he intend to do, guide the man's hand?

This is the attorney general of the United States, ladies and gentlemen. Heaven help us.

More: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/what_a_week_gon.html

The ONE thing, the ONLY thing, we’ve succeeded with in Iraq (of course)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070519/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/world_s_largest_embassy;_ylt=AkIzPqWtp6wjbML1.JWEubGs0NUE
The new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will be the world's largest and most expensive foreign mission. . . The Bush administration designed the 104-acre compound — set to open in September in what today is a war zone — to be an ultra-secure enclave. . .

The $592 million embassy occupies a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls. The compound is a symbol both of how much the United States has invested in Iraq and how the circumstances of its involvement are changing. . .

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/19/9181/
[Scarecrow] [W]e are building a huge, permanent infrastructure in Iraq. We are putting in the latest equipment, and it is not there to support some temorary military presence. What’s going up is not something to be taken down and removed when our troops withdraw or respond to some uncertain Congressional appropriation. And the facilities that are being constructed, and the way they are being linked, indicate a more or less permanent military presence. . . .

[NB: OK, yes, they got rid of Saddam – but in the end even that was botched up]

Watch how quickly Gordon Brown, Tony Blair’s successor, goes about reversing the British commitment in Iraq

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/beginning-of-end-of-anglo-american-iraq.html

Just what we need: more power in Bush and Cheney’s hands

http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

How low can he go?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
The President’s Job Approval has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. . .

Broder-bashing: so easy, but so satisfying

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/20/2427/73257

Sunday talk show line-ups

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/19/233919/034
* NBC Meet the Press: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT); Newt Gingrich (R-GA); roundtable on "Reagan Diaries" with historian Douglas Brinkley, ex-Reagan CoS Michael Deaver and ex-AG Ed Meese.

* CBS Face the Nation: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA); AEI's Fred Kagan; retired Gen. Paul Eaton.

* ABC This Week: Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY); roundtable of the Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel, Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, and George Will.

* Fox News Sunday: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY); ex-SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; ex-House reading clerk Paul Hays

* CNN Late Edition: DHS Sec. Michael Chertoff; Commerce Sec. Carlos Gutierrez; Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI); Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL); Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX); Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA); Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ); Brookings Institution’s Shibley Telhami; CFR’s Vali Nasr

Bonus item: Fox News does polling

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_05_13.php#014219
"Recently Democratic Leader of the Senate Harry Reid said that the war 'is lost' in Iraq. Do you feel this was an acceptable thing or an unacceptable thing for Reid to say while U.S. troops are still in the field fighting?"

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***

SO, NOW WHAT?

Bush refuses to negotiate with the Dems over an Iraq funding bill. What should the Dems do next? What WILL they do next?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10844.html
[Steve Benen] By late last night, it appeared that a compromise between congressional Dems and the White House on war funding was very close. Predictably, it looked like Dems were going to give up far too much in exchange for very little, and then hope to find more success the next time around.

But as it turns out, the compromise fell through today. White House negotiators looked a gift horse in the mouth, and decided to give it back. . . .

So, a bill that funds the war with every penny Bush asked for, with a timeline the president can waive, and without a penny of extra spending is too much for the president to bear. . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/18/13954/4761
[Kos] It's time for congressional Dems to send Bush the exact same bill as last time. If Bush wants to defund his own war by vetoing the supplemental, that'll be his problem. . .

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_05_13_archive.html#1173037946501410488
[Atrios] Since the decider guy will not engage in any genuine negotiation or compromise, it's time for Democrats to flip things around. I don't know why they let Bush get away with claiming that the Democrats refused to fund the troops after he vetoed the bill with those funds. Just keep sending him the same bill over and over again.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/18/12572/9328
[Big Tent Democrat] The choice for the Democratic Congress is binary. Continue to fund the Iraq Debacle on Bush's terms or end the Debacle by announcing a date certain when the Debacle will not be funded.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/18/17031/1267
[McJoan] There's another option, one that we know now is supported by a majority (albeit slim) of Democrats in the House and Senate. Give the President his money now for the remainder of FY 2007, or for the next 9 months. Without benchmarks, without goals, waivable or otherwise. And, when offering this legislation, advise the President that this money should be used to plan the redeployment of troops out of Iraq, because after March 31, 2008 (in accordance with the Iraq Study Group) he won't get any more money.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/18/liberals
[Greg Sargent] A Democratic leadership aide tells us that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Dem Rep. David Obey will be talking through the weekend to game out the next steps. Further talks with the White House are unlikely, at least this weekend, the aide says. So what do we make of the current political challenge facing Dems?

