Does John McCain have the experience it takes to be President of the United States?

Who cares? His wife has the chutzpah it takes to piss on the little people, and that's good enough for her:

Cindy McCain: I'll never release my tax returns

WASHINGTON (AP) — Cindy McCain says she will never make her tax returns public even if her husband wins the White House and she becomes the first lady.

"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate," Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain, said in an interview aired on NBC's Today on Thursday.

Thanks for carrying the story, USAToday. When can we expect you to chime in on this issue the way you did four years ago?

Transparency doesn't come easily to politicians. Though Kerry has released his tax returns, he continues to resist releasing those of his wife, ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz. And though no one should be shocked that an administration headed by two former oilmen might seek energy-policy advice from Bush's and Vice President Cheney's oil-patch buddies, the White House has refused to disclose who met with Cheney's energy task force. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on whether Cheney must release meeting details.

Candidates should know by now that playing hide-and-seek with parts of their past just keeps the issues alive, fuels charges of a coverup and deflects attention from their desired message.

Voters are entitled to accountability and openness. Candidates who recognize that help raise democracy to a higher standard.

And USAToday is by no means alone in having found fault with Teresa Heinz Kerry, who in the end did release critical tax information, while giving a pass to Cindy McCain. The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Newsday all editorialized on the subject in 2004, but have been curiously silent this year.

Surprise!

And that doesn't even begin to touch on the expected silence from the usual Republican suspects: National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc.

Remember all that talk -- mostly coming from the panicked and dying traditional media -- about how they'd learned their lesson from becoming distracted and easily misled by the Bush team, both during the elections and in the run-up to the Iraq invasion?

Does it look like they were sincere about that to you?

UPDATE: Want the juicy bits of those NRO and Weekly Standard articles without sending them the traffic? Stop by at Nitpicker for his sardonic take on this travesty.

On Thursday -- "Mission Accomplished" Day -- we reminded ourselves of exactly how big of a #*$@ing idiot Richard Perle is and was.

He was, after all, the guy who wrote immediately following the Mission Accomplished Day Mark 1.0 that:

President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II.

And...

It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect.

And of course...

We will find Saddam's well-hidden chemical and biological weapons programs, but only when people who know come forward and tell us where to look.

Three laughably stupid assertions, even on the day they were made, and they've only grown more stupid with age.

So, how's the benefit of hindsight serving The New York Times? Brilliantly, as ever:

May 4, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Time to Cut the Cord
By RICHARD PERLE

Yes, because Richard Perle still owns a custom-tailored suit, he is worthy of publication on the New York Times Op-Ed page today.

Is he repentant? Not exactly. Though he starts off by implying that someone was a giant #*$@ing idiot five years ago. Just not him.

THE most important thing we can do to help the Iraqis and ourselves is to recognize — and reverse — the seminal mistake that followed the quick destruction of Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime: the foolish (however well-meaning) and arrogant belief that we know better than the Iraqis how to rebuild their devastated society.

Gee, I wonder how that "seminal mistake" got made?

It's not really worth anyone's time to analyze whether Perle's vision for Iraq has gotten any more clear-headed. It has, but only because he now recognizes that the ideas that led people to think that, um, certain American opinion leaders were giant #*$@ing idiots five years ago were in fact giantly #*$@ing idiotic. So, "Duh!" to them! Whoever they are.

The real question is why the NYT still feels it's doing anyone any good by collecting the three paragraph musings on Mission Accomplished Day Mark. 5.0 of the chief giant #*$@ing idiots who had it wrong on Mission Accomplished Days Marks 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0.

The least they could do is say that the price of publishing their thoughts is an admission that they're giant #*$@ing idiots. And if they won't do it, do it for them. Use that little bit of italicized type at the bottom where you usually tell everyone what a genius the person is:

RICHARD PERLE was an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

And just add...

RICHARD PERLE was an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. And a giant #*$@ing idiot.

See? Easy as pie. Corner office and a fat paycheck, please.

ABC:

Bush details $70 billion war funding request for 2009
Bush sends Congress details of $70 billion war request for 2009
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

President Bush sent lawmakers a $70 billion request Friday to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, which would give the next president breathing room to make his or her own war policy.

Friday's request fills in the details of the $70 billion placeholder that the White House asked for when it sent its budget to Congress in February. The money is for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

$70 billion? What happened to the $108 billion figure from the other day?

Confused? Here's the scoop:

The $108 billion is the figure Bush demands for supplemental spending. That is, spending on top of what was budgeted for fiscal year 2008 (FY08).

The $70 billion is the figure Bush demands be put in the fiscal year 2009 budget. FY09, as the article mentions, begins on October 1, 2008 -- 112 days before Bush's term ends.

And as we discussed the other day, it looks like Congressional Democrats would like to add extra money -- probably that $70 billion or so -- to the supplemental. Why?

Democratic leaders say they're likely to add the $70 billion for next year to that measure, which would allow them to avoid a politically painful vote on war funding in the heat of campaigning for the November elections.

Dems don't want to be facing, well, you, just as they're voting on another $70 billion (on top of the $108 Bush is going to force out of them) for the war they're campaigning on ending. And they don't want the next president, assuming it's a Democrat, to have to do the same in his or her first months in office.

And so George W. Bush will put on his oversized foam rubber "fiscal conservative" cowboy hat for a while, and pretend it makes sense to draw the line on the supplemental at $108 billion and not a penny more (or he'll veto it, he says), even though he's about to ask for another $70 billion a few weeks later.

