Black Box Report

From the Dept. of Horrible Political Analogies:

President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday.

The problem with having someone as...incurious as our current president setting foreign policy is that, from a historical perspective, their policy positions don't make a lick of sense. Over at Informed Comment, Middle East scholar Juan Cole gives Bush's historical analogy an F:

Who is playing the role of the Communists and of North Vietnam? Is it the Sunni Arabs of Iraq? But they are divided into Iraqi/Arab nationalists and Salafi Sunni revivalists. (The secular Arab nationalists are the vast majority according to recent polling). So they are not a united force. They are fighting with one another in al-Anbar. And, the Arab nationalists and the religious Sunnis cannot both play the role of the Communists. Some Arab nationalists are allied with the United States (Egypt, Tunisia, etc.) Others are not (Syria). Some religious Sunnis are allied with the US (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan). Others are not. So where is the analogy to International Communism? Who is China and who is the Soviet Union? Is it Syria and Iran? But both are ruled by Shiites, not Sunnis!

But let us say that the Sunni Arabs are North Korea. Who is South Korea? Is it the Shiites of Iraq? But they are allied with Iran (isn't it playing the role of China?) And the vast majority of them don't want US troops in Iraq according to polls. There is zero chance that the Shiites of Iraq will put up with a long term presence of US bases in their areas of Iraq.

The comparison belies a fundamental lack of understanding of the US mission in South Korea, not to mention ignoring all the stated reasons for the mission in Iraq. If nothing else, our continued presence in South Korea makes things better, not worse:

American troops haven't faced constant fire from insurgents in Korea, and the Koreans have asked us to stay there. Not to mention that there's no thousand year religious conflict that shows no signs of calming down, in Korea...Poll after poll shows we are not welcome by the majority of Iraqi civilians, and saying that we're going to stay for fifty years -- whether they like it or not -- just serves to create enemies at a faster clip.

Needlenose refers to this as the "iron butt" strategy:

Just as various Iraqi factions are trying to wait us out and grab for power as we leave, Dick Cheney and his ilk think we can wait them out (even though they live there!) as long as the American public can be numbed to the ongoing death toll.

Given that all of the various rationales for going into Iraq to begin with - al Qaeda links, WMD, removing Hussein - have eventually all fallen by the wayside, one can only conclude that this is, indeed always has been, the administration's goal. The neocon dream of controlling the Middle East and never leaving. Ever:

When the public rationales evaporate…the White House will find some other justification for staying, no matter how weak. Because staying is itself the objective…The creation and maintenance of a long-term military presence is the only policy objective that...makes sense of everything Bush has done. If any other goal is posited, his policies and actions are incoherent; but if this goal is posited, they all make sense.

It seems only yesterday we were hearing the conflict in Iraq would take “six days…six weeks…I doubt six months.” Now we’re talking about 50 years. Despite the ridiculous analogy to the mission in South Korea, I'm going to chalk this up to one of those rare occasions of White House honesty. A permanent presence among people who don't want us there - it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Star of such films as Aces: Iron Eagle III, Die Hard 2 and Curly Sue, Fred Thompson...

...yes he was in that too - has unofficially announced he's forming a pre-exploratory committee to test the waters and see if maybe, he might consider running for President. If his committee tells him it's viable. The official announcement will come on the 4th of July. Or not. No one's sure. Because this is all unofficial. Which is all part of Fred's master plan:

Thompson has played the media masterfully, dominating the horse race 2008 news for two months without ever answering a tough question.

This election cycle has been singularly annoying for its participants' dragging out their "will they or won't they" speculation for ungodly long periods of time. But in Thompson's case, that's how you keep Fred!mania simmering along. It's how you keep conservatives thinking you're the second coming of St. Ronnie:

With his traditional Southern values, his common-sense reform goals, and his folksy demeanor, "Ol' Fred," as the senator sometimes refers to himself, puts a populist face on a party struggling with an elitist image. Factor in Thompson's media savvy, and you have the makings of a political icon. You have, in fact, the makings of another Ronald Reagan.

Yes, about that "folksy demeanor." Let me tell you about Fred's red 1990 Chevy pickup truck. It was a staple of Thompson's 1994 Senate campaign in TN, when he'd drive it around in blue jeans and shabby workboots. It was a big hit. It was something that made him seem more like one of the people. And it was a completely manufactured prop:

Not only was the truck rented, but Thompson didn't even deign to drive the thing himself...Basically, he just drove the thing the final few hundred feet before each campaign event, and then ditched it for something nicer as soon as he was out of sight of the yokels. Quite a man of the people, no?

Acting. Brilliant! Thank You.

So now that he's in, how exactly does Thompson affect the race? Who will Thompson's entrance hurt the most? Some say Rudy! stands to lose the most here:

Will a Thompson run hurt Giuliani the most? Or McCain? Or Romney? My guess, again, is mostly Giuliani (and to a lesser extent Romney). At this moment, the majority of social conservatives supports Giuliani. When they can choose, however, between Thompson and Giuliani, my guess is that they will run over to Thompson like a pack of wolf to a wounded deer.

Or...maybe it's McCain?

(Thompson) deals the harshest blow to McCain whose shaky start has left a lot of major players uneasy at having backed the wrong horse...McCain's people thought they were teaming up with a front runner...banking on the GOP's long standing predilection to send the nomination to the "next-in-line,"...But McCain isn't going to benefit from a party tradition when he hasn't been a traditional party guy in any sense of the word...Thompson gives every McCain staffer and money backer a chance at a do-over.

Or Romney?

Romney said yesterday that he would welcome Thompson into the race...but behind the scenes you know his campaign is scrambling to adjust...Romney has long tried to market himself as the most conservative Republican candidate with a chance to win in the general election. But Thompson's entry into the race undercuts that strategy big-time.

Or, there's the possibility that all of those people are wrong (perish the thought!), and that Fred!'s entrance might actually help Rudy! in the long run:

While a Thompson run would certainly take some votes away from Giuliani, it may ultimately benefit Rudy. A batch of Republican candidates split the conservative vote in 2000, allowing the (seemingly) moderate Bush to clinch the nomination. Thompson could similarly split the ultra-conservative vote with Romney and the other more conservative candidates, helping Rudy to win the nomination.

Finally, there is one other candidate whose campaign could suffer with the addition of Fred Thompson, and that candidate is...Fred Thompson:

Fred Thompson is to the Republicans in '08 as Wes Clark was to the Democrats in '04. In other words, the highpoint of his campaign will be the day he gets in the race, because once he's a serious candidate--and not just the fevered daydream of a dissatisfied base--voters will realize he's not all that.

Just another shallow, Hollyweird actor sticking their nose into politics.

The Washington Times. The National Review. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, not to mention the echo chamber of rightwing blogs. If you make a habit of listening to the conservative pundits on air, in print and online for the last few years, you'd think it was common knowledge that CIA officer Valerie Plame was NOT a covert agent. And now, another talking point bites the dust:

Right-wing pundits simply made clear, unequivocal statements about Plame's status with the CIA that were outright false. They had no basis at the time for making such statements. But, as they so often do, they made them anyway, because those statements helped to defend the Leader and bolster their political agenda.

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame said that she was covert. Because outing her would make the White House look bad, Bush's apologists ramped up the mighty wurlitzer and told everyone they could get to listen that, hey, no way! She's not covert! Conservative pundits - well paid and well respected pundits (at least respected by the TV shows that keep bringing them on) - were wrong about a key point of one of the more contentious scandals of the Bush administration.

You're shocked, I know.