We checked in with a liberal House Dem staffer who is a sharp observer of Hill politics, and he gave us a surprisingly candid -- and dispiriting -- overview of the political situation. . .

Here's the situation in a nutshell, as best as we understand it. The White House says it simply won't accept any sort of timetable, even a waivable one. It says it won't accept any kind of benchmarks for progress in Iraq if there are any consequences for not meeting them. So aside from sending the bill back there are only two apparent possibilities left: Either the White House gives on one of these points. Or the Dem Congressional leadership caves and produces a bill funding the war until, say, September, with some sort of benchmarks but no accountability -- in other words, something that's effectively meaningless.

According to our Hill staffer, some liberals are beginning to fear that it will ultimately be the latter. They are persuaded that the Dem leadership will ultimately back down in hopes that other future legislative routes will prove more fertile.

"If this is what they go with, it begs the question, Why did we go through this whole exercise with the first supplemental and everything else?" our staffer asks. "What did we really accomplish?"

Worse, he says, aside from the fact that the benchmarks-with-no-accountability measure would be a substantive failure, it also contains a serious political pitfall. If the final compromise has (meaningless) benchmarks that the White House initially opposed, the possibility is that Republicans in Congress, by supporting such a measure, would be the ones perceived as having been the bridge of compromise between Congressional Dems and Bush.

"If the Republicans come across as brokering this deal, not only have we gained nothing, but they will have gained a lot," he says. "The Republicans will be the ones perceived to have brought Bush back into line. This is certainly not a gift we want to give them."

What about sending the same bill back to the President? According to our staffer, the perceived problem here is that House Dems have loudly proclaimed that a measure to fund the troops will have been created by Memorial Day. Recent polls suggest that Dems haven't done a good enough job explaining to the public that the Presidential veto -- not Congress -- is what's to blame for the lack of troop funding. So a repeat of the veto scenario is thus seeen as politically very risky, our staffer says.

"The storyline in the media would then be, `Dems fail to meet their own set deadlines, Dems in disarray,'" the staffer says. . . .

Another fight the Dems should not back down from

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=398
[T]he White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy (pdf) declaring their opposition to a 3.5% pay raise for the troops and an additional $40 per month for widows of slain soldiers, as well as additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees and price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE.

Today, Democratic Leaders issued a joint letter to President, calling on him to drop his opposition to Democratic plans to give troops the pay raise they deserve and increase benefits for surviving spouses of men and women in uniform . . .

Ahem

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/22671
[David Swanson] I object to the idea that the Dems should accuse Bush of "abandoning the troops." If we don't FOR CHRISSAKE STOP ONCE AND FOR ALL PRETENDING THAT WARS ARE FUNDED FOR THE TROOPS, WE WILL NEVER EVER END ANY WARS. Sorry for the caps, but I don't know how many times this has to be said or how to make it any clearer.

Pelosi promised the media today that "Our troops will be funded." This is UNADULTERATED FATALLY SELF DEFEATING BULLSHIT. Nobody is ever going to abandon the troops. They are either going to be left to kill and die and be wounded and traumatized in Iraq OR they are going to be brought safely home. There is no third possibility called "abandoning" or "not supporting" or "not funding" them.

If the peace movement keeps talking about "funding the troops" there will never be peace. Believe it or not - and I know this seems insane - there are some things we should NOT accuse Bush of.

The casualty figures that haven’t been counted among US military deaths in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/world/middleeast/19contractors.html
Casualties among private contractors in Iraq have soared to record levels this year, setting a pace that seems certain to turn 2007 into the bloodiest year yet for the civilians who work alongside the American military in the war zone. . .

At least 146 contract workers were killed in Iraq in the first three months of the year, by far the highest number for any quarter since the war began in March 2003, according to the Labor Department, which processes death and injury claims for those working as United States government contractors in Iraq.

That brings the total number of contractors killed in Iraq to at least 917, along with more than 12,000 wounded in battle or injured on the job, according to government figures and dozens of interviews.

The numbers, which have not been previously reported, disclose the extent to which contractors — Americans, Iraqis and workers from more than three dozen other countries — are largely hidden casualties of the war. . .

