• Registration for YearlyKos closes today.  If you want to attend, you better get on that now.
• Apparently I have not been keeping up. Katha Pollitt now has a blog at The Nation.  Ok, it's not updated quite as often as, say, Daily Kos, but more Katha Pollitt is always a good thing.  In her most recent post, she explains one important reason the anti-war movement struggles.
• More on the farm bill.
• I suspect the audience for this link will be pretty much limited to women around my age, but for us, the New York Times has an article on the demise of Jane magazine, by the authors of the book How Sassy Changed My Life: A Love Letter to the Greatest Teen Magazine of All Time (which I totally have to get).
• Political Wire's quote of the day pretty much exemplifies the Novak - Rove nexus of evil.
• Swing State Project is, of course, getting second quarter fundraising numbers up as they come in.  Two pieces of good news: in CT-04, Democrat Jim Himes outraised the lone House Republican left in all of New England, Chris Shays; and in OH-16, both Democrat John Boccieri and a possible Republican primary challenger outraised Ralph Regula.

The American people have been saying "please, please, please end this occupation."  Congress has been saying "let's start ending this occupation."  Now, Iraq's prime minister says "well, don't stay on our account."

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari warned earlier this week of civil war and the government's collapse if the Americans leave. But al-Maliki told reporters Saturday, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want." - AP

Another member of the Iraqi government had stronger words about the problems of US involvement:

Al-Suneid, a Shiite lawmaker close to al-Maliki, bristled at the pressure. He called Thursday's report "objective," but added, "this bothers us a lot that the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail."

He also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus, who works along a "purely American vision."

He criticized U.S. overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former insurgents to join the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. "These are gangs of killers," he said.

So to recap: The American people don't want the US in Iraq.  The American Congress doesn't want the US in Iraq.  The Iraqi government is saying feel free to go.

Bush, meanwhile, is still all about the surge.

For those on both the east and west coasts, it must be galling when the Midwest is referred to as "the heartland."  After all, the coasts are far more populous, and a good case could be made that the American character owes more to the changing mix of Brooklyn, than all the tree lined streets of all the tiny towns scattered over Indiana, or Ohio, or Iowa.  

But those Midwestern small towns define a certain idea of America.  Those are the towns that were home to Mr. Smith, and yes, to Mr. Lincoln.   From a distance, there's an impression of stability, and an impression of monotony.  Of church socials, mushroom soup casseroles, and parking lots filled with F-150 pickups.  But the timelessness of those places is generated more by the scarcity of images than it is by reality.  It's as if the national media took a photo "Middle America, circa 1960" and has used the same image ever since.

Having grown up in a small town, I can tell you that they're not islands of stability in the national stream.  They're leaves on the wind.    A single plant closing, or a few bad crops, or even the placement of a new highway, can tear a town up by its roots.  Towns that grew up over lifetimes, can be brought low by one disaster.

In a small community, every kid who doesn't move back after college is missed.  And every child lost to war is an open wound.

Deep into a battle with no visible end, many Republican and Democratic voters here say the cause is no longer clear, the war no longer seems winnable and the costs are too high. After mourning Behrle, 20, and Sissel, 22, Tipton lost its heart for the fight and the president who is vowing to press on.

The idea of service runs deep in many small towns, not because small town people are somehow more patriotic than other Americans, but precisely because in a small town you can see how all the gears and pulleys of community operate.  You can see the vital role that others play.  The idea that "it takes a village" might have drawn scorn from the right wing pundits, but if you live in a village, no one has to explain this principle.  Every loss is shared.

While opposition to the war has been stronger and more visible on the East and West coasts, small towns in the heartland and the South have provided the Bush administration with some of its most steadfast backers. But that support has cracked amid the echoes of graveside bagpipes and 21-gun salutes, which have been heard with greater frequency in recent months in small Midwestern communities.

If you've noticed that more congressmen in the Midwest, Democrat and Republican alike, have started pushing to change things in Iraq, it's not because they've learned something in Washington.  It's not because of some report, or a speech given in committee, or something they heard on a Sunday talk show.

Rep. Bruce Braley, a freshman Iowa Democrat who favors a firm timetable for Iraq, heard the pain when he met with the families of two fallen soldiers, Pfc. Katie M. Soenksen and Cpl. Stephen D. Shannon, on Memorial Day. He said people shouted words of support -- "Good job!" and "Keep the pressure on!" -- as he marched in Fourth of July parades.

No, they're raising their voices only because the "wisdom through the awful grace of God" is being refined in small towns.  The heartland of America, is heart sick.

It is "the intensity and passion" of the desire for an end to the war that strike Braley as new.