Take a good look at that situation, though.

What's more absurd, Democrats who want to end the war voting to front him (and the next president) an extra $70 billion more than he wants? Or Bush's ridiculous notion that it's somehow fiscally conservative to "budget" $70 billion for the war in FY09, when he's right now demanding nearly 55% more than that in supplemental FY08 spending.

What a friggin' crock.

Via Think Progress:

On Tuesday, around 100 veterans and a dozen congressmen gathered on Capitol Hill to rally in support of Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) 21st Century G.I. Bill, which boasts the bipartisan support of 56 cosponsors.

In seeking the support of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — whom Webb said "needs to get on the bill" in order to secure more Republican support — Webb told McCain "several times that this is not a political issue." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) pointed to the bill’s bipartisan support: "[P]eople like John Warner and James Inhofe are on it."

According to the Congressional record, however, Inhofe (R-OK) quietly removed his name from the list of cosponsors on Tuesday — the same day as the Capitol Hill rally.

Here's just one of the ways that presidential politics intrudes on Congressional politics.

Everyone knows that Jim Webb's "New GI Bill" is a no-brainer. The recruits we've sent to Iraq and Afghanistan in exchange for promises of educational benefits absolutely must get their due. But current law gives them a mere pittance compared to what the actual costs of going to college are. Webb's bill seeks to remedy that, boosting the assistance to a level that's actually capable of giving our veterans a decent shot at paying the bills at a decent school.

McCain can't afford to be seen as being against that. But because he's running for president on the platform that Democrats are evil terrorists, he also can't be seen cooperating with them (even as they fall over themselves to claim they'll "reach out" and "work with the other side," by the way). So what's a 71 year old whose Sugar Mama wife buys him eight houses and a private jet (but won't release her tax returns) to do?

Why, introduce your own new GI Bill, of course. Or better yet, get a surrogate to do it for you, so that you don't look petty. And that's just what McCain did, with a hat tip to none other than his number one sycophant, the man with whom he teamed up to shamefully surrender his anti-torture principles to Bush, Lindsey Graham.

And now, quietly, the Republicans who were on board with Webb's bill (because remember, it's a no-brainer) begin to discover heretofore unknown reservations about the bill. Reservations which are, of course, magically remedied in McCain's Graham's bill. Or so we're told, anyway. The bill wasn't even introduced until Tuesday. But I'm sure that's plenty of time to become certain about the necessity of withdrawing from a bill you've been a co-sponsor of for two months, as Inhofe did.

So there's your McMaverick, who rises above petty partisan politics in service to our men and women in uniform, America. Webb has worked tirelessly -- in the age of the "60 votes to pass anything" Senate -- to get 56 co-sponsors for his bill. And just as he's nearing the ability to close the deal, McMaverick jets in on the wife's puddle jumper to start peeling people away. In addition to Inhofe, look for Susan Collins (R-ME), Pete Domenici (R-NM), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) -- who are currently cosponsors of both bills -- to be pressured to drop their support for Webb's.

And why? Over genuine policy differences? Almost certainly not, though that's what their claim will be. No, this will be so that Mr. Republican Presidential Candidate doesn't have to admit he's working with Democrats, even as he campaigns on being the McMaverick who'll cross party lines to do right by our veterans.

Jim Webb has him dead to rights:

"He’s so full of it."

LA Times:

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton embrace Fox News

Both Democratic contenders have stepped up their appearances, reaching out for swing voters who might be watching the populist-oriented channel.

By Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 2, 2008
NEW YORK -- Just a year ago, Fox News Channel was considered a pariah in many Democratic circles. But it appears that the cable news network is no longer in the doghouse.

Consider this week: On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a long-awaited appearance on "Fox News Sunday," a booking that host Chris Wallace had been seeking for more than two years. (The show airs on both the Fox broadcasting network and its sister cable channel.) On Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) granted her first interview to Bill O'Reilly, a commentator viewed with antipathy by much of the left, in no small part because of his denunciations of the Clintons in the 1990s. And this coming Sunday, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean plans to sit down with Wallace for the first time since November 2006.

Last year at this time, liberal activists pressured Democrats to stay off the news channel, which they termed a "Republican mouthpiece," successfully scuttling plans for two Fox-hosted debates. Obama and Clinton, wary of offending the party's base, largely steered clear of Fox News interviews.

These days, the candidates are not so standoffish.

NY Times:

Democrats and Fox News Make Friends
By BRIAN STELTER

Standing in front of a television camera last week, the chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, Terry McAuliffe, uttered four words that the Fox News Channel would not soon forget.

"Fair and balanced Fox!," he exclaimed, noting that the network was the first to project Mrs. Clinton’s Pennsylvania primary win.

Fox executives could not have asked for a more rousing endorsement. The next day it showed up in promotions.

All of a sudden, the once-frosty relationship between Fox News and the Democratic candidates seems to have grown warmer. Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama, who steadfastly refused to attend Fox-sponsored debates last year, are now giving plenty of interviews as they court Fox’s viewers, who are largely white, conservative and undecided.

Populist-oriented?

Oh, my head!

But hey, no one could have predicted that Fox would use these appearances for PR purposes, right?