The number of US Attorneys targeted for possible firing is now up to 30

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003250.php
[Paul Kiel] So now we know who, how, and when. But why? It's clear from local press reports that the vast majority of the U.S. attorneys once targeted for firing never heard any complaints from their superiors about their performance. So the search continues.

More numbers: http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/05/4459_the_numbers_add.html

The Daily Show nails Gonzales’ duplicity

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/18/the-daily-show-catches-gonzales-hypocrisy-on-mcnulty/

Why the Comey/Ashbrook story will have legs (if the press starts to pay attention to it)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051701974.html
[WP] No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat. But there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president's willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible. . . [read on]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/17/nsa_follow_up/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] To say that Alberto Gonzales' "lack of candor is no longer surprising" is to say that the Attorney General of the United States is a serial liar. Is that a state of affairs that we can just passively accept, leaving it up to George Bush to decide whether he will remove his most loyal follower as the country's chief law enforcement officer? If Bush decides (as he almost certainly will, for many reasons) to keep Gonzales, then do we just meekly accept the fact that we have an Attorney General who lies continuously -- not even with noble intentions, but merely to conceal his own wrongdoing and illegality and that of the President's? . . .

There is clear and definitive evidence of deliberate lawbreaking. In addition to Congressional investigations, there is simply no excuse for anything other than the immediate commencement of a criminal investigation by a Special Prosecutor. And the administration ought to be pressured every day to account for what it did here. This is not a one-day or one-week fleeting scandal. These revelations amount to the most transparent and deliberate crimes -- felonies -- by our top government officials, not with regard to private and personal matters but with regard to how our government spies on us.

Hiatt-like protests are welcome (even if inexcusably belated), but they must be accompanied by genuine and relentless demands for follow-up and accountability otherwise they will amount to nothing more than inconsequential rhetoric. The Attorney General lied continuously, and the administration concealed pervasive criminality at the highest levels of our government. Even Fred Hiatt says so. So now what?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705180011?f=h_top
[Jamison Foser] Lawlessness: that's how the Post editorial board described the Bush administration in Wednesday's editorial about Comey's testimony -- "Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source."

And that's the way the Post has described the Bush administration several times in the past. . .

But does The Washington Post actually care that the executive branch has engaged in years of lawlessness -- and lawlessness about important things like torture and spying on Americans? . . . The Post editorial board's reluctance to deal with the questions raised by its own statements -- what should the nation do about the president's lawlessness? -- and apparent lack of long-term (or even medium-term) memory are particularly breathtaking.

Most people, after concluding for the ninth time, that the executive branch is behaving in a "lawless" way, would begin to wonder what steps -- special counsel? congressional censure? impeachment hearings for Gonzales? for Bush? -- could be taken to force the administration to begin obeying the law.

Most people, after noting again and again and again that the administration is stonewalling and covering up legitimate inquiries into its actions, would realize that expecting the administration to be forthcoming is a fool's errand, and would begin searching for ways to compel the disclosure that isn't coming voluntarily. . .

It's simple, really: A news organization that believes the president is acting in a "lawless" way in ordering things like torture and "systematic human rights violations" and spying on Americans but does not dedicate overwhelming resources to pursuing every possible aspect of the story is failing its readers, and failing its profession.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705170006?f=h_latest
ABC and CBS still have not reported -- on either their evening news or morning news broadcasts -- former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's account of what NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams May 15 called a "rare glimpse of a high-level, late-night power struggle" over the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic wiretapping program. . .

More: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/18/comey_testimony/index.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006141.html

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006140.html

Why the Bush gang says they can’t talk about it

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10843.html

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/05/18/whgonzales/index.html

The Bush gang continues to insist that no matter how little respect or confidence anyone of either party has for Alberto Gonzales, he’s staying

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003251.php
"It's important for any public official to have as much confidence as he can garner. And that's going to ebb and flow," Fratto counseled, "but it will not ebb and flow with this President and this Attorney General." . . . [read on!]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10842.html
[Tony Fratto, the latest clown auditioning for Tony Snow’s big red nose] Q: Would the White House consider a vote of no confidence to have any procedural impact at all, or would you consider it an empty political stunt?

FRATTO: I think we would consider it to be just another political stunt. . . I think it adds up to the bottomless bag of tricks that Democrats in the Senate would like to pull out on a weekly basis, regarding the Attorney General. The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President . . .

More: http://www.first-draft.com/2007/05/today_on_holden_12.html

Or. . . .