"There's more unity in the opposition now," said Braley, whose district adjoins Tipton. "It was always easier to find optimists about the chances of success in Iraq two years ago. You don't now find people talking that way, even the most ardent supporters of the president's policy."

What's the difference between doing what's right and doing what's expedient? Sometimes the answer is "passing legislation". That uncomfortable fact isn't a 'free pass for Congress' in any sense. If they can't handle tough public votes (cough - David Vitter) they should quit (well, he may have to, anyway) or be replaced. But this NY Times story captures the dilemma we have been discussing all week:

While Mr. Bush almost certainly commands less loyalty than at any other time of his presidency, the White House has kept enough Republicans from siding with Democrats to keep legislation from reaching the 60-vote threshold needed to pass legislation in the Senate — not to mention the 67 votes needed to override a veto. At the same time, Democrats have often produced legislation that is viewed as hard for some Republicans to endorse.

"I think the trouble in this Senate is that too many of us — I try not to be one of them, but I do occasionally — are pandering to the base on both sides of the aisle," said Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio. "As a result of that, we don’t do the things that we should do."

Take, for example, a vote in the House late on Thursday evening in which only four Republicans joined Democrats in passing a plan calling for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a deadline of removing most troops — except an unspecified number needed for a limited mission — by April 1. Democratic officials had hoped to lure away more Republicans to create momentum for when a similar measure is considered next week in the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California dismissed questions about the vote margin, telling reporters, "It was a very solid Democratic vote."

But given their narrow majority in Congress, Democrats alone cannot force the administration to change its strategy in Iraq. A senior Democratic official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said Friday that "Democratic leaders want to end the war, but they also know that it’s important to highlight the differences with Republicans."

Toothless legislation attracts votes, but doesn't get the job done. Legislation with teeth doesn't attract a consensus or a working majority (at this time) because there isn't one in Congress.

However, this misses a major issue which the members of Congress are going to hear about, and in spades, when they go back home for recess. The simple fact is that the public is way ahead of the politicians. The urgency to adjust the status quo outweighs the loyalty to the base, and far outweighs loyalty to an unpopular President, that GOP congress critters feel. The country thinks Congress is dithering. Explaining it away as "I have to keep my shrinking Republican base happy, even though they are unrealistic about the war because Fox News, Joe Lieberman and I don't tell the truth about what's happening there" is not going to fly. One of those political "bases" is now 70% of the country. The other needs to be told by people they trust (and it's not us) that there's Bush's view of Iraq and then there's reality. That's the only way the GOP will be comfortable voting to scale down and change the mission. They're desperately looking for figleafs when what they need to be looking for is courage.

That's bitter medicine, and whether it's the right wing talking heads and the online pundits or the politicians themselves, only a few (Hagel, Snowe, Luger) are actually doing what needs to be done (voting along with Democrats now and/or preparing their base for when they do). Sure, the votes aren't there yet, but everyone in Washington in this kabuki show knows that's coming. The trouble is that delaying the inevitable just means more unnecessary deaths. Hiding behind the excuse that "well, Democrats aren't being inclusive" or "it's all about politics, and it's my vote in September that will be remembered, not my vote in July" is just more wishful thinking.

The Iraq War is the worst foreign policy blunder in a generation. It's the GOP's war, and it's Bush's war. If they don't face up to that reality, and at least start preparing their base for the inevitable, they run the risk that 2008 will turn out to be 2006 on steroids. And, you know, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of ideologues.

[From the diaries - BarbinMD]

Today.  10:06 AM Eastern time.  Your local radio station.  Commander Guy.  The Angry Rakkasan. Mano-a-mano.

I've been waiting for this moment since the day I returned from Iraq.  Tomorrow morning I’ll be delivering the Democrats’ response to the President’s weekly radio address.

I’m this guy.  And because of my work with VoteVets.org, I was selected to write and deliver the rebuttal to President Bush on behalf of the Democratic Party this week (though I think I’m speaking for a lot more Americans than just the Democratic Party when I slam The Decider).  I worked on it last night, recorded it this afternoon, and will listen to it air on Saturday morning.  
       
I’d love to give you all the text, but that would spoil the fun.  As you could probably guess though, it’ll be about Iraq.  I’d also like to tell you all which station it will be on, but there’s no standard station (or even time) across the country.  I found out why when I accessed the White House page regarding the President’s weekly radio address.  The site said that the address:

is made available to all radio stations at 10:06 AM Eastern Time each Saturday. However, not all stations that air the Radio Address do so at that specific Eastern Time. I would encourage you to contact your local all-news format stations' programming departments in your area to find out more.