So there you have it. For everyone who was so sure this was brilliant, because the candidates were "reaching out," apparently we forgot that the traditional media would still have an opportunity to define for America to whom they were reaching out. Fans of the candidates assured us that it was (pick one): 1) swing voters; 2) open-minded conservatives (ha!), or; 3) people who had lost their TV remotes. But gosh darn it if the Fox PR machine hasn't schooled us all. It was populists! Which means both Clinton and Obama -- and all Democrats, by extension -- are elitists.

Well played, all around! Here's to more such "successes!"

Remember, when you reach out, you leave your face unguarded. Some people are going to take that opportunity to slap you one.

Ah-ha-ha!

I mean, boo-hoo-hoo!

Relax, Celebrate Victory
Richard Perle

From start to finish, President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II. And like the allied victory over the axis powers, the liberation of Iraq is more than the end of a brutal dictatorship: It is the foundation for a decent, humane government that will represent all the people of Iraq.

This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect. It was conducted with immense skill and selfless courage by men and women who will remain until Iraqis are safe, and who will return home as heroes.

In full retreat, the war's opponents have now taken up new defensive positions: "Yes, it was a military victory, but you haven't found Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Or, "Yes, we destroyed Saddam's regime, but now other dictators will try even harder to develop weapons of mass destruction to make sure they will not fall to some future American preemptive strike."

We will find Saddam's well-hidden chemical and biological weapons programs, but only when people who know come forward and tell us where to look. While Saddam was in power, even a hint about his concealment and deception was a death sentence, often by unimaginable torture against whole families. Saddam had four years to hide things. We have had a few weeks to find them. Patience -- and some help from free Iraqis -- will be rewarded.

The man who wrote this wears custom-tailored suits, and appears on television and gives speeches around the world as a revered Serious Person.

You, who were right about the war even while he was stupifyingly wrong, have Doritos cheese on your shirt collar, and are considered by the Democrats you elected to end the war to be morons for wondering why it hasn't happened sooner.

Happy Mission Accomplished Day.

Regarding FISA, I've said it before:

Every time Congressional Dems actually slow down and take stock of the situation ... new revelations arise that should make all Americans who value our freedoms glad they did.

And I'll say it again. While Congressional Democrats have bought us yet more time to consider the folly of Jay Rockefeller's insane drive for Get Out of Jail Free cards for the telecoms, what has the world -- minus Rockefeller, apparently -- learned that should give us pause?

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as "military analysts" whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

Yes, that's right. We found out that -- gasp! -- the "administration" might very well be lying to us!

But not in Jay Rockefeller's world! No, siree! Everything's on the up-and-up there, even though he is occasionally moved to write secret letters to himself (Dick Cheney certainly wasn't reading them) hinting that he thinks something might be wrong.

Everything's hunky-dory, because Jay Rockefeller has had the help of the government in "studying" the situation:

Over the past year, the Senate intelligence committee has examined this issue, along with the need to bring the warrantless surveillance program within the law. We closely studied the facts, the documents and the alternatives to liability for the companies. Ultimately, we concluded that if we subject companies to lawsuits when doing so is patently unfair, we will forfeit industry as a crucial tool in our national defense.

No doubt "the facts, the documents and the alternatives" were presented oh-so-much-more fairly and honestly than were the facts, documents and alternatives presented by the Paid Pentagon Pundits. Yes, the "administration" arranged for ex-generals to lie through their teeth on national television about the run up to war. But they'd never do that to a rich guy, right?

So everything's cool, America! Jay Rockefeller's looking out for you, and he's got trust in his heart.

Ain't he sweet?

Congress Daily, via Politico, reports some of the "how" regarding the Democratic leadership's plans to bring the next Iraq funding bill to the floor without going through the appropriations committee:

HOW THEY'LL DO IT: CongressDaily's Christian Bourge and Peter Cohn say Democratic leaders may be able to bypass the appropriations committees by using the "never-enacted FY08 Military Construction Appropriations bill as a vehicle for the war supplemental and other provisions. . . . The bill would function as a 'shell' that would allow Democrats to avoid the usual committee process in both chambers and a formal House-Senate conference. House Democrats could also avoid giving Republicans a shot at procedural motions on the bill during floor votes."

What procedural motions are they looking to avoid? Probably our old friend, the motion to recommit.

But whether they decide to use the abandoned hulk of the MILCON appropriations bill or not, the plan that seems to be gelling is to bring the proposed appropriations to the floor in three parts: one package containing the $108 billion demanded by Bush; one with the proposed Democratic restrictions aimed at bringing the occupation to a close, and; one with additional domestic spending, to help the medicine (or poison, as you prefer) go down.

That's supposed to make liberal Democrats feel good about facing their voters ("I voted against the war funding, but for a withdrawal!") and make conservative Democrats feel good about facing their own ("I voted for the war funding and against the withdrawal!"), with other mixed options thrown in for the people in the middle ("I voted for the war funding, but also for extending unemployment benefits!"). And of course, Democratic challengers get to run against Republicans who voted for the war funding, but against everything else. Which, oddly enough, is what a dozen or so incumbent Democrats are probably going to end up doing.

House Republicans are, predictably, outraged. Said noted crybaby and GOP appropriator Jerry Lewis:

"By doing all three — skipping committee markup, having a limited or closed debate on the floor, and skipping conference committee — the Democrats will effectively shut down any semblance of democratic process in this Congress."

It is terrible, isn't it? Except for a vote on whether or not to give the president the $108 billion he demands for the war, another vote on whether or not to wind the war down and withdraw, and a third vote on whether or not additional money ought to be added for domestic priorities, the Congress will barely have any semblance of democratic process at all!