Just don't expect a flood of mea culpas anytime soon:

I could entertain myself for hours looking up the hair-singingly civil manner that countless conservative blogs attacked the idea that Valerie Plame was a covert agent. If one in twenty corrects their error you can color me shocked.

One in twenty? Thirty? Fifty? Ummm, how about none, zip, zero, nada? The right wing noise machine doesn't DO contrition. Mistakes are to be ignored, not apologized for, or at the very least, rationalized and mitigated while you attempt to change the subject.

So what does this mean to the "Scooter" Libby trial, which begins sentencing next week? Not much, actually, seeing as how being pig-ignorant is still not a crime:

The likely explanation for why Fitzy didn't bring criminal charges for outing a covert agent is because he didn't have the evidence to make the case that the leakers knew leaking her name could be damaging. Naturally, that seems quite stupid, considering most people would deem it common f*@%ing sense that outing a covert agent working on WMD proliferation would be damaging, but, legally, lack of common sense isn't an argument that puts someone in jail.

So why release this information at all? Don't get me wrong, seeing Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Alexander Haig, Tony Snow, Rush, O'Reilly, Reynolds, Hinderaker and countless others being proved 100% wrong, if not outright lying, is quite satisfying, but...Is that all there is? Kiko's House has a possible answer:

WHY DOES THIS MATTER NOW? Certainly not because it will result in clarifications, let alone apologies, from the talking heads who have ceaselessly criticized Plame and Wilson...It matters because it is a key to the success of a second trial that could be far more damaging to Cheney and the Bush administration. That would be a civil trial on the lawsuit that Wilson and Plame have filed against Cheney, Libby, Karl Rove and Richard Armitage.

You may be able to get off easy in a criminal trial (see OJ's glove), but those civil trials can be a real bear.

Enjoy prison, "Scooter".

If you want hardcore, rightwing more-conservative-than-thou conversation on the internets, Free Republic is the place for you. From it's heyday in the late 90's when the leadup to President Clinton's impeachment had conservatives in a nice frothy rage, the site has been home to Freepers, as they call themselves, a place they can post their most vitriolic, and frequently unhinged, feelings against all things not conservative. And now that rage has found a new target. Themselves:

At the heart of the latest controversy: the fight over the conservative bona fides of Rudy Giuliani. Over the past few weeks, chaos has reigned in the "Freeper" community as members sympathetic to the former mayor's candidacy claim to have suffered banishment from the site. They were victimized, they say, by a wave of purges designed to weed out any remaining support for the Giuliani campaign on the popular conservative web forum.

Site founder Jim Robinson has gone on an anti-Rudy jihad, and he's not holding anything back. Here's but a sample:

If liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I'm going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?

Rightwing blogger Steve Gilbert of Sweetness and Light knows what it feels like being on the receiving end of this kind of "big tent conservatism", having been banned from the site years ago:

But almost immediately after the Senate’s failure to convict Bill Clinton, Robinson did an abrupt about-face and went after the more run-of-the-mill conservatives and moderates.

This turnabout began in the May of 1999, when out of left-field Robinson started to post his theories that the CIA funded itself by drug running and that George HW Bush, having been the director of the CIA, was a kingpin in their international drug operations...

Unfortunately for me, I was the first to challenge Mr. Robinson’s assertions. Almost immediately I and others who tried to counter these bizarre leftwing fantasies were summarily and gleefully banned...

Since the 2000 elections, through 9/11 and the War On Terror Mr. Robinson has been fairly steadfast in his support of President Bush and our intelligence agencies. Though he has increasingly chided Bush and the Republicans for their domestic policies, most especially their spending.

And, apart from some of the obsessive compulsive Crevo/Evo crowd and some of the more inflammatory participants in the Terry Schiavo debates, there haven’t been any large scale purges to speak of — until now.

And as the Freepers take out the long knives and turn on each other, others are quite content to watch from the sidelines, knowing this civil war was a long time coming:

Of course this sort of thing is what the entire Republican party is facing in microcosm. The hardcore are going to react very, very badly to any attempts to wrest control of the party away from them by moderates, but if the moderates fail, it will lead to another electoral disaster. Glad it's happening to them and not us.

To be fair, some say it's not a civil war. a verbally violent large-scale conflict between indigenous online commenters over fundamental ideological differences, yes. But not a civil war.

As another Memorial Day comes to a close, we try to take comfort in the idea that we do not ask our soldiers to sacrifice themselves in vain. Contrary to what our eyes and our ears and our guts tell us, our leaders assure us this is so. So if we cannot get an honest answer from politicians, it will have to come from somewhere else. Someone like Pvt, Donald Hudson Jr of the 82nd Airborne Division, who posted what will be his final memory of his bunkmate in Iraq on Harvard's Journalism blog, the Nieman Watchdog:

His name was Michael K. Frank. He was 36 years old. He was a great friend of mine and a mentor to most of us younger soldiers here.

Now I am still here in this country wondering why, and having to pick up the pieces of what is left of my friend in our room. I would just like to know what is the true reason we are here? This country poses no threat to our own. So why must we waste the lives of good men on a country that does not give a damn about itself? Most of my friends here share my views, but do not have the courage to say anything.

These are no retired generals or armchair military commanders who face no consequences (apologies to Gen. Batiste) for stating their views. These are the boots on the ground we claim to support:

When American troops are willing to give critical interviews, and use their names rather than go off the record or anonymous, that means things are really bad - why, because these guys are going to get in real trouble for speaking out. Too bad their bosses don't have the same courage.

With Congress apparently unwilling to do anything about the current dire situation, and noting that the Iraqi troops they train today may be the ones who try to blow them up tomorrow, it should really come as no surprise the troops are speaking out. After all, it takes quite a man to get former war supporter Andrew Sullivan to say this:

It's truly rare that a president spends taxpayers' money to train the enemy to kill U.S. troops. But Bush has pulled it off.

Indeed, if supporting the troops meant nothing more than noble-sounding words and clapping louder instead of having an actual plan, we'd be all set. But it does, and we're not:

This is not about their sacrifice or their professionalism. It is about their leadership, who've abdicated their moral responsibility of placing US troops into combat with a defined military objective and obtainable goals along with a clearly defined exit strategy. None of these things have been provided for American troops within Iraq, and they continue to see their own sacrifices as futile in terms of the future of the country they try to hold together as our presence continues to tear it apart.

Let's hope Memorial Day 2008 brings more promise than this one.

This morning was sure to find a lot of progressives reaching for the Maalox. The only numbers you need to know: 280-142 in the House; 80-14 in the Senate. Still, some progressives hope this is a ray of sunshine in an otherwise dreary episode:

Though I think that there is a strong sentiment within this community that there should have been more Democrats who voted against this supplemental bill, at least some solace might be found that whether as a result of strong convictions, a new understanding of the politics of the issue or just the politics of 2008 three of the four contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination currently serving in the Senate in fact voted no.

That's the optimistic way of looking at it. Here's the more cynical take:

Clearly they waited until their votes were no longer needed. Not exactly profiles in courage. It's really just a big game of chicken. Hillary and her team apparently decided that her lead wasn't comfortable enough to take on the base anger when Obama voted against and John Edwards has been on the attack.

Either way, Taylor Marsh explains why each of their votes was unsurprising:

As for Clinton and Obama, their statements couldn't have been anything other than what they were if they hoped to keep their campaigns in front. As for Obama, this vote was expected and came with the obligatory I was against the war in 2002. Why did he hesitate in coming out right up front? Clinton paused as well. However, she benefits the most from her no vote, because it wipes away the remnants of the apology never given. Anyone who doesn't give her no vote real weight was never planning on giving her a chance anyway.

