What Is the Supreme Court Trying to Say ?

I am totally confused. The Supreme Court refused to hear the petition for Habeus Corpus relief from inmates in Guantanamo.

The Washington Post Headline sent me into dispair

Court Denies Appeal From Guantanamo Detainees

Further down, however, the court, or rather Stevens and Kennedy (known as the swingers) seem to be sending Bush and the gang of four (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) a message writing

"Despite the obvious importance of the issues raised in these cases, we are persuaded that traditional rules governing our decision of constitutional questions . . . and our practice of requiring the exhaustion of available remedies as a precondition to accepting jurisdiction over applications for the writ of habeas corpus . . . make it appropriate to deny these petitions at this time," Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in a statement.

However, the court's policy does not require "the exhaustion of inadequate remedies," they noted, adding, "If petitioners later seek to establish that the Government has unreasonably delayed proceedings under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 . . . or some other and ongoing injury, alternative means exist for us to consider our jurisdiction over the allegations made by petitioners before the Court of Appeals."

If the government were to take "additional steps to prejudice the position of petitioners in seeking review in this Court," the statement said, courts with jurisdiction, including the Supreme Court, should act promptly to uphold the writ of habeas corpus.

To me that sounds as if they have overturned the provision depriving the inmates of the right of habeas corpus. The decision, as I read it, seems to just say that the inmates have to give the military tribunal's and the related appeals process a try, before complaining (as will be their right ?) to the supreme court.

By they way, the DC circuit seems to feel free to ignore findings of the Supreme Court. They declared that Guantanamo is not US territory. Wasn't that settled ? Does the Supreme Court just let lower courts ignore their decisions ?

I am very confused. What do I do ? I go to www.discourse.net of course. All I learned there was that Michael Froomkin has had 1700002 visits which is not what I wanted to know but is a very round (and large) number.

John Bull RIP

Some striking facts from the Washington Post related to the Iranian seisure of 15 UK Sailors

the 7 solution

A poll published in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper found that only 7 percent of Britons surveyed believed London should be preparing to use military force against Iran.

You know that the editor of the Sunday Telegraph enjoyed publishing that poll almost as much as Fox News enjoys reporting that two thirds of Americans disapprove of George Bush. In recent decades UK public opinion has been markedly more hawkish than continental European public opinion. I think that Blair has finally managed to bridge the channel.

Even more amazing

In London, about a dozen British protestors demonstrated outside the Iranian embassy,demanding that the captives, taken March 23, be freed.

That would be less than one demonstrator per capitive. I might add that the Post's reporter, Kevin Sullivan, seems to have been a bit lazy. I mean if there were "about a dozen", couldn't he have counted them ?

The Defence minister seems to have gotten the message

"There is no reason to continue to keep them there. We are anxious that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible and that it be resolved by diplomatic means and we are bending ...," [right over and lowering our trousers Defense Minister Des] Browne said, according to the BBC.

In spite of my immature inability to avoid a mocking tone, I fully agree with the majority of her majesties subjects and eagerly watch the preliminary signs that sanity is spreading to John Bull's other country.

Paradise Lost

I much enjoyed Sampson Agonistes, but I think that Paradise Lost, that is, the confirmation hearing of interim US attorney for Utah Brett Tolman would be the true masterpiece. Sad to say I'm pretty sure we will be deprived of this epic. to eplain

Sampson sought to be a U.S. attorney, too, and he was the administration's preferred choice last year to be chief prosecutor in his native Utah. But he was nudged aside for another GOP lawyer, Brett L. Tolman, who was favored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). Tolman was counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee in late 2005 when, at Justice's request, he had language inserted into USA Patriot Act legislation that allowed Gonzales to circumvent Senate confirmation by appointing interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely. Congress is in the process of repealing the provision.

Ohhhh my the guy who slipped in the provision which allowed the attorney general to nominate perment interim US attorneys then tried to take advantage of that provision to be US attorney in Utah. Now congress has wised up and deleted the provision (Bush wouldn't dare veto the deletion and besides 96>67 if you get my drift).

Now Tolman has two choices. He can give up or he can face the Senators he tricked in order to avoid facing them. That would be a hearing to watch. Sad to say, I'm pretty sure that Truman is bold even reckless but not a total nut case and will let his restored 120 days of no longer permanent temporariness expire.