But Lewis has a point. What Republicans will be missing out on is the opportunity to force a vote aimed at creating an embarrassing attack ad they can run against Democrats in the fall, and as you know, the troops really want that very badly. It's actually what most of them are fighting for, if you think about it. Or, perhaps, if you refuse to. Ever.

You do have to wonder, though, why Democrats at this late date are still having to consider a procedure that does an end-around to avoid a motion to recommit, and why they're doing it on this bill. Recall that last summer, we ended up saddled with the disastrous Protect America Act as a result of the House's inability to find a way around the threat posed by the motion to recommit. So if you're going to attempt a maneuver that has Minority Whip Roy Blunt sayingDems, "are threatening to burn the House down" (probably a better description of what Republicans will be doing in response, actually), why use it to fund a war Democrats say they don't want in the first place? And why not use it to stop a spying bill Bush was forcing down their throats?

Who knows? But that's what they appear to be getting ready to do. Burn down the House for the sake of passing another $100 billion+ in war funding. And maybe, just maybe, topping this off with the whipped cream of caving on FISA, of all things.

Seriously, dudes. One turd per toilet, please. If you're going to bend the rules this hard, all I ask is that you screw Republicans with them just slightly more often than you do Democrats. Is that really so much to ask?

Yup. It's that time again.

Bush wants another $108 billion for Iraq, and he's threatening to veto any bill that either comes in higher than that amount, or attempts to impose any restrictions on how the occupation is conducted.

Why would he threaten to veto any bill with more than $108 billion in it?

Well, that depends on why it's there. For instance, if it's money that's added on to pay the educational benefits we promised the volunteers who joined our Armed Forces and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, well then, it's gonna get vetoed.

When asked about the popular plan to increase education benefits for troops returning from Iraq, however, Bush held firm.

"I made my position very clear to Congress and I will not accept a supplemental over $108 billion or a supplemental that micromanages the war, ties the hands of our commanders," Bush said. "We will work with Congress on these veterans' benefits .... But the $108 billion is $108 billion."

F you, soldier!

And why would those troop "supportin'" Republicans stand for that? Because Republicans hate pork! Unless you prevent them from adding it, that is.

Republicans are howling over what appears to be Nancy Pelosi’s plan to bypass the House Appropriations Committee on the upcoming Iraq war supplemental, complaining that the move will be the beginning of the end of the usual appropriations process and will further consolidate power in the hands of a speaker who already has a lot of it.

Oh noes! The Speaker has power! Well, elections have consequences, as Republicans used to say.

Yes, the Democratic leadership is considering moving the Iraq appropriations bill directly to the House floor rather than sending it through the committee process. That could short circuit a lot of nonsense, like Jerry Lewis's crybaby antics over the inclusion by Democrats of provisions requiring the president to sign waivers when he rotates untrained, unrested, and unarmored troops back into combat. Or responsible grown-up Bill Young's shenanigans in offering a fake withdrawal amendment, which I'm sure was oh-so-hilarious to the troops he can't stop saying he supports.

But the fact is, they haven't decided yet whether they're going to use this procedure or not. Neither do we know for sure whether it's an effort to clamp down on earmarks, or an effort to give shelter to preferred earmarks.

Either way, though, this was kind of hilarious in a "What planet have you been on?" kind of way:

Adds Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), an Appropriations Committee member: "For anyone who cares about the institution, this goes against the democratic process. Someone who is confident of her position would have no problem going through regular order."

Poor Mikey! You'd almost think he cared about the institution. Not that he  cared when Bush took a giant crap on it and instructed "Attorney General" Michael Mukasey to blow off the institution's subpoenas and contempt of Congress citations. Nope. Couldn't be bothered!

Loser.

But there's still one more possible motivating factor, and that's getting this damned bill rammed through with as few stops -- and therefore as few opportunities for examination and/or protest -- as possible.

Why do that? Here's one sentence with two possible reasons. Here's number one:

House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet...

Oof!

Here's the second:

...a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.

Yeah, that kinda sucks, huh? Largest Iraq war spending bill yet. From the Democrats elected in 2006 to end the war. D'oh!

And knowing that there's a decent chance of electing a Democratic president in 2008 to end the war (because logic hasn't ever applied to American elections, and we're not about to start now), Congressional Democrats don't want him or her to have to sully up the honeymoon with any untoward requests. Like, say, billions more dollars for the war everyone says they're ending.

So Bush wants his $108 billion, and he wants it to the penny. If Dems try to smooth the next president's transition into dealing with Iraq, he'll veto the bill -- yet another way to hold the troops hostage to his insane agenda, even while he's out of office. How's that for "reaching across the aisle?" He's reaching across to smack the next president in the face... from beyond the political grave.

This is the president who insists that Congress is not permitted to tie his hands in dealing with Iraq, but who now reserves the right to tie the hands of the next president and the next Congress. And not even to tie them to his Iraq policy. Just to the headaches that come with cleaning up his mess, no matter what that may mean.

George W. Bush truly does hate America.

Broder:

Yet, in pointing to those vulnerabilities in her rival, Clinton has heightened the most obvious liability she would carry into a fight against McCain. In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.

When you assume, of course, you make an ass out of... Well, look. I'm not buying it. You're the ass here, not me.

Want to see just how McMaverick "isn't willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest?"

We all know the story.