Yeah...about that hesitation. Of all the Democratic candidates, the real winners this week were Chris Dodd and John Edwards. Both of nthem came out and flatly stated that their opposition to this bill. Granted, Edwards had it easier, not having to vote for it, and I seriously doubt this will catapult Dodd into the top 3, but when people talk about leadership on the issue, it's not Hillary and Barack they're talking about:

On the one hand, you have Dodd, who came out strongly against this bogus compromise early in the week…and who said loud enough for the world to hear that he objected to caving in to Bush, failing our troops and breaking faith with the American people.

In other words, Chris Dodd behaved like a leader.

And, while many will probably say that Senators Clinton and Obama opposing the non-compromise was a product of political calculation -- their campaigns would have been dealt a harsh blow had they gone along with it -- I give both of them credit for voting their conscience and beliefs.

Here's my problem: Neither of them showed me, as a voter, what it will take to get my support when the New York primary happens next year….

Similarly, while no longer in the Senate and not in the position of voting, John Edwards has made very clear that he too is willing to stake his candidacy on opposing continuation of our involvement in the Iraqi civil war and has also been out in front on letting those views be known….

And where were Clinton and Obama in the days leading to the vote and when backbone and conviction were the order of the day? Nowhere that mattered.

That Bob Geiger...He's not just about the cartoons.

Finally, for a tasty smackdown of the predictable rightwing talking points on Clinton and Obama "voting to abandon the troops," the increasingly impressive Carpetbagger Report lays it all out. Here's the money shot:

I hate to sound picky, but didn’t George W. Bush veto war funding less than a month ago? I don’t recall reading far-right blog posts about how outrageous this was at the time. Maybe I overlooked them?...

Or is it more likely that rejecting funding for the troops in a time of war is perfectly acceptable to far-right war supporters, just so long as they think there’s a good reason to do so?

Like I said, tasty. Read teh whole thing.

While opinions differ over whether or not Democrats could have played their hand stronger on the Iraq funding bill, or whether they were constrained by a hostile, intractable White House and did the best they could, one thing is certain: Democrats spinning this as a win is going over like a lead balloon:

Let's be honest: not having the votes and making a tactical decision on which to pivot, while not so palatable, at least has some promise of a long-term thought process...Sometimes pragmatic realities have to take precedence...a give here may mean a gain later there. But don't you dare try to portray this as anything like a victory. We are not dumb, and we refuse to be your rubber stamps.

Previously, I made the case that Democrats, however disappointingly, did what they could by holding Bush to a self-imposed Sept. 30 deadline for evaluating the success of his Surge. I still believe one could argue in good faith whether or not they could've done more, but I saw a certain logic at work. And anyways, they were always free to get enough "No" votes to send this bill back to useless "bipartisan" void it came from, and then it would be back to the drawing board. Alas, it appears the Democratic leadership was not being as cagey as I had hoped. Turned out they were just doing what they usually do when Republicans go for the "Dems are soft on defense" chestnut...

Some Democrats are floating the maddening excuse that they didn't want to go on Memorial Day recess and let the White House and Republicans attack them for witholding funds from the troops.

They're worried they're going to get criticized.

By the White House.

.........I'm sorry, but WHAT??? This is a forehead-slapping moment if there ever was one. Have they seen any polls lately? Do they know how massively unpopular both Bush AND the war are? Have they not been paying attention?

Recall that last spring many Dems were terrified of taking on the GOP and the White House over Iraq because they worried that the Republicans would tell the electorate an irresistable story: Dems are weak, and Republicans are strong. When Dems finally realized that Republicans would tell this story no matter what they did, they started telling the story their way: The war in Iraq is a disaster; it has made us weaker; Dems want to end it, and Republicans don't. The rest is history. Dems won the argument.

Now Dems appear to have let their own worries about the potential story that Republicans will tell -- Dems are on vacation while the troops are wanting! -- largely shape their course of action here. Sure, you want to game out what the opposition will do. But Dems, Republicans are going to keep telling the story this way no matter what you do. Indeed, the President just reminded everyone at today's presser that some Dems didn't want to support the troops -- even though the Dem leadership has already agreed to give him his no-timelines funding. Why not start by deciding what the right policy is, and then tell your story as forcefully as you can? Dems can win arguments, as 2006 showed.

Yes, sure enough, like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Bush came on the TV today to...attack Democrats. Even after they gave him what he wanted. I tried to look on the bright side, but...Jeebus. What a bunch of all-day suckers:

Bush just went on TV, praised how all of your bad un-American ideas were struck from the bill, and then he told the country that you still have too much pork in the bill...He just made fools of you. He attacked, you caved in order to stop the attack, and he attacked again...

“The problem is that we have to provide money for the troops, and if we don’t, the Democrats will be blamed,” added Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., a war opponent. “Bush has the bully pulpit, so he will define who is responsible.”

Is he joking? Bush is going to call us names, so we'd better cave so that he doesn't call us names. First, you're a big boy, you can handle Bush calling you names. I don't think it's a fair trade off, congressman, sending 200,000 American troops to die for a lie because you're afraid of being called names. Second, you honestly think that Bush and the Republicans are going to stop questioning your patriotism so long as you cave to them on every issue? Are you high?

The GOP has beaten Democrats - and the general public - over the head for so long with the "soft on defense" lie, that they just have to start, and Democrats flinch.

Fresh off dropping a Cheneyesque F-bomb to fellow Republican Sen. John Cornyn last Friday in a debate over the immigration bill, and bragging that he "knew more about immigration than anybody in this room!", McCain has apparently decided to dust off the Grouchy Old Senator / Your Crazy Grandpa act. It started with one of McCain's regular conference call with the best and the brightest rightwing bloggers, when he got out his soundbite kung fu and went cah-razee all over Romney. Wonkette wonders if McCain is trying his hand at being one of those quick-witted, free-wheeling bloggers:

WALNUTS today, during a blogger conference call (no, we don’t know what those are):

“Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because its changed in less than a year from his position before,” McCain responded, referring to his rival’s immigration stance. “And maybe his solution will be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn.”

Wow, that’s like three zingers in one statement! Take that, Romney! Go get another $400 haircut with your three hundred wives while you windsurf down to Ted Kennedy’s house to raise our taxes!

Romney’s spokesperson responded in equally harsh tones: “Why don’t you go cry about torture some more, old man. When we’re in charge we’re gonna nonlethally stress the hell out of you in Gitmo #15.”

Now McCain was taking aim at multiple targets on Mitt. Flip flopping, Mitt's embarrassing admission that he's not quite the seasoned hunter he's made himself out to be, and the fact that the contractor Romney hired to do work on his mansion hired mostly illegal aliens. One participant in the conference call said Romney deserved some of those shots, but not all of them:

Romney supported the McCain-Kennedy bill in its last incarnation...but now wants to become the leading conservative crusader against it. I'd say that McCain has a right to be irritated with Romney's posturing at this point, even if he should have rethought this quip. After all, Romney had no control over his contractor's decision to hire illegals.

Over at Ankle Biting Pundits, they're much more forgiving of McCain. And perish the thought it's because blog owner Patrick Hynes is a hired consultant for McCain. McCain was just having a little fun:

It certainly wasn't a "meltdown" or a "childish insult". I thought it was actually a pretty good comeback at Romney. Why? Because Romney has the rap of a flip-flopper on this issue...as well as many others. And while not many outside the political junkie class will get the reference to "Guatemalan gardener", it was pretty funny, and really quite harmless.