Here is the awesome Screen Shot including the new image corresponding to the "contact me" jpg which McCain was sending by hotlinking without permission. Thank you anonymous ICM friend who may be concerned about liability.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri Claims he was tortured by the CIA.

I can't say how much I wish I didn't believe him. Given revelations that torture was official policy and given the gravity of the crimes of which he was accused, I don't doubt that he was tortured with temperature extremes and heat deprivation and would be very surprised if he has not been water boarded.

To remain true to our traditions and principles, we must release him and punish his torurers even if they were just following orders and punish the people who gave those orders (and that means you Mr President). I'm sure no policy maker will actually propose releasing him. I personally would probably make an exception and get back to respecting the rule of law tomorrow. I do think that the perpetrators should be punished.

I also have to note that I don't find all of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri's allegations convincing.

Nashiri said, according to the transcript, that he "invented" some information just to "make people happy" during his interrogations. One of those statements was that Osama bin Laden, whom he had met numerous times, had procured a nuclear weapon.

"They were extremely happy because of this news," he said, according to the transcript.

Yeah right. I would be delighted if someone in a position to know told me that Bin Laden has an atomic bomb. I'm crushed to hear the claim was invented.

Hobson's Choice

My Reply to John Harris's e-mail to Glenn Greenwald

Boy is this ever inside baseball (whatever the hell that means). I haven't read Greenwald's reply.

As far as I can tell, the main, indeed the only, argument in this e-mail is that the New York Times and The Washington Post do it as well so it is OK. This applies to sending stories to Drudge (IIRC only the Times does this although Harris is not clear on that point) and changing the texts of stories without flagging updates.

My reply is that maybe that's OK for printed newspapers, but Politico is a blog and blogs are, in some respects, held to higher standards. In particular, it is generally considered unacceptable for a blogger to change or update a post in any way without flagging the change (typically with the word update). Also, there is the google cache, which means that critics can identify unflagged changes and bloggers can be called to account to explain why they do not flag changes becuase they are "ordinary changes made to reflect new circumstances, as distinct from factual errors." Harris better hope that every change politico has ever made without "highlight"ing it corresponds to breaking news and not facts which the Politico postr could have known when writing the original story. I won't bother checking but someone will.

People don't keep all editions of a paper newspaper around for cross checking. Thus it is not possible to slip over things as it used to be. A web site (including www.washingtonpost.com and www.nytimes.com) can be policed more ruthlessly than a paper paper. Does Mr Harris remember the time that comments on www.washingtonpost.com were shut down (and some deleted forever even though they contained no dirty words but rather an embarassing promise to provide evidence for claims in the Post which evidence was not forthcoming). The internet does.

Harris honestly seems to think that he can keep the fact that Politico gets 65% of its traffic straight from Drudge secret. He clearly has not read the comments to the post which prompted his e-mail.

John Harris has a problem. He thinks that Washington Post standards are good enough for the blogosphere. He will learn to his regret that bloggers have standards and will not tolerate the sort of crap the Washington Post pulls correcting errors without admitting them and trying to hide information of interest to readers.

As someone said re swampland -- you're playing in the big leagues now. Get used to i.

Why does Peer Review Protect the Literature from Loonies ?

It appears that peer review has indeed succeeded in the minimal accomplishment of excluding total nutcases from the scientific literature.

I wonder why. In peer review the referees are chosen by the editor. The editor makes the final decision. It should be easy for a rich nutcase to set up a peer reviewed nutcase journal in which the peers chosen to referee articles belong to the same deranged sect as the editor and the authors of the articles. What's the problem. Peer review is a process. It's content is based on the choice of the peers. That choice is made, in secret, by editors. I could tell you stories about cronyism leading to a lazy good for nothing getting articles published by editors who are his personal friends, but I don't want to talk dirt on my personal friends.

One famous example of the insanity exclusion, is the fact that all peer reviewed articles on global warming present evidence that supports the claim that human activities are, at least, the major factor in recent warming. I think this happened because the claim is true and said human activities result in such a mass of evidence that any serious honest inquiry reaches that conclusion. Others (cough senator Inhofe cough) might consider this the result of a conspiracy by editors of peer reviewed journals to mislead us.