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10833.html
[Steve Benen] For those keeping score at home, that’s 10 Republican senators who’ve publicly said they think it’s time for Gonzales to go, one way or another. . . The guy’s toast.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/18/will-the-republicans-back-up-their-condemnations-with-a-vote-of-no-confidence/
[Emptywheel] Looseheadprop offered some thoughts this morning on the importance of next Wednesday's no confidence vote in the Senate. As she says, the point of the "meaningless political stunt" is to test whether we have the votes to impeach Gonzales. We need 66 votes, but with Joementum in our caucus and Senator Johnson still recuperating, that means we're looking for 18 votes from Republicans on Wednesday, assuming the rest of our caucus remains loyal (hopefully, the Blue Dogs will look at the way Gonzales and Bush used and abused Pryor's bipartisan good faith, and think seriously about supporting the no confidence vote). A formidable task, certainly. But when you consider how many Republicans have already voiced their disapproval of Gonzales, are hopelessly implicated in the USA Scandal, or are up for a tough re-election in 2008, we've got plenty to work with.

Unfortunately, Senator "Colonize Your Womb for the Fatherland," Coburn, has already backed off his tough statements on Gonzales, saying that while he thinks Gonzales should resign, he would vote against a no confidence vote. I guess we know how valuable Coburn's tough talk really is.

In the meantime, here are my evolving thoughts of who, in the Republican caucus, might be persuaded to use the no confidence vote as a graceful way to escort Gonzales out of the Justice Department. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051801969.html
Even as he came under renewed political pressure in Washington this week, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales faced sharp criticism from many of his own U.S. attorneys at a private meeting in San Antonio, prosecutors who were there said.

At an executive session Wednesday during the Justice Department's annual U.S. attorneys conference, Gonzales met with most of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys to apologize for the controversy over the firings of nine prosecutors last year and to attempt to shore up sagging morale.

More than a dozen U.S. attorneys spoke during the morning session, most of them expressing concern to Gonzales about the scandal's impact on their own offices and the overall image of the department, several participants said. . .

Alberto Gonzales, enabler

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/19/72727/7142

Well, I give them this: we haven’t been talking about Karl Rove for a while

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/18/alberto-gonzales-white-house-consigliere/
[Scarecrow] On MSNBC’s Hardball, Senator Schumer said he saw no purpose in recalling Gonzales to testify, because Gonzales would, as he had twice already, refuse to answer questions or claim he didn’t recall anything that mattered. Schumer understands the more Gonzales testifies, the more the media and public will conclude Gonzales is the issue, rather than the lawless regime for which he became loyal consigliere. . . [read on]

The Republican record on election fraud

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/18/85746/7741

Will we get a decent immigration bill out of this Congress?

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2007&base_name=post_3752#016633

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_05_13_archive.html#1022581298263588549

In case no one has noticed, between the Reading First scandal, the student loan scandal, and now this, the Dept of Education has become quite the center for corruption in this administration

http://www.first-draft.com/2007/05/one_of_these_da.html
[ABC] The White House appointee in charge of the Education Department's troubled financial aid office took home $250,000 in bonuses, leading Democratic lawmakers to question what she did to deserve such lavish rewards. . .

The Bush bubble and what it means for the next Republican nominee for President

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/18/opinion/18krugman.html
[Paul Krugman] Mr. Bush has degraded our government and undermined the rule of law; he has led us into strategic disaster and moral squalor.

But the leading contenders for the Republican nomination have given us little reason to believe they would behave differently. Why should they? The principles Mr. Bush has betrayed are principles today’s G.O.P., dominated by movement conservatives, no longer honors. In fact, 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. . . .

There was a telling moment during the second Republican presidential debate, when Brit Hume of Fox News confronted the contenders with a hypothetical “24”-style situation in which torturing suspects is the only way to stop a terrorist attack.

Bear in mind that such situations basically never happen in real life, that the U.S. military has asked the producers of “24” to cut down on the torture scenes. Last week Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, circulated an open letter to our forces warning that using torture or “other expedient methods to obtain information” is both wrong and ineffective, and that it is important to keep the “moral high ground.”

But aside from John McCain, who to his credit echoed Gen. Petraeus (and was met with stony silence), the candidates spoke enthusiastically in favor of torture and against the rule of law. Rudy Giuliani endorsed waterboarding. Mitt Romney declared that he wants accused terrorists at Guantánamo, “where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil ... My view is, we ought to double Guantánamo.” His remarks were greeted with wild applause.