Heh heh heh. Just a little joke about shooting illegal immigrants. From one candidate for the highest office in the nation to another. Mitt has since fired back, albeit less colorfully, making this the first official Republican frontrunner catfight. And the big winner here? Rudy Giuliani:

Giuliani obviously feels good: he's left alone...It seems to me that attacks against Giuliani will come, but rather late: if McCain beats Romney and decides to take on Giuliani, Romney has already weakened McCain so much that he really isn't a formidable opponent anymore. Same goes for Romney of course.

While I agree Rudy! is obviously the winner in this case, he is hardly going to be fresh as a daisy and nigh-invulnerable when the winner of McCain/Romney emerges. Rudy has so many juicy targets on him (Kerik, scrutiny of post-9/11 actions, shady clients of Giuliani Partners, his affairs, abortion position, 6th-grade understanding of foreign policy, just to name a half dozen), that either a battle-scarred McCain OR Romney would have no trouble scoring hits.

"I don't believe I intended to commit a crime," "I know I crossed the line of civil service rules," "I believe I crossed the line, but I didn't mean to." So did Monica Goodling's testimony today provide a new wealth of comedy material. Tbogg thinks Goodling's strategy sounds familar:

In a strong opening gambit, Monica Goodling invokes the Paris Hilton Defense...Considering her theological bent, we can expect the Flip Wilson ("The devil made me do it") defense before the day is out.

The last time the White House had a Monica problem...well, you know how that ended. Now, everything old is new again. New Monica. New problem. It is, however, the same old Bush administration:

Monica Goodling's first-rate law school education is on display today in an astonishingly nit-witted but thus far dry-eyed appearance…Quoting constitutional scholar Martha Stewart, among others, Goodling acknowledged in testimony given under a grant of immunity that she had made a "snap judgment" in weeding out job candidates based on their partisan bona fides. A "snap judgment" that she made numerous times.

There must be a orientation manual given to all new administration employees on what to do when you find yourself testifying under oath. It would be very small, consisting of one line: Pass the Buck.

So Goodling blames McNulty and Harriet Miers, and by inference Rove for being more involved in this than she was, even though she was the White House liaison for DOJ, and even though Alberto delegated all day-to-day matters to her and Kyle Sampson. She is in a very risky position given her limited immunity and McNulty’s ability to come right back and undermine her testimony. But at least we now know that they don't teach integrity, ethics, or responsibility at Pat Robertson's Wingnut University.

That's Pat Robertson's Regent University actually, Monica Goodling's alma mater and a school who's stated goal is to increase Christianty's influence in our legal system, tearing down the wall between church and state. With 150 graduates currently working for the Bush administration, they're taking their best shot at it too. And the payoffs are already starting to show:

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

The sharpest legal minds of tomorrow...today!

What immigration is to the conservative base, the Iraq War, and how to get out of it, is to the progressives. With word that Democrats will forego a withdrawal timeline in the next bill they send to the President, the usual suspects are none too happy:

The latest from the Dems: Sure, this time we caved, but next time boy that President Bush better watch out. Uh huh. Whatever...In my view, they blustered and they blinked. Rep. Woolsey's right, no one should vote for this thing. It's a Republican bill, let them pass it. As for this not being a blank check, please. We caved, 100%, to a guy at 28% in the polls. That's pitiful.

While I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Aravosis about not backing down and giving deference to anyone with a 28% approval rating, I'm not entirely sure why he he dislikes this bill as much as he does. Is it what progressives, indeed a sizeable chunk of the country, wanted? Certainly not. Happy with a second place, next-best-thing? Nope. But it was less than a month ago when that seemed to be more acceptable:

Bush just gave us our solution. In the post below, Joe notes that Bush will now not consider whether we're making "progress" with the "surge" until September. Fine. Then here's what we do. After Bush vetoes the Iraq funding bill in the next week or two, Congress should pass a clean bill, giving Bush all the money he needs... until September. That way, when Bush finally starts paying attention to Iraq again in September, when he makes the assessment of whether the surge is doing anything at all, whether Iraq isn't still going downhill, Congress can at the same time revisit whether the American people fund, again, and again, and again, this disaster of a war.

John Murtha has proposed something similar to this. Give Bush the money he needs, enough money to get him through, say, September 30. Then we use Bush's own benchmark-date to revisit just how well the progress is really progressing. Let him veto that.

How is that different from what just happened? I understand being cross over not getting things just the way you'd like them, but this kind of reaction is exactly what those on the right are expecting. And they couldn't be any happier they're getting it:

Let slip the dogs of netroots war! If you think the GOP has battered itself senseless over the last few days over immigration, you ain't seen nothing yet. Any hint of capitulation on the capitulation will bring loud screams from the people who helped the Democrats win a majority just to avoid this possibility.

So. If not a look at the bright side, maybe a stab at pragmatism. Dems did not go all in, as AMERICAblog would've liked, nor did they fold, as Cap'n Ed and the Right triumphantly claim. Sometimes you gotta know when to hold'em:

Bush was never going to agree to a timeline, and, in my view, a timeline wasn't in the Democrats' best interests regardless. They've made their points, backed Bush and his Republican supporters into a corner, and, if this bill passes, set up another and likely more pressing battle with Bush once the fiscal year ends at the end of September, Gen. Petraeus offers his assessment of the surge (which isn't working), and a few more months of Republican discontent, as well as ongoing failure in Iraq, have passed.

In a perfect world, we never would've anted into this poker game. In a slightly less perfect world, we'd get out while we still had a reasonable amount of chips. But when you look at the player across the table from you and realize he's crazier than you are, you have to be patient...and careful:

...by any reasonable metric, the Democrats have already won this debate. The public supports their position by a 70/30 margin. The problem is that this president is immune to normal political pressures. He's been resigned for some time now to the fact that only about 30% of the country is with him on this. And he knows that that 30% is pretty solidly behind him. He's not running for re-election, and he cares only about his long term legacy. In other words, despite having lost the political fight, he feels no pressure to concede.

What that means is that no matter how well the Democrats manage to frame this funding stalemate, no matter how unreasonable they manage to make Bush look, he will not give an inch. The normal rules have to be thrown out the window...

Bush almost surely has the weaker hand here, but he's quite prepared to go all in anyway, and he's betting with the lives of American soldiers. It's not fair and it's not right, but that's who we're dealing with and at the end of the day, someone has to be the adult.

King Louis XVI: "You said it! They stink on ice!"

I mentioned last week how angry unhinged the conservative base was over what they saw as betrayal on the immigration reform bill. But that really doesn't begin to describe it. John Hawkins of Right Wing News and consultant to GOP candidate Duncan Hunter throws down the gauntlet for anyone plans to run for anything in 2008 and who supports this bill:

I'm going to hunt down every single piece of dirt I can find from Republican sources on these pro-amnesty Republicans and I'm going to release it in the blogosphere. Put another way, if you're a Republican senator up for reelection in 2008 and you vote for amnesty -- and you face a viable primary challenger -- I've got two words for you,

Scorched Earth.

...I hope it doesn't come to this… But, there comes a point where conservatives have got…take our party back from these arrogant, unprincipled, elitist Country Club Republicans…This time, they're either going to pay attention, or we're going to take 2 or 3 of their scalps and hang them on the wall come election time.