The Bush campaign, in 2000, spread rumors in South Carolina that McCain had fathered a child out of wedlock. That ridiculous dirty trick was widely regarded as having cost McMaverick the SC primary.

Fast forward a few years, and here's a picture of McMaverick maintaining his personal credibility:

Only in the stale air of Washington's luncheon clubs does this look like someone putting his personal credibility above prevailing in a political contest.

This quote is a few days old now, but I've been mulling it over a bit, and I think there's a lot more in it than just another opportunity to examine the extent of Joe Lieberman's suckitude.

The depth of Mr. Lieberman’s alienation stuns many politicians and scholars. "It’s one thing to have a principled position on an issue at odds with that of your party," said Thomas E. Mann, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution. "It’s another to become the champion of the other party’s nominee in a presidential election."

There is much speculation that the Democrats will run Mr. Lieberman out of their caucus (he now sits with Democrats and votes with them on most issues not related to the war) if they widen their margin in the Senate after the November elections. But Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, has pledged that he would not disown Mr. Lieberman under those circumstances and said he considered him a good friend.

A member of the Senate Democratic leadership, who insisted on not being identified, said: "The bloggers want us to get rid of him. It ain’t happening." He added: "We need every vote. He’s with us on everything but the war."

For most Democrats, however, that’s a pretty big "but."

Two things. One, "the bloggers."

Here's my rule -- and you can take it or leave it -- on referring to "the bloggers." You must keep in mind that blogs are communications tools, and that the people who use them aren't some new species from outer space. People who use blogs to communicate about politics are saying exactly the same things that they used to say, and that other people still say, to each other over the telephone, at the office water cooler, and over long lunches. This is just the first time that politicians and media types have ever had access to those conversations, because the tool we use puts them out there for them to see. (Yes, we are granting the media access to the minds of the voters. Where's the gratitude and groveling that politicians get when they grant access?)

So the bottom line is this: bloggers are just people who leave "paper" trails of their thoughts. If you have something to say about "the bloggers," try this simple exercise first to see if you might be talking out your ass: Substitute the word "telephone" for "blog." If your sentence still makes sense, you're onto something. If not, you're talking shit.

"The telephoners want us to get rid of him."

Well, that sounds a little dumb, really. But in this particular case, Senator Schumer Anonymous is probably onto something. Democrats who own or use telephones really do want to get rid of Lieberman, and in large numbers.

So that would be something of a confusing example. Yet it both makes a strong point and hews closely to the rule.

Thing two, and this is the big one:

"He's with us on everything but the war."

Yes, it's a pretty big "but." Here's another one, and obviously it's entirely attributable to his position on the war, but here it is: He's not with us on putting a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

That's more than a big "but." That's everything there is.

Remember where we are, not just on the war, but on almost everything. Everything Democrats could be doing, should be doing, wish we were doing, is always evaluated in light of how it will affect a Democrat's chances of winning the White House.

Every vote in the 110th Congress is being considered in light of whether or not it will make winning the White House in 2008 harder or easier, and almost no other criterion matters. Whether or not to fund the war. Whether or not, and how aggressively, to pursue the oversight that was promised as central to a Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. And yes, whether or not even talking about impeachment could be countenanced.

Now, given the formulation that Congressional Dems have agreed to adopt that effectively vests all power in the executive (whether because they believe it, or just because "we don't have the votes"), this is not an unsound criterion. There's still room to question whether or not they should have acceded to total executive supremacy, but they did, and once done, betting everything on the presidency is the only thing that makes any sense.

Congress has no independent powers of its own that it's currently willing or able to enforce, if it's agenda is opposed by a determined president. It's legislation can be voided, its subpoenas ignored, its appropriations rescrambled after the fact. None of which abominations can be effectively challenged, for fear of damaging our chances at the White House. Which is why we're today witnessing the choreography of an elaborate dance surrounding the certain passage of the next multi-billion dollar round of funding for the occupation we all (including the choreographers) oppose:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is rapidly pulling together a carefully orchestrated plan for what looks to be the last Iraq war supplemental before November’s election: Let Democrats take separate, conscience-clearing votes on troop withdrawal timelines and economic stimulus proposals, then negotiate a deal with the Senate and the White House that would combine money for the war with some modest domestic spending.

Someone may be interested, by the way, in checking the math on Iraq appropriations made by the Republican Congresses from 2003 through 2006, and the Democratic 110th, just to see who'll own the majority stake in this occupation come November.

The key takeaway from this is that Congressional Democrats are convinced that the only responsible path, even for those who oppose the occupation, is to fund it, because the president is determined to defy Congress and keep the troops in Iraq even without funding, and let them suffer as sitting ducks in order to punish Democrats politically if they dare stop the flow of funds. This, in turn, means that Democrats acknowledge that: 1)George W. Bush is actually insane; 2) the only way Democrats can effectively end the occupation is to win the presidency themselves, and; 3) no political action that puts #2 at risk can be tolerated, even when the president eventually admits to having ordered the violation of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eigth amendments.

But that just serves to underscore the fact that Lieberman's campaigning for the other side for the presidency can only mean he's left the Democratic Party -- according to Congressional Democrats' own definition. The one and only inviolable directive, and the sole underlying principle common to all Democratic Congressional decision making, has been the drive for the White House.

And yet, "it ain't happening." Will wonders never cease?

