DNC will back whoever wins Democratic primary in Connecticut

That's good. The momentum is starting to swing against Lieberman and his independent bid.

The Democratic National Committee said it would not take sides in the primary but would back the nominee in the fall.

Read the rest of this post...

Froomkin asks questions

Following up on Murray Waas' kick-ass article in the National Journal on Monday -- where we learned Bush basically told Cheney to trash Joe Wilson -- Dan Froomkin wants to know more about what Bush knew:

...it certainly seems clear by now that Bush knows a lot more about this case -- and his White House's enthusiasm for discrediting its opponents -- than he's let on in public.

Isn't it about time Bush stopped pretending ignorance about this story -- and came clean on his own role? Why should that information only be shared with criminal prosecutors?

Is it approved White House procedure to distribute misinformation? Is it okay to out a covert CIA operative? If it's not okay was he disappointed in how top deputies like Cheney and Rove -- both still very much at work at the White House -- carried out his orders?

Those are all questions that need answers. We'll probably never get answers...but Bush needs to be asked. Read the rest of this post...

Liberal has slight lead in Mexican recount

This is amazing that history seems to be repeating itself. Read the rest of this post...

Gay marriage ban likely off the ballot in Illinois this November

Ha ha. Read the rest of this post...

No more kings, George

All the more relevant today. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

The fourth Axis of Evil: Ann Coulter without make-up. Read the rest of this post...

More on Randy Duke Cunningham from Vanity Fair, and it ain't pretty

From Vanity Fair. Read the rest of this post...

Rape allegations create growing uproar in Iraq

When I was working on Iraq, it was often difficult to predict which events would cause an uproar and which would simply fade away. The Iraqi rumor mill is so potent, with so many horrific stories and accusations already making their way through the population of the country, that Iraqis often reacted to atrocities (or accusations thereof) with a kind of "we already knew that" fatalism. Hundreds of people unjustly detained and tortured by the Interior Ministry? Little reaction; everybody already knew that stuff was going on. Assassinations of major leaders? Not unexpected, rumors had a price on his head for months. Etc. Not to say that such events weren't sigificant, just that we sometimes thought they would have greater political fallout than they actually did.

But the one thing that we always knew would incite an absolute frenzy -- more than killing or torturing or political marginalization or anything else we could think of -- was rape. The alleged rape and murder of a woman (and three other members of her family) is creating shockwaves throughout the country, not just among the masses, but within elite political circles as well. In in honor-based society, particularly one with the history and sensitivity regarding colonialism and violation that Iraq has, the image of an occupier raping and killing a woman is beyond devastating. Even more so because some reports have the woman as young as 16 (though the official investigation says 25).

Prime Minister Maliki is reportedly calling for a review of the current immunity for U.S. forces in Iraq, and wants Iraqis to be part of the investigation into the allegations. Also, to the best of my knowledge, there's no status of forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, which creates a very weird legal status issue because we technically turned over sovereignty a long time ago. In any case, this scandal will likely have more of an effect than any other since Abu Ghraib, and right now there are still far more questions than answers. Read the rest of this post...

John McCain vs. Grover

Digby has an interesting take on John McCain and Grover Norquist and their recent dust-up. Read the rest of this post...

Let's chat a little more about North Korea

I'm listening to Bush spokesman Tony Snow speaking right now about North Korea and how bad a government it is, and it almost sounds as if this is news to Snow and the White House. As if they're breaking some kind of previously-unheard news about North Korea - it's a bad place. Most of us have known that for half a century.

A few thoughts:

1. Good luck taking on North Korea. We have no more money left, our military is worn out, and we're still trapped in Afghanistan and Iraq. What exactly can we do about North Korea, other than start a nuclear war when North Korea nukes South Korea right after we attack them?

2. What about Iran? Remember all that talk a few months ago about how Iran was only 14 days away (or something like that) from building a nuke and using it to torch Topeka? Well, seems the Mexican invasion from the south and the pink invasion from within took precedence politically, and now it's North Korea. Iran went from an imminent nuclear threat to pretty much nothing in about 2 months. Isn't that interesting.

3. Nice that we warned N. Korea that they'd better not launch those missiles OR ELSE. Or else what? They called our bluff, and on the 4th of July, no less. So now what?

4. North Korea is NOT the issue Bush wants us debating as we enter the mid-term elections. Dems and Republicans can both agree, quite easily, that North Korea is a nasty, dangerous place. But what's more, Dems can quite easily charge the Republicans with ignoring the Korean threat all these years. So, I'm not convinced this issue is a winner for Bush, other than the fact it lets him rattle his saber, and we all know how much a boy loves to play with his saber. Read the rest of this post...

Lieberman may have a problem appearing on the ballot as an "Independent Democrat"

Apparently, there's been talk of Lieberman appearing on the November ballot as an "Independent Democrat," should he lose the primary to Ned Lamont. Well, the law may say otherwise. Read the rest of this post...