Another example is abstinence only sex eduction. The claim that it has benefits is not supported by the peer reviewed literature hence

Progressives' focus on scientific legitimacy in their critiques has put abstinence-only advocates, who have long enjoyed their favored status within the Bush administration, on the defensive. They've resorted to citing non-peer-reviewed studies by outfits like the Heritage Foundation to back up the claim that their science is sound and accusing peer-reviewed journals of conspiring to silence them. "What they are saying is that, in order to be medically and scientifically accurate, you must be verified and supported in your research by peer review," Focus on the Family's Linda Klepacki told the Christian Examiner. "Abstinence education cannot get into peer-review journals because the journals are controlled by far-left liberal organizations that do not allow us to publish. That automatically eliminates abstinence-only education, from their standpoint."

But I mean jesus, if Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson can set up their own "universities" why can't they set up a peer reviewed journal ?

I assume this blog is not read by much of anyone and certainly not by rich right wing nut cases, or I wouldn't make the suggestion.

Update from comments

Maxine said...

The peer-reviewed journal owned by the nutcase would have a very low impact factor, so nobody would submit to it. it would have a low impact factor because all it would publish would be articles that passed the secret cabal of "nutcase sympathiser" peer-reviewers, hence nobody would read the journal except the nutcases, and there would not be enough of them for the journal to qualify for an impact factor -- or if it did, the impact factor would be about 0.1 and nobody sane would ever submit to it.

True Maxine, but the cut off appears to be "peer reviewed" not "peer reviewed with an impact factor over 0.1". Also, even though same journal cites are not (always) counted. It would be easy for mr Rich wingnut to set up two wingnut journals which cite each other. Citation analysis can't protect the literature from a group of pointless mutually citing journals as is agreed by almost all economists and sociologists (who tend to disagree about what the group of pointless journals is).

Orrin Hatch extracts an amazing confession from Kyle Sampson

(not that he was trying).

Below I said that I was not cut out for liveblogging and that the Senate judiciary committee had recessed for lunch. I recessed for dinner and never came back. Paul Kiel is very good a liveblogging (among many other things) . He notes

Hatch asks Sampson again whether the Cunningham investigation had anything to do wtih Lam's removal. Sampson again says no.

On a line of questioning about why Iglesias was put on the list, Sampson says that four names were put on the list at about the same time (mid-October), but that three came off. Iglesias stayed on because removing him "wouldn't create any problems with the home state senators" -- meaning Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM).

Oh my. This means that there are three serving US attorneys who were put on the list in mid-October 2006 and removed by November 15 2006. I think it is clear to everyone that Iglesias was fired because he refused to use his office to help Republicans (there may be a tiny bit of debate about whether his offence was refusing Wilson's and Domenici's suggestion that he indict a Democrat before election day or failing to harass ACORN (progressive group doing a registration drive) because a contracter defrauded ACORN out of a few bucks by forging the signatures of a 15 year old and a 13 year old on a registration application). Sampson suggests that the other 3 were spared because a Senator came to their assistance.

I assume that they are still US attorneys because they used their offices to help Republicans. I would sure like to know those three names.

No senator seems to have asked the question "who are the three US attorneys you put on the list within a month of election day and took off the list no more than one week after election day ?" No bad question. Better

"You said Iglesias was one of 4 USAs put on the list in mid October. Who were the other three ?"

Then if it is answered (which is unlikely Sampson did not seem to be totally panicked to me and he is clearly smart).

"why were those three US attorneys you put on the list within a month of election day and took off the list no more than one week after election day ?"

Update: Schumer nails it

Now Schumer is asking about who was on the purge list but were then taken off.

Sampson says the USA for Middle District of North Carolina Anna Mills Wagner (ph). Monica Goodling suggested that she be removed (not Western District as in one of the emails), because she had a successful gang prosecution program.

Sampson can't remember who the other three others added in mid-October were.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Firing US attorneys for reasons other than extreme misconduct or a change in the party of the President is unprecedented in recent decades and he doesn't remember. I'd say that is an HR Block to far. It is impossible that Sampson really forgot those names. I am sure they were taken off the list because they abused their office for partisan gain.