The next mystery to ponder: How, given these arguments, we ended up getting stuck with the worst of both worlds -- Lieberman, who opposes the Democrats' drive for the White House, and the embarrassment of paying for the war we oppose so as to preserve our best chances of winning the White House?

Ha ha! See what I did there? I said "Breaking," but everyone knows that the Fox Nutwork has always been full of it!

Had you going there for a minute, though. Didn't I?

I didn't? Well, OK.

Anyway, here's a handy compilation from the Brave New Films Fox Attacks series that shows just how hard the un-American no-goodniks at Fox are working to make sure the world gets a little dumber every day.

If you're a Republican presidential candidate and you've made up your mind to exaggerate something about the nature of your relationship with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., you're gonna want to do it the Mitt Romney way:

Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."

Of course, neither Romney nor his father marched with King in Detroit. But the point is that a modern politician knows that if you're gonna lie about MLK, you lie about how much you liked and admired him.

On the other hand, if you're a Stone Age Republican like John McCain, this doesn't occur to you. Instead, you exaggerate by minimizing your recognition of King's impact on and importance to modern American society:

Reporter: What didn't you know when you voted initially against it that you later knew when you changed your mind?

McCain: I had not really been involved in the issue. I just had not had a lot of experience with the issue. That's all.

Or else you pretend you've only kinda-sorta heard of him:

"They never gave us any meaningful news," McCain said. "They told us the day that Martin Luther King was shot, they told us the day that Bobby Kennedy was shot, but they never bothered to tell us about the moon shot. So it was certainly selected news."

It's interesting, though, isn't it? McCain says the assassinations of King and Kennedy weren't really "meaningful," to a P.O.W. And I can certainly understand how your one's own seemingly hopeless captivity could do that to you. But yet McCain would have us believe that he whiled away the hours tapping away excitedly in code to his fellow prisoners about the virtues of Ronald Reagan:

Mindful of many conservatives' nostalgia for Ronald Reagan -- and opposition to himself -- Sen. McCain used his victory speech to associate himself with the late president. Alluding to his days as a Vietnam prisoner of war, he said, "I stand for the principles and policies that first attracted me to the Republican Party when I heard, in whispered conversations and tap codes, about the then governor of California, who stood by me and my comrades....And I am as proud to be a Reagan conservative today, as I was then."

Really.

Never really "got" MLK, but engaged in secret tap code rap sessions about Ronald Reagan.

.... . -.-- / -- -.-. -.-. .- .. -. --..-- / .. ..-. / .. / . ...- . .-. / --. . - / --- ..- - / --- ..-. / .... . .-. . --..-- / .. .----. -- / --. --- .. -. --. / - --- / -- .- .-. .-. -.-- / -- -.-- / --. .. .-. .-.. .-.-.-

.-- . .-.. .-.. --..-- / .. ..-. / .. / . ...- . .-. / --. . - / --- ..- - / --- ..-. / .... . .-. . --..-- / .. .----. -- / --. --- .. -. --. / - --- / .-.. --- .-- . .-. / - .- -..- . ... / --- -. / .... .- .-. -.. / .-- --- .-. -.- .. -. --. / .- -- . .-. .. -.-. .- -. ... --..-- / .--- ..- ... - / .-.. .. -.- . / .-. --- -. .- .-.. -.. / .-. . .- --. .- -. .-.-.-

..- .... --..-- / --- -.- .-.-.-

Mmm-hmm.

We've all long known that Republicans were in denial on just about every aspect of Iraq. They love to wave the flag, swear that things are getting better daily, chant "Support the Troops!"^TM at every opportunity, and even go out of their way to sing the praises of the private "security contractors" we use to do our dirty work.

But what happens when one of the big-mouthed weasels takes an Army joy ride over there to play tough guy?

McHenry: Surge is working
Congressman impressed with progress during trip to Iraq
BY JENNIFER MENSTER
RECORD STAFF WRITER
Monday, March 24, 2008

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Congressman Patrick McHenry ate lunch with North Carolina soldiers stationed in Iraq on Saturday. McHenry was one of four members of Congress who went to Iraq over Easter weekend.

Well, here's McHenry telling the story of his reaction when his life was horribly disrupted by the tragedy of war-torn Iraq... when he was denied entry into the gym at his Green Zone compound. (h/t to Think Progress for the transcript.)

We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam’s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early — not that I make this a great habit — but I went to the gym because I just couldn’t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn’t let me in. Said I didn’t have the correct credentials.

It’s 5:00 in the morning. I haven’t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, "I want to see your supervisor." Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn’t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn’t need to work out anyway.

"Two-bit security guard?"

"I want to see your supervisor?"

What. An. Asshole.

This M-Fer's in Baghdad, but whining like he's been denied a markdown by a cashier at Target.

And how about that old boilerplate crap, "the surge is working"?

As I'm in the process of going in the shower, I hear some noise outside that sounds... a little different. Wasn't quite sure what it was. But sure enough, the loudspeakers come on, with the announcement of, "Duck and cover."

I don't know what you do in a situation like that. So I'm just standing there, I guess, thankfully I'm alone, but I'm looking like a complete idiot because I'm thinking to myself, "What do I do?" The announcement's "Duck and cover," I mean, that's not too difficult, right? And so this goes off and on for the next 30 minutes. So I assume that there's some activity or something's happening.