Gosh. Where to start? Accuse Hawkins of waging class warfare against his "arrogant, unprincipled, elitist Country Club" betters? Point out that his last Google-Bomb campaign against Democrats in the 2006 midterms was...ummm...somewhat less than successful? On second thought, if he wants to be shrill - in his own way - that's fine. I support shrillness in all it's forms. But it's exactly this kind of scorched earth rhetoric and eating their own that other conservatives are saying will hurt the party as a whole. Since we don't yet have any New York Times articles poo-pooing the rightwing bloggers for making candidates dance to their tune, we'll stick with the always entertaining AJ Strata:

Immigration is the most recent debacle where the answer from the hard right is to demean those who find their arguments wanting. So from wanting arguments we go to childish name calling - and these people have the nerve to wonder why people are abandoning them?...Now it is their way or nothing. The name calling is the first sign of bankrupt policies and ideas.

Actually, that wasn't the part of his post I wanted to get to. I just wanted to highlight that from the same guy who said:

Why Does Al Qaeda Sound Like The DNC?

But I digress. Back to AJ:

The damage is done. The anti-immigrant forces cannot repair the damage because it requires admitting they screwed up. So instead they will sling invectives and lose more ground. I am not worried though...Guiliani or someone like him will win in 2008. The President needs to be a Rep...But it will not be a Tancredo firebrand type, no one has the stomach for his screwed up priorities.

As for the other GOP frontrunners, Romney is jumping on the bandwagon denouncing the bill, despite last year saying similar efforts for a comprehensive immigration bill were "reasonable." And Giuliani? He just got called out by the Tanc, Tom Tancredo, who didn't find Rudy's response that the bill was "troubling" to be a clear enough stance on TEH AMNESTY!!!1!.

Not really surprising that Giuliani just said we have to control immigration. Anybody worth their salt says that. Doesn't mean he cares enough to do anything about illegal immigration, though.

Mitt Romney's made his choice (although be sure to check back for updates as that situation changes), and John "F*@% you!" McCain's made his. Rudy? As former NYC mayor, he's had plenty of training about not touching the thrid rail. I do believe he'll punt, and stick with calling the bill "troubling".

Is it a case of calling it like he sees it? Or the pot calling the kettle black? Former President Carter's condemnation of Bush's foreign policy brought about the usual knee-jerk reaction from the right, who didn't like him anyway to begin with. Atlas Shrugs makes with the I know you are but what am I?:

It is the continuing Democratic party tradition to accuse the opposition of what they are entirely guilty of. Never was this as painfully clear as watching the worst President this nation has ever had, by far the most damaging, accuse George W. Bush of being the worst president the nation ever had.

She also considered using the "takes one to know one" comeback. The blog Hot Air doesn't think much of Carter or his remarks, but doesn't exactly come to Bush's defense either:

Never mind his Bush-bashing. A "Bush/Carter: who's worse?" debate does us no favors considering Jimmeh's almost 30 years removed from office while our guy's still there. Besides, the real debate, if the Iraqis can't get it together, will end up being over which of them did more ultimately to expand Iranian influence.

More moderate types think the former President has a point, even if both parties handled themselves poorly:

So Jimmy Carter called the Bush foreign policy "the worst in history," a feeling many would agree with (I don't know enough about history, but I suspect it's very possible it's true). It wasn't a thoughtful statement, and not too cool for an ex-prez to say. He apologized.

On the other hand, the Bush admin called him "increasingly irrelevant," which shows a total lack of class. Jimmy Carter is an ex-prez, and an old guy (no offense) and not really a threat to their power (or, these days, lack thereof). But, if they were confident in their power and position they probably would have done the classy thing. Maybe. These guys have not been strong on class most of the time.

Most of the time? Not surprisingly, progressive blogs have come to Carter's defense, saying the line he crossed was less important than calling a spade a spade:

I would think that it would be expected that former presidents use their position as a statesman to object to policies that have proven ill or dangerous. Not your run of the mill, "I don't like how the president talked to the Foreign Minister of Togo" type of criticism. Criticism of policies that have, and are, causing direct harm to the country and it's people, by a former president, I think is acceptable. Is that a hard line to find sometimes? Sure. Is it right now? No.

Despite my personal feelings towards Carter (mixed), in another time, under different circumstances, I might think his comments were unbecoming, even uncalled for. At the very least unhelpful, as calling someone a silly twit when you;re trying to get them to change their behavior is counter-productive. But that was...well, whenever...and this is now. There's not really any gray area as to whether or not Dubya's Excellent Iraq Adventure is indeed the Worst Foreign Policy Blunder of All Time. It's supporters have ridiculed criticism before, during and after, blinded themselves to facts on the ground, and basically embarked on a loooong journey down the river Denial. At some point the kid gloves need to come off and even an ex-President needs to lend his voice to the chorus of people saying that no matter how much lipstick you put on it, it's still a prize-winning pig.

Like a hive of bees that just got hit with your nephew's whiffle bat, the Republican base is upset furious ballistic over the new immigration bill. Michelle Malkin was, for once mercifully brief and to the point:

Amnesty No!

With friends like the Senate Republicans, who needs enemies?

Powerline's John Hinderaker, possibly the all-time #1 George W. Bush fanboy on all of teh internets, manages to avoid noticing his hero's approval of the bill and draws a line in the sand for all the hopeful GOP gentleman callers:

Any Republican candidate who is on board with the projected deal should receive no consideration from conservatives as a presidential nominee.

Ostensibly a warning to all potential candidates, there's really only one guy this comment is aimed at. Hugh Hewitt is less coy and calls the culprit out, and in doing so manages to make a case as to why no one at all should listen to him (emphasis mine):

The Senate GOP may believe that the anti-illegal immigration absolutists are far noisier than their numbers justify, and they would be right. But the common-sense conservatives hate being told that the best the Senate GOP can do is lose gracefully...The only good news about the bill as outlined in the talking points is that it will effectively end the McCain campaign.

"Yes, we're crazy and irrlelevant, but by God we're LOUD! Woot!"

However, not all of Right Blogistan is up in arms. Some are calling this the best of a bad situation:

It's not great, and it's not even very good. It's not bad, though, and given our lack of strength in Congress and the White House on this issue, it's a good deal that will strengthen our national security now rather than wait another two years to address it. To quote the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need. This is one of those times.

But Cap'n Ed is in the minority on this one (no pun intended). Once you get past the polite veneer of the A nd B-listers, the conservative rabble are positively stricken with Bush Derangement Syndrome. Et tu Jorge Arbusto? (hat tip to Wonkette):

dEPORT tHE pRESIDENT aND cLOSE tHE bORDERS.

The rule of law has just been thrown out the window. I agree that impeachment is in order.

Refusal to uphold the US Constitution he swore to. Abdication of power to the ILLEGAL lobby. I’m sure there are more.

Bring my Step-Son home from Iraq now El Presedente. You don’t deserve his service.

There's more, oh so much more......But after the first dozen or so mentions of the "I" word, it got a little boring. If I want that, I'll go to Daily Kos.

Of course, whenever you have conservative hardliners complaining loudly, somewhere a liberal's smiling so hard their cheeks hurt.

Let America's policy towards these immigrants be generous, fair, and flexible. Do not punish them for having chosen to come to America. Offer them an opportunity to settle, legally, for good. If they work, if they pay their taxes, if they accept the American way of life and want to be a part of it, indeed, if they are already American...be generous to them...It seems to me that the Senate compromise is, at the very least, a good and impressive start...And the xenophobic right hates it, which must mean it's got something good going for it.

It's a slow, hanging curveball right over the plate...