Schumer nails it again

5:25 Update: Schumer again, asking about Iglesias.

[snip]

"Sometime in late October, those in the senior management in the department, the DAG, his CoS, myself, Monica Goodling, went back to look at the list." I don't remember it being one discussion, but a series of discussions. Iglesias was added then. Sampson still can't name who was responsible.

That means there are three other people who know the three names. Did they all forget them ? Would Ms Goodling be able to remember if she were granted immunity from prosecution ? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Schumer is doing great, but I would have asked "does the name Christopher J. Christie ring a bell ?" When asking about the three names.

Finally

Schumer pushes him on whether he would fire Iglesias if he had it to do all over again. Sampson says, "I wish the Department hadn't gone down this road." He also says that he would not have fired Iglesias.

Hey, you know, fired US attorneys can be rehired. I mean all is not lost. If it was a mistake to fire Iglesias (and McKay and Lam and Bogden and Charlton and Cummins and maybe even Chiara) they can be re-appointed.

Why not ? We all know why not but I would love to hear the answer to that question from Gonzales and Rove.

Sampson Agonistes

Live Blogging *Not* a transcript.

A Specter haunting the Republican party in disarray

Arlen Specter just delayed the hearing because he was deciding how to vote on the out of Iraq by March resolution. He went on to describe the evidence that the firings of Lam and Iglesias was improper and that the DOJ was planning to use the text slipped into the patriot act renewal by his council without his knowledge. Then he went on to say Rove and Miers should testify with transcript but without swearing an oath which doesn't matter.

Senate Judiciary in Session
Sessions in Senate Judiciary

He had to remind Chairman Leahy that he was going to speak. Clearly the Republicans are unwilling to be represented by Specter who is on the other side on this one. Sessions mainly argued that Presidents have the authority to fire US attorneys. He noted Sampson's suggestion to use the patriot act clause.

Interrogation of Sampson

Sampson in quotes. Senators with no quotes.

Sampson swears he has not documents in his custody and control which have not been given to the committee.

Sampson swears he did not talk to the president after the 2004 election and was not present in any meeting where the President was also present and in which firing USAs was discussed after the 2004 election.

Interrogation on an Nov 15 e-mail listing USAs to fire "not informed anyone in Karl's shop" which you considered a pre firing necessity. Is Karl, Karl Rove ? "Yes". Was the proposal circulated to Karl's shop. "I believe it was"

Leahy asks.E-mail Miers to Sampson. Sampson asked who will decide if the President must review ? He now says he doesn't know if the President signed off.

What about the pause while Bush was travelling ? Did you hear from White House during that period ? "I don't remember" bingo hit contact the first HR Block* of the hearing.

"I didn't remember this until looking at this document right now" he missed a question reading a document. Agrees that Ryan called in some political chits. Friends called Karl who all agree is Karl Rove.

long pause then "I don't remember Mr Chairman" = HR Block number 2.

I would hope you would search your memory

Arlen Questions

Outline will be on

Was any US attorney asked to resign because either pursuing hot leads on corruption that someone wanted to stop or because refused to prosecute cases which should not be prosecuted.

Was Gonzales candid.

refers to "real problem right now" e-mail.

"There was never connnection in my mind between ..."

Was it just a coincidence ? What was the real problem ?

"immigration enforcement"

Iglesias added to list on election day after calls from Wilson and Domenici. Was there any consideration of asking him to resign because he refused to carry out a prosecution

"not to my knowledge. I looked at list of people whose 4 year terms were expiring. Added 4 in mid October. In consultation with Elston."

Are you prepared to swear under oath that (what they were doing)
"To my knowledge that was the case"

Conzales' candor

AS:Gonzales said he was not involved but e-mail says he attended a meeting 21/11/07 with USAs on the agenda. Was he at the meeting.
KS: "I don't think the AGs assertion that he was not involved was accurate"
AS: so he lies like a dog
KS: "yes sir"

AS: were you planning to use the patriot act clause ? The answer is yes clearly by e-mails. You have no time to answer this question.
KS: That was a bad idea by staff not adopted by principals. I advocated that but AG AG and WHC HM didn't adopt my recomendation.
AS: Was it rejected by the AG
KS: yes.
AS: do you have an e-mail to that effect ?
KS: no

Chuck Schumer:

CS:Back to AG AG lied like a dog when he said he wasn't involved.
KS: I don't think AG AGs claim is precisely true. Discussed with AG AG. He has clarified
CS: at least 5 times.
KS: huh?
CS: at least 5 times ?
KS: yes

CS: keeps saying yes or no to KS

Cornyn (I think) asks the Chairman Leahy to tell Shumer to let KS answer the questions.
Leahy says KS has said he doesn't remember a dozen times (I counted 2 but they coming fast) and we are trying to find out if he remembers anything. You will get your chance box turtle let schumer continue.