Well, it turns out that there are rockets coming into the Green Zone. And when I went outside of the building, I noticed that the building next to us had been hit by rockets. Or a rocket. It was a warehouse. Some 50 yards in one direction, there are rockets that landed. Fifty yards in the other direction, the embassy fellow who's showing us around, his car was hit by a rocket. And as it turned out, I learned later in the day that the gym had been hit by a rocket.

Surge is workin', all right.

But there's even more. After wisecracking that he's "not trying to tell you a Hillary Clinton story," McHenry went on to claim that "one individual lost his life in the rocket attacks."

Only guess what? The U.S. embassy says no one did.

Green Zone attack originated in Sadr City, say witnesses
Near miss of US Embassy Sunday fits pattern of conflict with Shiite militias.
By Sam Dagher | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

from the March 24, 2008 edition

Baghdad - A barrage of rockets hit the Green Zone – landing near the US Embassy – in Baghdad on Sunday morning.

The rockets appear to have been fired from the Shiite militia stronghold neighborhood of Sadr City in what observers see as further evidence that a cease-fire by the group loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr may be unraveling.

Most of the rockets fell "really close" to the US Embassy that's located inside the heavily protected Green Zone, according to a diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to the media about the attack.

"Yes we confirm there was an IDF (indirect fire) attack in the Green Zone. There were no dead or major casualties," said US Embassy spokesperson Mirembe Nantongo.

Did the little weasel just make it up? It sure sounds like the sort of thing the nutbar frothers like Michelle Malkin would spend days on end researching... if a Democrat had said it.

Guess he thought it made him sound like a hardened survivor or something. But to real people, he just sounds like an ass. And a stupid one at that. "Things are goin' great in Iraq, except for the fact that everything around me blew up while I was there. Oh, P.S., someone died, so that should show you how tough I am for being nearby at the time. Or something like that."

This idiot is in your Congress. Right now. Making laws that you have to live by.

Race tracker wiki: NC-10

Super-Duper Veteran Guy John McCain gives today's veterans the finger. General Wesley Clark is too professional to say so, but he'll tell you the why of what I'm saying.

I probably should be giving you the background and the facts about what's being called "the new GI Bill," introduced by Sen. Jim Webb before getting right to the heart of the matter. I should tell you about how it updates the antiquated system of educational rewards for veterans so that they really can get a decent education paid for in exchange for their service, unlike the paltry crumbs they're offered today. And then I should reveal in a way calculated to lightly shame Senator McCain, but still leave the door open for him to save face and join in, that he has not yet joined 50 of his colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have already cosponsored this bill.

But instead, I'm going to let these Iraq veterans -- brought to you by VoteVets and Brave New Films -- do that, while I myself get right to the "straight talk," to borrow a phrase: John McCain is a lousy prick for not getting on this bill on day one.

You know it. I know it. These vets know it.

Why should the veterans of McCain's 100 Year War have to come hat in hand to get what they deserve, and walk on eggshells lest they insult Big Mister Senator, no less? More flies with honey? Is that really what we're telling our returning combat troops? "I know you're right and I know you're made, but for your own sake, be careful around McCain -- he's got a temper!"

Look, Republicans are going to go right on thinking that John McCain is a stand-up guy no matter what I say. But he's not. He's a dick. And this is just one reason why.

It takes ten seconds to make this decision, and he can have it taken care of by phone from the road. Just call the staff and get on the damn bill.

EFF notes (h/t to diarist skisb) a troubling footnote in the newly released John Yoo memo:

... our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 2001). (emphasis added)

That's some memo title, isn't it? "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States"? Sounds important!

And you say this memo concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to such operations? The Fourth Amendment that bears on issues of domestic surveillance? The, uh, whaddya call it? The FISA stuff?

Well, that would explain the Bush signing statements nullifying the multiple amendments inserted into Defense Department appropriations bills by Rep. John Murtha:

None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for integration of foreign intelligence information unless the information has been lawfully collected and processed during the conduct of authorized foreign intelligence activities: Provided, That information pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as implemented through Executive Order No. 12333.

Bush nullified it because his DOJ was telling him the Fourth Amendment (and EO 12333 -- about which you might want to see Marty Lederman at Balkinization) doesn't apply.

We should get that memo, don't you think?

Well, the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees -- Sen. Pat Leahy and Rep. John Conyers do. Leahy's been after it since January 2005, and Conyers was still asking for it as recently as February. But to no avail, it would seem. Yay, oversight!

Did America know that all of this surveillance, all of this recording of their phone calls and reading of their e-mails was considered a "military operation?" Sure, millions of our head-in-the-sand neighbors have insisted all along that they "have nothing to hide," but did they know that in the minds of their "government," they were the targets of a military operation?

What kind of military operation is this, exactly?

Well, the DOJ has since January 2006 asserted:

that Congress in the AUMF gave its express approval to the military conflict against al Qaeda and its allies and thereby to the President’s use of all traditional and accepted incidents of force in this current military conflict—including warrantless electronic surveillance to intercept enemy communications both at home and abroad.

It's the DOJ position, then, that the AUMF recognized electronic surveillance as a traditional and accepted incident of the use of military force, and that that military force ought to be and is being used against... you.

Good thing it's just some kind of nebulous "use of military force" then, eh? Not this other thing:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them...

Funny word, "levying."

LEVYING WAR, crim. law. The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. 4 Cranch R. 473-4.

Only this object can't be treasonable. Because Bush and Cheney were both wearing flag lapel pins when they ordered it. And, of course, because the DOJ says Congress authorized it, which makes it a consensus political decision.