I swear, some days, it's like politicians are just ASKING for it. Whether it's someone you like, or someone you don't, there's something about a politician's DNA that, every once in a while, they just have to set themselves up for ridicule. And this is definitely one of those times:

This would seem to be an example of a campaign gratuitously providing everyone an opening to ridicule its candidate. But that clearly was a risk the campaign was willing to take in order to soften the candidate's hard-edged image, to show she has a deep well of inner mirth…But the list does contain U2's "Beautiful Day." As I recall, that song was in heavy rotation during the Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. She might want to reconsider having that one on the list.

Because she doesn't need THAT kind of ridicule. Nonetheless, conservative bloggers were all over the write-in option on Hillary's poll like white on rice:

10) Everybody Wants To Rule The World -- Tears For Fears
9) Would I Lie to You? -- Eurythmics
8) Cult of Personality -- Living Colour
7) Stand by Your Man! -- Tammy Wynette
6) Sympathy for the Devil -- The Rolling Stones
5) The "Star Spangled Banner sung in Spanish" -- Francis Scott Key
4) The Song of the South (sung in a fake southern accent) -- Alabama
3) The Imperial March (The Darth Vader Theme song) -- John Williams
2) Welcome to My Nightmare -- Alice Cooper
1) Back in the USSR -- The Beatles

The suggestions were pretty much the same around Right Blogistan, as they were just retreads of Hillary Talking Points for the last 15 years or so: "power hungry," "Bill cheated!!!, "She's a witch! Burn her!" and "Democrat = Communist!" I'm not sure where "Star Spangled Banner sung in Spanish" comes from, as immigration reform isn't exactly her signature issue, but...I guess we can file that under "Democrats = reconquista!"

Still, others passed on the opportunity to snark, and instead played music critic:

Just when you thought your brain had been wiped clean of all memories involving Jesus Jones, the band – known for its tedious hit “Right Here, Right Now” – is being thrust back into the national consciousness. Who dares taint the air with lazy early-’90s Brit Pop?...We should all consider not voting for Clinton just for her inclination to include Smash Mouth's dry cover of "I'm a Believer" over the Monkees' original.

Because the original RAWKED!!!1! Meanwhile, some people took the analysis of her choices a little too literally:

"Ready to Run" is a song about a young woman who decides that marriage and love isn't for her and that all she's "ready to do is have some fun". That's not quite Commander-in-Chief material…Some of the other songs aren't much better. "Get Ready" is a love song to a woman. So is "City of Blinding Lights". "I'm A Believer" is a love song about a woman…Not quite what I think of when I think of electing a President.

Yeah, well, maybe she's just looking for a good hook. After all, Born in the USA was about the hardships Vietnam Vets faced after coming home from war, if they came home at all, and that didn't stop St. Ronnie Reagan from using it.

As for my suggestion, given the Clinton's penchant for triangulation, I'd suggest the 1972 hit from Stealer's Wheel:

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you

With all due respect to my guest, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) - you just don't get it. This is so far past the point of politics and sadly, at the same time, all about politics. Every American, even the most conservative Republican should be outraged if Gonzales isn't fired by this weekend.

In the prosecutor purge he trashed careers, lied through his teeth under oath, and made it clear he was more interested in getting Republicans elected than upholding the law.

We also learn that it took threats of resignation from John Ashcroft and the FBI director to get Gonzales and Bush to back off even more outrageous privacy abuses with their disgraceful warrantless wiretapping.

For his efforts, Gonzo got promoted from Bush's personal attorney to attorney general. The problem is while the title and the office changed, Alberto Gonzales never changed. He's never figured out he now works for us, not the White House.

As the top law enforcement official of the land, he's expected, even counted on to not only uphold the law, but set the example for the Justice Department to follow.

Gonzales has failed every imaginable standard, and he has failed America. He needs to go now.

Well, well, well. Look who woke up! Fred Hiatt on the Washington Post's editorial page had this to say today:

WHY IS IT only now that the disturbing story of the Bush administration's willingness to override the legal advice of its own Justice Department is emerging? The chief reason is that the administration, in the person of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, stonewalled congressional inquiries and did its best to ensure that the shameful episode never came to light.

Mmmmm....Wakey wakey, eggs 'n' bakey. Good morning to you too, Fred! Let's get you a nice hot cup of wake-me-up courtesy of blogger Glenn Greenwald:

...the equally significant answer to Hiatt's question -- "why is it only now that the disturbing story of the Bush administration's willingness to override the legal advice of its own Justice Department is emerging?" -- is that the Beltway establishment, led by the likes of Hiatt, decided that the President's lawbreaking was really nothing to be too bothered by, that those who objected to it were shrill and hysterical, and they found justification, or at least sufficient mitigation, to look the other way...For Hiatt to now act all bewildered and ask "why is it only now" that we are learning of this misconduct is disingenuous in the extreme.

It's not like some people haven't been shouting themselves horse over this for some time now. In fact, Fred, your own paper just reported that in the other scandal Gonzalez is involved in (I know, it's hard to keep track of them), Gonzalez, shall we say, took some creative artistic license with the truth when he said that only 8 US atty's were considered for termination, when in fact, the number was closer to two dozen. AmericaBlog explains what that means so even a Washington Post editor can understand:

When someone says something that's not true, it's a lie. When someone says something that not true while under oath, that's a crime. The media were buying the Bush administration spin that the U.S. Attorneys scandal was over. It's not. George Bush's Attorney General has been lying to Congress and to the American people. That's been standard operating procedure for years with the Bush crowd. But, now, there has to be accountability.

But before that happens, the media needs to wake up from it's long faux-patriotism-induced nap and start pointing out the obvious. And in case Fred Hiatt starts getting sleepy again, others will continue to point out the obvious for him:

For a story whose defenders have said is about nothing and is, at its core a simple one, the revelations sure do keep on coming..If the DoJ and the administration have been forthcoming, why do we keep getting new information?...How many times are we going to find out that something he has told Congress under oath doesn't, in fact, comport with reality?

The good Dr. Taylor is referring to the US Atty's scandal, but really, does it matter? When you hear Gonzalez say anyhting about anything, it seems to be just a matter of time before the opposite is shown to be true.

UPDATE: Almost missed this. It looks like Fred hit the snooze button and is getting comfy again:

What was the administration doing, and what was it willing to continue to do, that its lawyers concluded was without a legal basis? Without an answer to that fundamental question, the coverup will have succeeded.

Gee, Fred, that's quite insightful. Now, if only there were someone who was curious about that, someone who could go get that answer by following up that line of questioing, instead of just letting it sit there getting moldy...Someone with access to a widely-read editorial page that could make....Ooops. My bad. He's asleep alreday.

They're so cute when they're sleeping.

Well, what were you expecting from a debate on FOX? Brit Hume proposed a scenario straight out of "24". Shopping malls bombed, hundreds dead, and only a terrorist in Gitmo knows where the 4th bomb will go off. By god, you Republican candidates! Which one of you would be the toughest? Don't be shy now! Who's the super-toughest of the tough guys here?:

It's clear that this group has come to fully understand that winning the GOP nomination is all about the codpiece. These guys have just spent the last fifteen minutes of the debate trying to top each other on just how much torture they are willing to inflict. They sound like a bunch of psychotic 12 year olds, although considering the puerile nature of the "24" question it's not entirely their fault.