Schumer notes he is asking yes or no questions and KS is dodging them
I have indeed lost count of the HR Block's they are indeed coming fast and furious.

Cornyn reads Sampson's prepared statement asks you still think that ?
KS Yes:
Cornyn reads Sampson's claim that firings not for improper reasons. Any improper requests to fire.
KS: I don't recall
Cornyn says Mueller said no FBI agent claimed firings interfered with an investigation. This is clearly a lie. Special agent in charge in San Diego definitely said something to that effect for attribtion to a journalist.

Cornyn blah blah this is pointless won't blog box turtle.

Cornyn says he has heard no (new) evidence of impropriety and if there is none he is sorry that nice guys like KS caught up in a partisan witch hunt. See how goes from contitional to indicative.

Leahy objects they argue some.

Kohl gives a speech quoting "loyal Bushies" and denouncing Bush so he is giving a speech not extracting information.

KS loyal Bushies mean loyalty to Bush priorities.

Kohl: KR involved so obviously it was political.


Kohl was as worthless as Cornyn. He wants to give a speech he can give a speech. Here he has Sampson under oath and he should have extracted information.

Senator ? asks how the Bush administration defines "performance".

Carol Lam what was the problem and when

KS: did not embrace anti gun violence initiative ?!?!
later immigration prosecution.

Feinstein. Back to AS on May 10 search warrent and May 11 and "real problem" with Lam. She enters the letter sent to Carol Lam (letter of commendation from boarder patrol or something). Your office remains a 100% rate of accepting Border patrol referrals and do not reduce felonies to misdemenors. 416 in 06 = 33?% increase over '05 with 100% conviction. USA today lists her in top 3 anti illegal immigrants. A real surprise ...

Who is Dusty Foggo ?

KS don't remember seeing notice from Lam about search warrent (nother HR Block)
DF: "right now" , "right now"

Were you aware of Cummins investigating Rep Gov, Bodgen investigating Rep Govs, McKay and Gov election in Wash, Charlton and 2 rep reps, Iglesias investigating dems, aware of calls to Iglesias, aware of concerns, No no yes yes no no no.

Sessions
USAs are great people and none would have done something they think not right so all unfired ones are OK. This is pointless.

I am not cut out for liveblogging. besides no one is reading and my sound just cut off.
They seem to have switched me to a Bush speech. Ugggghhhh. I was at www.washingtonpost.com

OK off to CSPAN-3

You know I kinda liked Missing Linc Chaffee, but I sure am glad Sheldon Whitehouse is in the Senate (how about Whitehouse in the Whitehouse). He did a bit of speachifying like Kohl and Cornyn and such, but he knows his stuff. It was argued that taking the 5th can't be held against anyone. He notes that is anyone who is a defendent on trial and that the DOJ has a rule that if the officer of a corporation takes the 5th the corporation must fire them (they can order that ?
That's not just disrespectful of the bill of rights that's socialism). Tough informed and original.

Break for lunch.



*H.R. "Bob" Haldeman (Nixon's chief of staff for you kids) advises someone like Erlichman "if they ask you a question you don't want to answer say that you don't remember no one can prove you remember something" in his testimony at Judiciary back in the day, he had a very very poor memory. It is purely a coincidence that H.R. Clinton has the same first 2 initials. Her memory lapses about Whitewater and Castle Grand were undoubtably honest.

Pony question answered
The word did not come from Singapore.

A Brilliant Op Ed by [Michael] Waldman [and Justin Levitt] includes

Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch.

Say it brother I mean distant cousin.