And torture isn’t the only Bush legacy that seems destined to continue if a Republican becomes the next president. . .

What we need to realize is that the infamous “Bush bubble,” the administration’s no-reality zone, extends a long way beyond the White House. Millions of Americans believe that patriotic torturers are keeping us safe, that there’s a vast Islamic axis of evil, that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, that Bush appointees are doing a heckuva job — and that news reports contradicting these beliefs reflect liberal media bias.

And the Republican nomination will go either to someone who shares these beliefs, and would therefore run the country the same way Mr. Bush has, or to a very, very good liar.

More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/18/12297/5620
[McJoan] Bush's bubble is the base of the Republican party, the 28 to 30 percent who still approve of his job performance. Bush's bubble is the majority of the Beltway media--led by Broder. Bush's bubble is 98 percent of the Republican Congress, in both the House and the Senate, who continue to follow his lead, who continue to obstruct according to his vision, who would keep us in Iraq until we "win," even if that means another decade or two of treading water, sacrificing thousands more Americans lives, hundreds of thousand more Iraqi lives all in the vain attempt to not lose.

This is the Republican party we are dealing with. There may be plenty of nice, moderate Republicans out there, but they aren't the ones in power, and so far they are willing to be complicit to all of the ills manifest in the Bush administration; more, to emulate it and to see it as the key to retaining the White House. You need to look no further than Romney's and Giuliani's fervent embrace of torture, McCain's steadfast and ridiculous commitment to Iraq.

The American people rejected those politics in 2006, and will likely reject them again in 2008. But in the meantime, in the intervening 20 more months of Bush rule and too narrow Democratic majority in Congress, we've got to be fully aware of just who it is we're dealing with in the opposition. . .

Another reason why John McCain will never be President

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccains-missed-votes-on-iraq-trigger-reid-rebuke-2007-05-17.html
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is the only presidential candidate in Congress to have missed a major vote on the Iraq war this year, and his absences are not sitting well with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Liz Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for Reid, told The Hill, “Sen. McCain has spent considerable time defending the president on Iraq and catering to the Republican base on immigration, but has only managed to show up for four of the last 14 Iraq votes and parachute into [yesterday’s] immigration press conference at the last minute. Who is the real John McCain?” . . .

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/18/mccain-fbomb/
Busy campaigning for his presidential bid, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has missed over 40 consecutive roll-call votes, going five straight weeks “without casting a vote on the Senate floor.”

Yesterday, after apparently skipping most of the extended closed-door White House/Senate immigration negotiations, McCain “suddenly re-emerged” to take part in the press conference announcing the deal.

This isn’t sitting well with McCain’s colleagues. Tonight, Fox News correspondent Major Garrett reported that “anger burst forth memorably and loudly” when Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) accused McCain of being “too busy running for president.” McCain responded by using “the f-word toward Cornyn” . . .

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/18/23145/0473
[Jonathan Singer] Yesterday's issue of the Los Angeles Times contains an interesting profile of John McCain's health written by Ralph Vartabedian. Skipping past some of McCain's physical ailments and general problems associated with his fairly old age (at least for a presidential candidate), the article also focuses mental health, particularly his quickness to anger. . . .

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain17may17,1,3526425.story

Let’s see: Republican Congressman uses an earmark to get the government to build a commuter transit center near a bunch of property he owns – raising the value of said property. Think this would raise the interest of the House Ethics committee? Think again

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003246.php

Wolfie’s deal

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/18/wolfowitz_resigns_from_world_bank/
Wolfowitz will be able to collect a $400,000 performance bonus due him on June 1 . . . In the end, the 24-member bank board, in a statement that all but exonerated Wolfowitz, said, "He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that. We also accept that others involved acted ethically and in good faith."

Bonus item: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt” [Mark Twain]

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/4047
[AP] Justice Clarence Thomas sat through 68 hours of oral arguments in the Supreme Court's current term without uttering a word. . . .

In nearly 16 years on the court, Thomas typically has asked questions a couple of times a term. . .

But the last time Thomas asked a question in court was Feb. 22, 2006, in a death penalty case out of South Carolina. A unanimous court eventually broadened the ability of death-penalty defendants to blame someone else for the crime. . .

A recent tally by McClatchy Newspapers underscored this point: Thomas has spoken 281 words since court transcripts began identifying justices by name in October 2004.

***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).

I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***