The recent revelations by Wikileaks regarding the Afghanistan conflict raises many issues, but one, and in my view the most important, is not new - and it is the strength of jihadism in Pakistan. And at the highest levels. The NYTimes reported:

Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public Sunday.

The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.

That powerful forces in the Pakistani government are strongly tied to the Taliban should comes as no surprise to anyone. This has been at the heart of the issue. As a supporter of the President's policy in Afghanistan, I hope, and indeed, feel confident that this is understood. Now what to do about it? Let's discuss on the flip.

Matt Yglesias writes:

[T]he Obama administration points to an impressive array of accomplishment. Their health-care bill is the most significant progressive achievement in more than 40 years. Financial regulation, the new START treaty, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, etc. are nothing to sneer at. But something the administration barely seems to recognize is that political activists do not live on policy accomplishments alone. Small donations, volunteer time, and even voting itself are undertaken primarily in exchange for psychological benefits. People engaged in the process want—need—to feel good about themselves for doing it.

(Emphasis supplied.) The funny thing about the ridiculous Journolist brouhaha is that what is really objectionable, at least to me, is not the secret e-mail list, but instead the completely patronizing attitude that many of the 'Listers have always displayed toward progressives not as enthralled with Obama's policy accomplishments as they are. Apparently, it is unfathomable for Yglesias to imagine that maybe, just maybe, progressive activists are disappointed about the Democrats' policy accomplishments, and that this disappointment might be anchored in rational analysis. They attribute progressive dissatisfaction to "psychological" reasons. This is patronizing pathetic stuff. That was always the problem I had with the 'Listers. And still do.

Speaking for me only

In hindsight, this seems an easy call - obviously yes. O'Connor was a deciding vote in upholding a woman's right to choose and affirmative action. Steve Benen digs up a story from 1981 where the arch social conservative Richard Viguerie says of the O'Connor nomination:

"The White House slapped us in the face," says Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail expert. "The White House is saying you don't have a constituency we're concerned about. We don't care about you.

I'd say, at the time, Viguerie and people like him were in fact shunted aside because Reagan wanted to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. I don't think Benen is disputing that. I do think Benen is trying to discredit progressive dissatisfaction with President Obama. Indeed, he says the moral of the story is "that perceptions can change over time." That is silly. Some folks seem incapable of getting out of focusing on the pol, not the issue. Vigeurie was commenting on one event - the nomination of O'Connor. I am sure if he wanted to, Benen could find many instances of Viguerie praising Reagan at the same time (tax cuts anyone?). It is not all of one thing or another. Here's the real moral of the story in my opinion - who did Reagan nominate for the Supreme Court after O'Connor? Antonin Scalia. For those who decry pressure on their hero pols, the lessons of Richard Viguerie's complaints about Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor are that they worked. Viguerie got what he wanted the next time.

Richard Viguerie understood what too many do not want to these days - pols are pols and do what they do. Your loyalty should lie with the issues you care about, not the pols.

Speaking for me only

When we left off Friday, the Judge instructed the lawyers in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Rob to e-mail him and each other any requested changes to the jury instructions over the weekend.

Sunday, Team Blago filed a motion for reconsideration and objection to the jury instructions and four in particular. (Available on PACER.) They say the Court is not following the 7th Circuit Pattern instructions or the law in refusing their tendered instructions. Which means, the Court has accepted the Government's versions or ones close to it. And they make a big difference.

The instructions Blago wants are his (filed Saturday) numbered 14, 15, 22 and 5. [More...]

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo has given an ultimatum to Scott McInniss and Dan Maes: Either exit the Governor's race by noon Monday, or he'll run as a third party candidate for the American Constitution Party. He says his goal it to prevent Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, from winning.

McInnis is not likely to fold. Which means in November, the Republican vote will be split, which makes Hickenlooper a shoo-in.

While I doubt Hickenlooper would run ads replaying "Bomb Mecca" and "Impeach Obama," I wouldn't be surprised if McInnis did.

So what do Republicans do? Wait until after the primary and put in one Ken Buck or Jane Norton, one of the two Republicans vying for the Senate seat held by Michael Bennet? [More...]

Wikileaks has published a 200,000 pages of secret documents on the Afghan war.

The files, published online by The Guardian, the New York Times and Germany's Der Spiegel, include details of 144 incidents in which Coalition forces have killed civilians.

The Guardian says the leaks show that troops killed hundreds of civilians in previously unreported incidents.

The White House is livid.

US national security adviser James Jones says the publication of the documents puts the lives of soldiers and civilians at risk.

"The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk and threaten our national security," he said in a statement.

[More..]