The very strange thing is that there is *another* Michael Waldmann who is a brilliant economist while this Michael Waldman is executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law

Porn Republic

Awesome fact from Adult Video News and Max Blumenthal via Radly Balko (via Glenn Greenwald)

Balko is discussing the firing of Paul Charlton US Attorney for Arizona

The emails indicate that Charlton frequently butted heads with higher-ups in DOJ over priorities and procedures.

[snip]

The porn industry publication Adult Video News and the Nation’s Max Blumenthal

revealed last week that Charlton also came under fire from federal “Porn Czar” Brent Ward for his reluctance to take on federal obscenity cases. But the case in question had a curious twist. The government wanted to charge a porn distributor for shipping obscene movies across state lines. The problem is, another Arizona distributor just a few miles a way was selling several of the same movie titles. The second distributor had recently declared bankruptcy, and was being run by trustees for the federal government to fill its federal tax obligations.

The unpatriotic Balko does not report the name or address of the US government operated Porn shop, so patriotic readers will not be able to do their bit to reduce the deficit (I guess he is a libertarian and opposes censorship of porn but also opposes socialist porn).

However, he does make the brilliant observation

It’s sad, but not terribly surprising, that it would take accusations of excessive partisanship – that is, unfairly using the office to gain a political advantage over the Democrats – to spur the Democrats in Congress to take any meaningful action. Trample on the rights of U.S. citizens, and the Democrats largely look the other way – can’t be seen as soft on crime, or on national security. But trample on the political prospects of Democrats, and the subpoenas fly.

Ouch.

Stolen from Max Sawicky via Matthew Yglesias (whose names show that letters don't matter)

CNA YUO RAED TIHS?

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too

Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.

[Tkhnas, Woj.]

Posted by max at March 28, 2007 11:13 AM

I never thought spelling was ipmorantt and I did have some pboerlms reading it, but it is amazingly easy. I think part of the secret is that we can guess the word from context. Nonsense written with words each of which has letters jumbled (except for the first and last) might be incomprehensible. I should try that.

Also someone should program a letter jumbler, since it will be boring when everyone disenvowels trolls (or is that disemvowels ? I said I don't care about spellling) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling

Oprison off to Prison for a Giffen bad ?

Help me out here Paul, don't make me google.

The estimable Paul Kiel crack intern reporter at America's finest news source (I've enjoyed reading it more than the Onion recently) points out that the White House was involved in falsely denying White House involvement in the effort to make White House hack Richard Giffen US attorney in Easter Arkansas. However, he doesn't make it clear enough for me to know who is nailed.

The e-mail describes Sampson's intention of involving the White House but the to list consists only of DOJ employees. However, the 3rd page of the document is an email to one Christopher G. Oprison.

And who might that be ? I asked the google and found that he was appointed Associate Counsel to the President last November. He appears to have worked on the e-mail making false claims to congress about the activities of the office where he works. This would be a violation of the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, which makes it a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress.

very quick update: reading on up TalkingPointsmemo I see that Kiel is, of course, googling well ahead of me (I meant what I said about "crack" and "finest." Indeed he is the person in the White House who was directly informed by Sampson of the fact that the claim he signed off on is false in a previously released e-mail. This is in the bit of the e-mail posted then deleted on www.Washingtonpost.com as noted by me as linked to by Kevin Drum.

Oh my.

Hope bandwidth holds up for C-Span3 so I can watch Sampson Agonistes live THURS., C-SPAN3, 10AM ET.

Awesome Op Ed by Harold Meyerson

Including

The third [possible, partial explanation of Republicans sleepwalking] is that the alternative reality conveyed by the Republican media -- Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk -- has created a Republican activist base that is genuinely not reality-based, and from which the current generation of Republican pols is disproportionately drawn.

Things must be really shifting fast if a columnist in the Washington Post has a diagnosis of what ails the Republicans as insightful and hard hitting as this written by an Australian economist -- John Quiggin

Stolen from comments at Tapped

The idea of a timetable for withdrawal leads to Republican claims that the insurgents would lie low and wait for us to depart. Wouldn't that be the best thing for training the Iraqi army? Without all those explosions and firefights wouldn't training take place in an environment where a)the Iraqis would show up,b)infantry training with drills instead of live fire and c)fewer roadside bombs since the insurgents are simply biding their time to attack again.
Set a timetable and stick to it. It's the only rational course.