To be fair, Brit Hume is no script writer. The scenario he presented wouldn't make first cut at the re-write table. Come to think of it, he's not much of a debate moderator either. The scenario Brit proposed implies that a Republican president couldn't keep us safe from a terrorist attack. Wouldn't a better question have been, "What would you do as President to prevent this fantastically paranoid scenario I just concocted from happening?" But that's another story...Normally one of the more intuitive bloggers out there, Matthew Yglesias couldn't quite figure out what Mitt Romney meant about doubling Guantanamo, so one of his commenters explains it for him (hat tip to Atrios):

I thought he was clear. He does not believe in trial by jury, or the presumption of innocence, or the right to counsel, or an independent judiciary, or the right to liberty. He believes that the government should be able to disappear people from their homes and send them to prison camps...He thinks we need more Gitmos and bigger Gitmos. He wants to recreate the gulag. You saw how excited the audience was. They understood it. Why don't you?

Yes, it was a FOX -type audience, and conservative bloggers would've felt right at home, assuming they weren't already in the audience to begin with. The crowd grunted and hooted with approval like an Arsenio Hall audience hopped up on anabolic steroids and Old Milwaukee. And of course they sneered at the one candidate who didn't seem gung-ho enough to do the torturing himself:

McCain...seemed to say he would not support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques even in the "ticking time bomb" scenario...McCain's stale, "it's not about them, it's about us" mantra and his reference to his experiences in Vietnam, where he was subjected to techniques bearing virtually no relation to things like water-boarding, don't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

Because when discussing a paranoid fantasy that can only be solved by some hypothetical torture that you yourself are never going to have to endure, witness, or even consider the implications of, the LAST thing you want is someone who can actually speak on the reality of torture. It messes with your nice "24" fanboy fiction.

I come here not to bury John Ashcroft, but to praise him. And no one is more surprised at that than I am. But former Deputy AG James Comey's tastimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday has done what I thought impossible: generate sympathy and some small amount of respect for John Ashcroft. It takes quite a man to make Ashcroft look like a civil libertarian. Fortunately, Alberto Gonzalez is quite a piece of work:

The unlikely protagonist of the story, John Ashcroft, was later replaced by the guy who tried to convince him to sign an important legal document that 1) contradicted the reasoned legal opinion of the Justice Department and 2) he had neither the official authority nor the legal capacity (due to his heavily-medicated state) to sign. Think about that for a second. This man is now our Attorney General. What an absolute disgrace.

Comey's retelling of the night in Ashcroft's hospital room with Card and Gonzalez is something straight out of a movie. I'd be surprised if it weren't dark and stormy when Comey raced to the hospital to cut Gonzalez and Card off at the pass. And Comey's testimony comes just in the nick of time to perk up frustrated Democrats:

Democrats finally have reason to grin. They have failed so far to take down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales with tales of the man's hackery, sycophancy, and boundless apathy. But now we're being treated to a graphic retelling of the AG's efforts to browbeat a critically ill man into signing off on the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance program. Wait. Now even I'm grinning.

The administration has been trying for some time to keep this under wraps. And now we know why:

Knowing about these events in Aschcroft's hospital room (because he was a key participant in them), Gonzales, with a straight face, insisted in February, 2006 that he would not allow Ashcroft or Comey to testify because "you have to wonder what could Messrs. Comey and Ashcroft add to the discussion." It is impossible to express how free they are of even the most minimal constraints to tell the truth.

In the end, despite being thwarted in their attempt to get a drug-addled Ashcroft to legalize their program, the administration got the program reauthorized without the signature of the Ashcroft or Comey. But his efforts, while in vain, shall be remembered here today:

Ashcroft, to his eternal credit, stood up for the rule of law as attorney-general, which is why he was eventually replaced by Alberto Gonzales, a man whose entire career is as a Bush family indentured servant. But in case the import of this is not clear: John Ashcroft was way too moderate for these people. John Ashcroft.

So here's to you, John. I've made fun of your loss in a Senate race to a dead man; I've ridiculed you for your attempt to cover up a statue's naked boobie; I've howled in derisive laughter at your singing. But when it comes to recognizing a blatant violation of our most basic civil liberties for what it is - and acting accordingly - it turns out you're more of a stand-up guy than Gonzo.

Good on you.

Newt Gingrich. Conservative hero of the 90's, even if he does come off as a little too intellectual for the base. The ultimate partisan attack dog to just about everyone else, remembered for his tanturms briefly shutting down the federal government. Is he what the GOP Presidential field is missing? Some rightwingers think so, if it weren't for all that baggage that's, um, really not baggage at all, so Democrats should stop saying it is!:

Newt is a formidable debater. He is also one of the great minds of conservatism....But Newt is weighted down with personal baggage. If he runs the Democrats will try to associate every Republican candidate with Newt regardless of relationships to him or lack thereof. Not only will they try...but they will to a good extent succeed. Smear campaigns are one of the Democrats strong suits.

This is a textbook example of one of Gingrich's tactics, later perfected by Karl Rove: projection. Take something negative about yourself, and project it onto your opponent, tarring them while taking the focus off yourself. When you're talking smear campaigns, Newt was a master:

I had the pleasure of hearing...Gingrich lecture today's politicians on, yes, being too partisan...Gingrich is perhaps the worst of these hyperpartisan politicians...when it comes to practicing oppositional politics. He doesn't care about actually fixing anything. Rather, his entire being is geared toward soundbites and framing and political maneuvering. Everything...that comes out of Gingrich's mouth has one purpose: to disparage and discredit his opponents.

When you add Newt's well known underhanded tactics to his, ahem, somewhat spotted personal life, it's understandable that some progressives can hardly contain their excitement at the prospect of having him in the race:

Please, baby, baby, please. It's not a big tent for the 2008 GOP, it's a three ring circus of adulterous windbags…a clown car bursting with bozos of very high entertainment value! Newt clearly thinks he can bring some sort of mojo to the race, since the field is so damn weak...Bring. It. On.

The prospect of candidate Newt is certainly tantalizing for those who enjoy an easy target. However, sometimes it's useful to remember Murphy's Law - If anything can go wrong, it will:

Whenever I see my fellow libruls gleefully pining for a Gingrich run..., I cringe, on the simple premise "be careful what you wish for." This is, after all, the same country that elected George W. Bush president. Twice.

Still, while I have a healthy respect for Murphy and his law (I believe he was an optimist)....President Newt?

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

For his role in pushing the United States into the debacle that is the Iraq War, George Bush nominated Paul Wolfowitz as President of the World Bank (he ran out of Presidential Medals of Freedom after handing them out like Halloween candy). Now, like so many administration officials before him, Paul Wolfowitz is up to his spit-combed hair in scandal. Which leaves the White House with no choice but to...support him publicly. So much for avoiding the appearance of impropriety:

Hey, it's not like he lied about a war this time. He just lied about getting his girlfriend a new job and a pay raise. That's "just" an ethics violation. Kid's stuff for the Bush crowd. Bush isn't going to let the rest of the world tell him what to do. No way. The Bush team is sticking with their guy.

Because when you're a part of the family, you're made for life. And that's not where similarities to the Sopranos end:

Ahhhh, running the World Bank like Tony Soprano. It might even be a show I'd like to watch….As the details of Paul Wolfowitz's deal to give a hefty pay package to girlfriend, Shaha Riza, were threatening to be revealed, Wolfowitz threatened senior World Bank staffers that they'd pay if the deal was revealed pubicly. "If they f*ck with me or Shaha," raged Wolfowitz, according to the internal report on Wolfowitz's conduct, "I have enough on them to f*ck them too."

Dropping the F-bomb? I thought only dirty bloggers did that? Must be what happens when you hang around guys like Dick Cheney too much. You get the potty mouth. And apparently you pick up some other habits as well:

The simple fact is that Wolfowitz has throughout his entire career demonstrated a penchant for cronyism and for smearing and marginalizing perceived rivals as tactics for getting his way. He has been arrogant and highhanded in dismissing the views of wiser and more informed experts, exhibiting a narcissism that is also apparent in his personal life. Indeed, these tactics are typical of what might be called the "neoconservative style."