But yet...

The notion that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance in the AUMF is utterly inconsistent with the Attorney General's admission that Congress was not asked for such authorization because it was assumed that Congress would say no.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who helped negotiate the use of force resolution with the White House, has confirmed that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up, that he did not and never would have supported giving authority to the President for such wiretaps, and that he is ``confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.''

Senator Daschle also noted that the Bush administration sought to add language to the resolution that would have explicitly authorized the use of force "in the United States," but Congress refused to grant the President such sweeping power. Maybe that was this administration's covert way to seek the authority to spy on Americans, but Congress did not grant any such authority.

And you know what's interesting about that DOJ argument on that AUMF? Yoo always carefully avoided it, insisting that the AUMF didn't independently authorize any powers the president didn't already have, but rather merely affirmed their existence. In fact, Yoo refused even to call the AUMF the AUMF -- after all, the A stands for "authorization" -- instead stubbornly insisting on referring to it only as the "Joint Resolution."

But like others of Yoo's memos that the DOJ has since had to disavow (on grounds of craziness), the DOJ has since fallen back to an only slightly less-crazy insistence that the AUMF authorized warrantless domestic surveillance, even as the Members of Congress who passed it insist it did not.

This is the gang that Jay Rockefeller (and according to their votes on final passage of Rockefeller's bill, Senators Baucus, Bayh, Carper, Casey, Conrad, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Pryor, Salazar, Webb and Whitehouse, and Reps. Boren, Carney, Cooper, Holden, Lampson, and Shuler) wants to work with "in good faith."

The gang that two years ago declared the NSA's domestic spying programs to have been legally authorized, and yet has convinced Rockefeller that Congress needs to add a belt to those suspenders, and retroactively immunize the telecom companies who are facilitating the spying. The House now says that perhaps a court should be asked whether the DOJ is right.

But Senator Rockefeller says he's got it covered. No need to involve those silly courts. After all, his bill would "restore civil liberty protections through proper FISA court oversight." Which would be great (minus the fact that it means Congress is abdicating its role here), if anyone believed we were going to get proper oversight from a secret court that's the DOJ is telling the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply and that federal judges are unqualified to decide on matters of national security, anyway.

Every day that passes without Jay Rockefeller being able to cajole the weak-kneed Congressional Democrats who still fear Republican attack ads more than the prospect of gutting the Constitution brings us more evidence of just how crazy the Bush-Cheney gang really is, and how agreeing to cooperate with them "in good faith" is crazier still.

Not seeing it at this point is just willful blindness.

Ummm... yay?

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that the F.B.I. went too far in searching the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat accused of using his position to promote business deals in Africa.

Without comment, the justices declined to review a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which concluded last August that agents had violated the Constitution by the methods it used in the May 2006 search.

Huzzah!

When the FBI raided the Congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson -- he of the $90,000 cash in the freezer -- and seized his papers and computers in their free-ranging search for evidence, the executive branch dangerously overstepped its bounds. And with the case alleging corruption of a Democratic Member of Congress solidifying, the brave guardians of constitutional principles on Capitol Hill cast all caution to the wind, disregarded the horrific optics of the Jefferson case and did right by the Constitution.

Ah, how refreshing!

Corrupt Democrat has office raided by FBI. Congressional Democrats wisely compartmentalize issues and public perception of corruption and stand up for the critical principle of separation of powers.

Corrupt Republican uses office to torture, steal, invade sovereign nations and eavesdrop on innocent Americans. Congressional Democrats turn immediately to the pollsters, who tell them the voters will surely punish them for seeking to compartmentalize issues and public perception of civil liberties versus security and stand up for the critical principle of separation of powers.

Makes perfect sense!

After all, separation of powers is sacrosanct to this Congress. For instance, Congressional Democrats may disagree with this president's refusal to honor duly authorized Congressional subpoenas, but they'll defend to the death his right to ignore them. Or something like that.

As an extra bonus for those of you wondering whether the House is ever going to realize that its court case seeking enforcement of the Miers and Bolten subpoenas isn't going anywhere, and finally settle the matter itself, with inherent contempt, we have this rather strong hint:

Referring to President Bush’s former political adviser, Ms. Pelosi said, "The White House wouldn’t like it if we sent the Capitol Police over there to search Karl Rove’s desk."

Can't have that.

Thanks to turning your guy loose, Oh Unnervingly Tan One:

"Republicans have dedicated significant time and resources in engaging regional and local media, editorial boards, and talk radio over the break," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio. "We’re going to hold every Democrat accountable for their irresponsible actions on this bill, and we will ramp up the pressure until they do the right thing and pass the bipartisan Senate bill. In the end, we believe they will cave."

Don't you guys ever read the sports pages?

In the end, we believe they will cave.

Special note to Senators Baucus, Bayh, Carper, Casey, Conrad, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Webb and Whitehouse, and Reps. Boren, Carney, Cooper, Holden, Lampson, and Shuler (c'mon, Shuler, tell 'em what this locker room stuff is all about):

Please take note of the language. It's no accident.

If you cross the line and vote with the Republicans on FISA, you won't be hailed as heroes. You won't be received as reasonable moderates. You won't be spared the attack ads or the abuse.

You will have "caved."

That's how they see you. Your votes won't be held up as examples of bipartisan compromise. They will be held up as the scalps of weak-willed losers who "caved."

Caved.

They said it, not me.

Caved.