Posted by: TJM

TJM has just articulated what I have been thinking all along, isn't it exactly what we want for the insurgents to lie low for a time so we can rebuild the infrastructure, get Iraqis back to work and train the military and police. Who would want the insurgency back after we did all that?

Posted by: Th

What TJM said. I was about to write a blog post to that effect (really). I especially agree with Th's argument in support of TJM.

All I have left is the chance to note one odd thing. There is a bit of symmetry between the surge and the deadline -- both make combatents lie back and wait for it to be over.

please read on before biting my head off.

It appears that the surge has caused a shift of violence from Baghdad to Diyala as fighters are avoiding direct contact with the surging troops (esp the Mahdi army guys). Thus the "promise" consists of convincing Mahdi army fighters to lay low. On the other hand a deadline would be terrible because they and the sunni insurgents would lay low all over Iraq.

Now I think I can oppose the surge and support a deadline without falling into contradiction. For one thing the surge has direct costs to our overstrained military and the deadline does not. For another, the flypaper theory is absurd while there is solid evidence that the Baghdad surge has lead to increased violence in Dayala (the Mahdi army and the insurgents are not going to leave Iraq while laying low). Both Moqtada al Sadra and al Douri (close to insurgents) have said their condition for a cease fire is just that deadline. Iraqis are not convinced we don't plan to stay forever. A deadline for withdrawal would lead to actual withdrawal which I support (as do most Americans).

However, I don't see how it is possible to support the surge, which is explicitely of finite duration, while opposing a deadline for withdrawal. Both lead to fighters laying low. Is that a good thing or a bad thing Mr Brownstein ?

Matthew Yglesias Metaphor Watch

No homonyms in this post but a wonderful mixed metaphor "The grain of truth that this lie is spun out of". Has anyone ever managed to spin thread out of a grain ? The deliberate spinning (in this case like spinning thread with a spinning wheel not like putting back spin on a 3 point attempt) means that "the grain of truth out of which this lie sprouted" is no good, but how about "the filament of truth that this lie is spun out of" or "the nanotubule of truth that this lie is spun out of" ?

I concede that Matt's mixed metaphor is much better than my unmixed efforts.

Chutzpa All Time Record

Nerve, faccia di bronza, bold facedness, shamelessness and many other lawyerly virtues have never reached such heights.

Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

Dowd's argument, essentially, is that Goodling can not risk testifying because she is likely to be subject to prosecution when another witness with equally honest testimony would not be, since, evidently, the DOJ discriminates against high DOJ officials.

In the previous record setting argument, in which a man who murdered both parents threw himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he was an orphan, the claim of fact was true.

While Dowd goes on to argue that come Senators are prejudiced and hostile, he does not explain what Senatorial hostility has to do with the fifth, which concerns prosecution. There may be a special prosecutor named in this case, but a slip up like the naming of Cox and of Fitzgerald is highly unlikely, since the deciders are subjects of the investigation.

What's next ? I'm waiting for a prosecutor to take the fifth when a judge asks him if he can finish his closing arguments by 5 pm.

Bureacratic SNAFU Causes Interruption of US Torture Efforts

If you want to get anything done avoid committees, meetings, and memos.
As a result of such inefficient idiocies, the USA has been stuck in the community of semi decent nations (AKA the civilized world) for months.

“The administration has been engaged in a deliberative and thoughtful interagency process,” Mr. Johndroe said. “This process required additional time as new officials, including the defense secretary, director of national intelligence and White House counsel were brought into the deliberations.”

Not as stirring as "we hold these truths to be self-evident" but it might just do for the next 22 months.

Warning Goodwin's law violation below. Skip next paragraph if your doctor has advised you to avoid Goodwin's law violation.

Reminds me of a story Gosta Esping Anderson once told about how the Bureaucrats in the German Social Welfare agency slow walked the Nazi's effort to politicize the German welfare state (claiming they didn't have the information technology resourses or something) until VE day.

End of Goodwin's law violation related bloggin activities.

Is this another glorious victory for bureaucracy in the service of humanity ?

No bright lines, ignore red flags, count on red tape.

It's the only thing which is holding us above the abyss.

update: should have written
we are dangling over the abyss clinging to red tape