       
So that’s that.  Please tune in if you can.  And remember that that’s a fellow Kossack working hard to further expose what an unmitigated disaster the President is.
I’d also like to thank all of you out there who have supported my writing here for the past ten months. Without your support and interest, I wouldn’t have had this opportunity to tell America how the military really feels about Mr. Bush's war.

UPDATE: You'll also be able to hear the address at a number of places online.  Please see some of the comments below for individual web sites.

(Tonight's selections are brought to you courtesy of the Rescue Rangers. SusanG)

This evening's Rescue Rangers are nyc in exile, jennyjem, fatbyjhnsn, LiberalLucy, shayera, srkp23, with Kronos Blue playing in the ink.

• All politics aside, sometimes life can come at you from left field. As feduphoosier explains, sometimes life is just Arbitrary. (fatbyjhnsn)
• bbr comments on the increasing segregation in Israel and the removal of Palestinians from the Jewish experience by relating his personal trip to Hebron in The Missing. (fatbyjhnsn)
• As diarist grapes likes to remind us the Left and Right alike are trying to save the Middle Class. The real question remains, what exactly is that Middle Class and really what can be done by the Left to save it in What Middle Class are we trying to save?. (LiberalLucy)
• There's a lot being said these days about patriotism and loyalty. cskendrick takes a long hard look at Loyalty in the U.S. and what it really means in Regarding Loyalty. (LiberalLucy)
• Fungible Chattel shares her health insurance dilemma in Should I Even Keep My Insurance? (shayera)
• elizabethdmiblog gives us a personal look at the student loan scandal in My close encounter with the student loan scandal... (shayera)
• Would some Republican Senators support troop withdrawal from Iraq if the debate is changed from "pull out now" to "scale back the number of troops?" Is Harry Reid the stumbling block in the Senate? JekyllnHyde attempts to untangle the logic in David Brooks: War Over for 40%-60% of Republican Senators? (jennyjem)
• Frederick Clarkson responds to Steve Rempe at the Institute on Religion and Democracy to set the record straight about John Dorhauer's role at Talk-to-Action in Slimers. (jennyjem)
• A Siegel reviews the book When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-First Century by Fred Pearce in Energy Bookshelf: A Watery Travelogue. (jennyjem)
• Flywheel shares his recent one on one conversation with an esteemed member of our military inMy talk with a US naval officer. (nyc in exile)
• US2oztakes us on a whirlwind tour of geopolitics from A to Z in Gas and Food Prices, Climate Change, and the War on Drugs. (nyc in exile)
• The difference between us and them. Eternal Hope demonstrates that it’s not just Duncan Hunter screwing you in Duncan Hunter to the American People: Screw You!. (nyc in exile)
• Detailing more scandalous twisting of "environmentalism" by BushCo, Land of Enchantment surveys the landscape of Another Abramoff Guilty Plea. (srkp23)
• Turkana contributes to the frame game by demonstrating that The Democratic Party is the party of National Security. (srkp23)
• BruceMcF argues that there is no one-size-fits-all best plan for public transportation and explains why Buses and Trains Should Be Friends. (srkp23)

Elise has Top Comments: The Way I See It

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.

The folks at TPM have the text of the Warner Lugar amendment, and on a full reading, it doesn't appear any less goofy than the broad outlines available in earlier media reports suggested it was.

Greg Sargent really sums it up well:

[I]n many ways, this amendment . . . is just a bad joke. It would require Bush to come up with a plan to reduce the troop presence in Iraq – but he wouldn't be required to come up with it until October, which of course is after Petraeus' report is due. This is in keeping with exactly what Bush wants, of course. He's asked Congress not to act until he can parade General Petraeus before the cameras in September to ask for yet more time. So it's not hard to imagine that this amendment could actually end up helping Bush, by letting him say to other antsy Republicans: "The very respectable and serious Warner and Lugar are skeptical of the war, and even they think in all their seriousness that Congress shouldn't act until after Petraeus speaks. So cool out."

Lugar himself gave away the game in his floor speech today, in which he actually  characterized his own plan as follows:

I am hopeful that my counsel and that of many others who are weighing in with the President will lead to policy changes. But I have no illusions that what the Senate does during the amendment process to this Defense Authorization bill is now likely to affect the President’s decision about his strategy during the next two months.

It really doesn't get any clearer than that.

There are no specifics in this amendment to dictate what numbers of troops would need to be withdrawn, or by when. And the amendment actually contains this hilariously toothless line: "We recommend that the President and the Administration design plans to be executable beginning not later than December 31, 2007."