So it's no wonder that the White House is standing by their man. He's one of them, in more ways than one. And when I say one of them, by definition, I mean "not one of us":

WH spokesman Tony Snow said of the $60,000 raise given Paul Wolfowitz's girlfriend Shaha Riza at the World Bank - "it's not a firing offense." Not a firing offense? In the real world your average worker can get fired for being off 9 bucks total over the course of 3 months in counting your drawer…Why should Wolfowitz be excused for a $60,000 conflict of interest?

Because he's Paul Wolfowitz, and you're not.

There's a reason why "don't put all your eggs in one basket" is a saying. It's a good idea. One wrong move and, SPLAT!, no eggs. And so it is for Rudy Giuliani. With word that he sacrificed the health of ground zero workers for a speedier cleanup, that's egg on the former mayor's face:

OK, so Rudy Giuliani has a problem when it comes to domestic policy. And his personal life. And his knowledge of foreign policy. And who he chooses to associate himself with, professionally.But, when it comes to his presidential campaign, at the very least, he has the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to point to, right? Wrong.

It seems the appearance of New York coming back to life was more important than the lives of the people working to resurrect the city. Some people remember all to well because they lived through it, and say Rudy was just playing according to type:

My wife and I lived in New York on 9/11. We watched and felt the towers go down from mere blocks away. We didn't like Giuliani before the tragic attack...but grudgingly respected his crisis management abilities in the aftermath…But I find the disdain for the workers - all of them heroes - and their health absolutely appalling. Though not surprising. Even if Giuliani isn't a nutjob when it comes to social issues, he's still a Republican. And the bottom line always comes before people. For Republicans.

Like elephants, New Yorkers also have excellent memories. Current NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg outpolled Rudy among New Yorkers as not only a better mayor, but also a better presidential candidate. Of course, that's just because they remember him:

This is coming from the folks that know better…The poll showed that Giuliani had the least amount of support from the black community, but that is no surprise since he wasn't very friendly to the black community while he rushed to clean up crime. That must be the way Giuliani rolls. He gets the job done, but he doesn't care about who gets hurt on the way.

Now Rudy's campaign is working furiously to minimize this report, but it's like bailing out the Titanic with a dixie cup:

Rudy Giuliani will not be the Republican presidential nominee for a number of reasons (too moderate, too many sleazy friends and anger-management problems, to name but three), but the biggest reason is that he is a one-trick pony and the harder you look at his post-9/11 leadership as New York City mayor the more cracks appear.

Or as a wise man once said, "Of course, everything's bad if you remember it."

In addition to openly expressing frustration with the Iraq government's progress, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has also said that if the Iraqi parliament votes to ask the US to leave, that we'll be happy to comply with their request. Which would be a novel idea for Republicans:

If so, it may mark the first time that Republicans actually respect the popular wishes of the people being occupied by U.S. forces, or for that matter, the American people, who also support ending the occupation as soon as possible. These wishes have been expressed both in public opinion polls, and at the voting booth.

War supporters, not wanting to be seen as too nakedly imperialist, agree with McConnell in theory, but think it would be a horrible, horrible idea:

I have no doubt that should the Iraqi government ask us to leave we will leave. That would be a mistake, I think, because I don't think the Iraqi security forces are strong enough to protect the government from the machinations of nations like Iran and Syria, and that weakness could well result in Iraq becoming a puppet state of one or both.

So the problem with them asking us to leave is the war's supporters don't actually want us to leave. Which suggests that, if asked, we'll just decide it's more important for our own security (rather than the thousand of Iraqis doing the actual dying while we play war in their backyard) to stay than to leave. Which is how we got into Iraq in the first place. Clever, no? Still, despite McConnell's insisting we'll leave if asked and the political fallout here at home regardless, some aren't so sure the GOP is ready to rebel against Bush on Iraq:

What these vulnerable 2008 GOP incumbents see is an administration suffering from isolation and internal battles about how to proceed in Iraq, at a time when it is they who will pay a price next year for their lock-step support of this administration's debacle in Iraq. But is this a mirage or an accurate picture of a GOP that is in the first stages of a fracture over Iraq?

Indeed, noting the Iraqi parliament is readying legislation demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led troops, it's just as likely that McConnell's just blowing smoke:

Anybody want to bet McConnell and the rest of these "top-ranking Republicans" will develop selective amnesia shortly?

I know the threat of losing their seats is a powerful motivator, and I know Rich disagrees with me, but I don't see Republicans giving up the ghost on this yet. They'll continue to hang onto the Iraq War like grim death.

Which is somehow appropriate.

Welcome!

You know how renovation projects around the house can get a little out of control? You start thinking you'll just move some furniture around, maybe a new coat of paint and some new carpeting. Next thing you know you're arguing with the contractor over what really constitutes a load-bearing wall and wondering if you need the stairs to be where they currently are, when an escalator would be so much cooler.

Long story short, that's sort of what happened here at RNNTV.com. We replaced the old treadmill wheel with a new model and hired some new hamsters to run it. Powerful, American hamsters (no reconquista hamsters for us!) with legs like little bonsai tree trunks. We gave the old hamsters a generous retirement package, and they've moved down to the Florida Keys to spend the rest of their days enjoying mojitos and hamster kibble by the sea.

But now that the dust has settled, we hope you enjoy the new place. Feel free to snoop around. Nuestra casa es su casa, just stay out of the medicine cabinet. You'll find a considerable amount of video content around here, a new spam-free message board, resources for local and national news, politics and ways to get involved. And if you're reading this, you've also found our new blog, The Black Box Report.

As my boss is fond of saying, "Give me the 5 W's and the H," so here they are:

WHO: Contributors to the Black Box Report will include myself, Michael Turner, RNN's resident blog reporter. Also joining me will be RNN host Richard French, Interactive Reporter Karen DePodwin, Alicia Menendez and various other RNN staff when they have something to say about something.

WHAT: The Black Box Report will have expanded versions of our on-air "Around the Blogs" and "Blogger Beat" segments (sometimes you just can't get all the good stuff in 2-3 minutes of TV). For those unfamiliar with "Around the Blogs" and "Blogger Beat," I take some of the stories we cover every night on Richard French Live and Real Politics Live, then search out the best posts I can find from the far corners of the blogosphere and present their most salient points. Here you'll find the links to those blogs, big and small, so you can go get their full flavor yourself. We'll also be blogging on other subjects, as they interest us, whether we cover them on air or not. Issues important and not-so-important, bits of political absurdity, media commentary and criticism, and things that just strike us as funny.

WHEN: Fresh content daily! Perhaps even on weekends!

WHERE: Here. You've found us!

WHY: Why does someone climb a mountain? Because it's there. Why does someone blog? Because they have something to say. With the exponential growth of blogs on the internet, the national conversation is no longer dominated only by editorial boards, beltway pundits and media talking-heads. In addition to wanting to share our opinions with you, we want to bring you the voices you may not be hearing. The Black Box Report is another voice among many. Bloggers from the left, right and middle are changing the way news gets presented, countering conventional wisdom that may be neither truly conventional nor wise. Some are just average people with unique points of view, others are quite skilled and knowledgeable writers. Others are just a little crazy, but they're in the mix as well.

HOW: I told you. Hamsters. Powerful hamsters.

So that's that. Feel free to leave a comment, suggest topics to blog about, agree or disagree with what you read here, or even plug your own blog. Just don't tease the hamsters.