Not a shocking headline obviously. But I like the Dem political plan on the issue as reported by the NYTimes:

Negotiations are expected to start in the Senate, where it is hardest for Democrats to advance legislation because of Republican filibusters. But some Democrats say a fallback plan would be to have their larger majority in the House approve a continuation of the lower rates just for the middle class right before the election, almost daring Republicans to oppose them.

In that case, Democrats say, Republicans who opposed the bill would be blocking a tax cut for more than 95 percent of Americans to defend tax cuts for a relatively few wealthy households. [. . .] In the weekly Republican radio address on Saturday, Representative Mike Pence of Indiana promised an all-out push to extend the tax cuts [to the wealthy.] “House Republicans will oppose this tax increase with everything we’ve got,” he said.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Dems seem to have the politics AND the policy right on this one. We'll see.

Speaking for me only

Ann Althouse implies so:

"Those favoring, say, prosecutors and employers are said to be conservative, while those favoring criminal defendants and people claiming discrimination are said to be liberal." If you can get past that sticking point, you can code everything into an immense database, produce some amazing-looking charts, and reach conclusions like "Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades."

(Emphasis supplied.) Strange. Althouse seems really upset that the Roberts Court was called the most conservative court in decades by the New York Times. I am not at all sure why. Of course the Roberts Court is the most conservative in decades. That is what Republicans wanted -- what President George Bush wanted and what the Republican Senate that confirmed Roberts and Alito wanted. And what all conservatives wanted. Why whine about the NYTimes reporting that Republicans achieved their stated goals?

I think the article is rather silly, in that it is like reporting that the sun came up today. The more interesting and important reporting should be about how the Roberts Court is the most activist in decades.

Speaking for me only

The Tour de France finishes up this morning riding to Paris and around the Champs d'Elysees. Alberto Contador is the winner.

Open Thread.

Things I'm reading:

• NY Times: States ratcheting up fear of driving while taking prescription medication, and looking for ways to prosecute more cases. "Drug recognition experts" (cops who go to school to learn what a person who is impaired by pharmaceuticals acts like and then claim to be an expert at trial) are all the rage.

• NY Times: The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts is the most conservative in decades according to an analysis that used four sets of political science data.

• In the Sunday magazine, an article on how the internet doesn't let you forget, or as I usually put it, people need to remember the internet has no eraser.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

As the Judge and attorneys put the final touches on jury instructions this weekend, I thought a summary of the charges against former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert might be helpful for reference during closing arguments and jury deliberations. All of what follows comes from the Government's 123 page proposed jury instructions to the Court, filed July 21 (Rod Blagojevich didn't file written instructions this week, and Robert's lawyer only filed five pages of instructions, which I'll discuss later or in another post. First, the charges:

Rod Blagojevich:

• Racketeering (Count 1),
• Conspiracy to commit racketeering (Count 2),
• Wire fraud (Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
  9, 10, 11, 12, and 13),
• Attempted Extortion (Counts 14, 15, 19, and 22),
• Conspiracy to commit extortion (Counts 17 and 21),
• Bribery (Counts 16 and 20),
• Conspiracy to commit bribery (Counts 18 and 23), Making false statements to the government (Count 24).

As to Robert Blagojevich: [More...]

Alberto Contador held off Andy Schleck in a heartstopping final time trial battle this morning to virtually assure he will win the Tour de France. Incredible Tour this year.

Open Thread.

A strange question for a judge to ask generally, but the concept of preemption may not be well understood by her:

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R).

Bolton [. . .] also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative. "How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

I am not sure what the judge's goal is with these questions, but they are very uninformed, and if serious (oftentimes judges ask questions socratically), demonstrate that this judge does not understand preemption.

Why can't Arizona "enforce" immigration laws unless the federal government authorizes such enforcement? Simply, the Constitution does not permit it. Immigration policy and enforcement is solely, by express provision of the Constitution (see also the Federalist Papers), the province of the federal government. This is not a close question. It is a slam dunk.

Speaking for me only

Open Thread.

Here is a chuckle to start your morning:

The panelists gave voice to lingering disappointment over Halter's failed bid. Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, had particularly harsh words for Bill Clinton, whose full-throated endorsement of Lincoln is credited with helping her win. "It's tough to see someone you've believed in betray you in a big way," Green said of the former president. "We need to pick our heroes. . . . I think it would be sad if we went through this entire conference without calling out Bill Clinton for what he did."

(Emphasis supplied.) Heh. Harsh words for Bill Clinton from a blogger? Now that's never happened. I wonder if Bill Clinton felt like he was being treated as a "hero" when he was called a racist during the 2008 primaries. Oh by the way, President Obama endorsed Lincoln too.

Of course the real problem is having politician "heroes" in the first place. Pols are pols and do what they do.

Speaking for me only