We recommend that the President do this? In other words, "Please, Mr. President, can you hurry up and start talking about pulling out? We're getting politically killed out here – pretty please"?

In other words, this amendment is exactly in keeping with the President's argument that Congress shouldn't dictate war policy lest it be "tying the hands of our generals" or "micromanaging the war" or whatever bogus and vacuous phrase you want to use.

Sargent concludes that it's better than nothing--that GOP Senators are introducing legislation to tell Bush that they'd really feel a lot better about things if maybe he would think about possibly changing his mind about one or two itsy-bitsy little things in Iraq might actual move the debate forward. It does do that in the sense that until now only two GOP Senators had done that, but they did by acutally supporting Democratic efforts that had some teeth.

And it does help to inoculate the Dems from taking on too much ownership of this war. The completely obstructionistic GOP of a few months ago threatened to make that happen, but now they're starting to take on at least a bit of the burden for a policy shift. Is that enough? Not if we're talking about really ending this debacle. Because it most certainly doesn't force Bush's hand on anything.

Earlier today I reminded you that the "administration" had once warned that veto-override or no, George W. Bush intended to ignore the will of Congress on Iraq:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Now I'd like you to note who responded to Rice in that article:

But Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. "The president needs a check and a balance," said Levin.

Next, I'll remind you of the letter from the White House that started off my earlier post, and the interpretation of it from TPM Election Central:

It's official: President Bush will veto any and all measures put forth by Congressional Dems to halt the Iraq War, according to a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And remember when I showed you how Cheney still believes presidential budgetary impoundment is legal? Well, did you notice how that came to light? It was during the 1992 confirmation hearings for David Addington, currently Cheney's Chief of Staff, following his nomination as Pentagon general counsel. And in dramatic fashion, at that:

But Congress forced Cheney to back down in July 1992, when his top assistant, David Addington, was nominated to be the Pentagon's general counsel and came before a Senate confirmation hearing.

"How many ways are there around evading the will of Congress? How many different legal theories do you have?" Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, thundered at Cheney's aide.

Is anyone seeing a pattern emerge here?

I'm forced to ask how it is that Senator Levin can find himself time and time again faced with the most absurd and outrageous assertions of executive power imaginable, each time perpetrated by the identical cast of characters, and still not see what's going on.

We're all glad, of course, that Senator Levin tried to help bring about yet another vote to withdraw our troops from Iraq. But you've got to wonder what makes a guy like that tick when he turns around and cosponsors Joe Lieberman's Expand the War to Iran amendment.

What does it take to light this guy's fuse?

This is one of the more odd developments of the Iraq debate. Warner and Lugar are seemingly too serious to jump on to the Salazar ISG bandwagon, perhaps realizing that something more real has to happen to satisfy voters. They don't want to go all out and tell Bush what 70 percent of the American people are telling him: "Get out of Iraq!" So they have this new proposal:

One of the main elements of their amendment, which was filed shortly after noon today, would require the president to seek a new rationale for the war authorization by the time Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, delivers a report in September on the progress of the troop buildup. The measure also would require the president to review and update the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq no later than Sept. 4.

The AP has a little more:

The Warner-Lugar proposal states that "American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top."

Accordingly, Warner and Lugar say Bush must draft a plan for U.S. troops that would keep them from "policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" and focus them instead on protecting Iraq's borders, targeting terrorists and defending U.S. assets.

The first and most glaring drawback here is the premise Bush would voluntarily change course in this debacle and reduce forces. It's hard to imagine that this proposal wouldn't also meet Bush's veto pen. Now that would be an interesting development, that might actually make some Republicans break for real and finally join with Dems in demanding a withdrawal.

But more, by demanding a new rationale for a new war authorization, Warner and Lugar are asking their colleagues to vote for a whole new war authorization. Can you imagine that anyone but Joe Lieberman would enthusiastically vote for more war?

One hates to say this about two Senators who have served with some distinction and for many, many years. But this is just kind of goofy.

Montana, like Wyoming, has just one seat in the House of Representatives. For the last four terms, Republican Denny Rehberg hasn't had much trouble in dispensing with his opponents. But that could be changing.

Democrat Bill Kennedy, a Yellowstone County Commissioner from Billings, announced some impressive fundraising numbers for the last quarter:

Kennedy reported raising $108,876 from individuals, while political action committees, or PACs, donated $6,000. PACs are special-interest groups made up of business executives, union members or activists that donate money to a common fund that is divvied among various candidates.

Kennedy said 98 percent of his donors are Montanans "who want a true voice back in Washington."