Dems. won't redistrict like Texas even where they can

Last week, the Supreme Court said it was okay for state legislatures to gerrymander at any time. The GOP had pushed the envelope in Texas with their redistricting plan -- for purely political reasons -- and it was upheld. So are Democrats going to to do the same thing where they can? Of course not. That would be too political and not bi-partisan:

In Illinois, as in many other states, the current congressional map is the product of a bipartisan agreement to protect incumbents of both parties, election after election. Democrats, who hold 10 of the state's 19 House seats, control the legislature and hope to reelect Gov. Rod Blagojevich this fall. They possibly could gain another House seat or two in the 2008 elections by packing Republican voters into overwhelmingly GOP-leaning districts, the tactic that DeLay used against Texas Democrats.

But recent history suggests that they will demur. The current district lines have strong support in both parties, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) got nowhere last year with a bid to redraw them in retaliation for what happened in Texas. "I couldn't get enough fellow Democrats to see the benefits of that," said Emanuel, who chairs his party's campaign to elect more House members.

Rahm's quote should be astounding. But, it's not. And it explains why Democrats are in the minority. The GOP picked up seats in 2004 because they redistricted Texas. The Illinois Democrats could have re-districted the Speaker of the House this year. But, no, that would be mean.

This passage explains so much. And for the record, AMERICAblog suggested redistricting Illinois in November of 2004. Read the rest of this post...

Ken Lay dies of heart attack at home in Aspen

Breaking story being reported on CNN...details coming. Read the rest of this post...

More from Hillary on Lieberman

Making her position clear:

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," Clinton added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

Read the rest of this post...

Bush abandons immigration reform

For years, Bush has spoken about the need for immigration reform that included a path to citizenship and guest workers. Not anymore. Bush is once again putting GOP politics first. The White House is so desperate for a legislative "victory" that Bush is going to abandon that long standing position. I believe, in the parlance of Karl Rove, that is called a "flip-flop":

Republicans both inside and outside the White House say Mr. Bush, who has long insisted on comprehensive reform, is now open to a so-called enforcement-first approach that would put new border security programs in place before creating a guest worker program or path to citizenship for people living in the United States illegally.

"He thinks that this notion that you can have triggers is something we should take a close look at, and we are," said Candi Wolff, the White House director of legislative affairs, referring to the idea that guest worker and citizenship programs would be triggered when specific border security goals had been met, a process that could take two years.

The shift is significant because Mr. Bush has repeatedly said he favors legislation like the Senate's immigration bill, which establishes border security, guest worker and citizenship programs all at once. The enforcement-first approach puts Mr. Bush one step closer to the House, where Republicans are demanding an enforcement-only measure.

The immigrant bashers are winning over the White House. Read the rest of this post...

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

So six, seven missiles launched by the North Koreans. They wanted attention, they got attention.

Never a dull moment. Read the rest of this post...

But I thought we were told al-Qaida was the source of all problems in Iraq

Doesn't the Iraqi government know that it's all about al-Qaida? Someone needs to check that new list of most wanted in Iraq.

The list, released last weekend, includes at least 21 former regime figures, among them Saddam's chief lieutenant, his wife, eldest daughter, two nephews and a cousin Â? allegedly financiers of the insurgency.

Only five of the 41 names are clearly identified as members of al-Qaida's local branch.

That reinforces the impression shared by a number of analysts that ex-Baath party members and former regime figures still play a key role in the insurgency.

"I believe that former regime members form 40 to 50 percent of the insurgency," said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on militant groups. "Operations by al-Qaida and the Mujahedeen Shura Council make between five to 10 percent only, a maximum of 10 percent."

Read the rest of this post...

"A real lack of confidence in the Government's commitment to the rule of law"

Talking about Bush? No silly, it's The Poodle Mini Me in the UK. It's always the same over reaching of power, criticizing the courts and blaming everyone else because of leadership failures on the so-called war on terror. How predictable.

The source claims that judges have become ministerial "whipping boys" in a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from the Government's own failings. Expressing views that The Independent understands are shared by a growing number of judges the source said: "I don't think relations between the judiciary and the executive have ever been so poor.

"There is now a real lack of confidence in the Government's commitment to the rule of law ... if the executive has a lack of confidence in the judiciary then I think that lack of confidence is reciprocated."

He added: "Whenever there's an opportunity to stand up to the lynch mob, the opportunity is missed. More often than not, you find ministers behind the lynch mob egging it on."

Last week, Tony Blair repeated his threat to bring in new laws to curb the power of the judiciary after a High Court judge declared the Government's anti-terror legislation to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. That prompted the former Home Office minister John Denham to warn of a " constitutional crisis".

The source, who only agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said: " To describe the situation as a constitutional crisis and blame the judges for being responsible is a construct. I think it's a displacement action to deflect attention from ministers' own failings on to someone else. It helps to direct attention away from perfectly legitimate criticism of defects in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Does Rove also work for Blair? Sounds like the same playbook.

Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

What's the latest? Read the rest of this post...