Matt Singer at Left in the West posts that last year's Dem candidate for the seat, Monica Lindeen didn't break the $100K barrier until the 3rd quarter of fundraising. So Kennedy is definitely off to a healthy start.

Kennedy has an impressive biography, meeting the Montana voters' critical requirement of being a true Montanan, being born, raised, and educated in the state. With a long history of public service as a teacher and county commissioner, he's a pretty compelling candidate (and not just because he served on the state's Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Commission, though that helps). How cool would it be to have the governor, both senators and the representative from Montana all be Democrats?

Do we need another Fox. Yesterday ABC correspondent Jake Tapper hounded Harry Reid at a press conference to speculate about what might happen in Iraq post-withdrawal. Carrying the GOP's water, Tapper created a report for ABC using Reid's answer and then showcasing Lindsay "Huckleberry" Graham whining about how the Democrats aren't playing nice.

Think Progress has the video. They also have this:

Tapper then wrote a piece for ABC News entitled "Benchmarks and Bickering: Where Are Dems on Iraqi Security?," stuffed with right-wing rhetoric. He alleged that Reid "refused to discuss whether the United States had a moral obligation to secure the country for Iraqis or even answer questions as to whether withdrawing troops would make the country safer for the tens of millions of Iraqis."

In fact, as the ABC segment showed, Reid did answer the question, telling Tapper: "It is clear that the Iraqi people don’t want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq, and it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe."

This is the fear of the negative effort by the Bush administration in full bloom. Knowing that they can show no progress in Iraq, knowing that they have no plan for improving conditions there, knowing that the only way to make sure the debacle isn't "lost" until Bush is out of office is by trying to scare the country into thinking something much worse will happen if we leave. The Jake Tappers and the Moonie Times editorialists are their most loyal carriers of that meme.

This isn't the first smear job by Tapper. Here's Mike Stark and memekiller on Tapper's efforts to keep the Pelosi used a private plane story going. Of course, this is the guy who got his journalism career started by writing an article about an old dinner date with Monica Lewinsky a few weeks after the scandal broke. Blech.

Via TPM Election Central:

It's official: President Bush will veto any and all measures put forth by Congressional Dems to halt the Iraq War, according to a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The letter also says that the White House will veto any measure that would tie its hands on Iran -- including on military action inside that country.

That Bush will veto any such measures was expected, and isn't surprising. Nonetheless, the letter makes it official that Congressional Dems face the daunting prospect of having to muster a veto-proof majority on any Iraq or Iran measures. The little-noticed letter can be read right here.

Is this a "no s#*t" moment because, as TPM notes, it was expected? Well, sure. But I wanted to take a moment to remind you of this:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

I've shown it to you before, but let me highlight that again:

President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.

Not just veto. Defy.

Now, what call did the "administration" have in February to use that kind of language? Veto? Sure. But defy? Really?

Let's be honest. In all likelihood, most Washington players probably didn't take notice of that language, or didn't give it any real credence if they did. After all, that's insane, right? To just defy legislation?

But what do you think the Washington Wise Men would have told you about the prospects of pardoning Scooter Libby? What do you think they would have told you about the prospects of the "administration" defying Congressional subpoenas?

"That'd be crazy," they'd have said, right? "No president would risk that kind of affront to Congress and the American people."

And yet, here we are.

So here's a question: Now that we have been told the president is willing to trample the Constitution and defy legislation that pro-actively withdraws troops from Iraq, what theoretical hurdle stands in the way of his trampling it and defying even passive defunding?

Dick Cheney, whom we now know to have his hands on the actual levers of power in the White House, counts presidential budgetary impoundmentpowers among those he believes were wrongly usurped by Congress, and therefore still quite operative:

By refusing to issue contracts, Cheney revived a Nixon-era tactic of "impounding" funds -- refusing to spend money for programs that he didn't like. Congress had passed a law in 1974 to ban impoundment. Cheney, who later said he believes the anti-impoundment law unconstitutionally infringes on executive power, ignored it.

Now, granted, we're talking about an enormous amount of money. And it also should be said that Cheney hasn't yet said he believes impounded funds can be spent elsewhere. So this still lives in the realm of speculation.

But given this "administration's" penchant for inventing new legal and constitutional theories as the need arises, can anybody say with confidence that this isn't exactly how they intend to defy any legislative effort -- whether active or passive -- to end the occupation?

This is not an argument against attempting to defund the occupation of Iraq, or any other such operation. But you might consider it a thought exercise for those who insist that defunding answers the question definitively.

With this gang, you always have to ask, "What if it just... doesn't?"

• If you haven't registered for YearlyKos yet, you need to do so soon. Registration closes tomorrow. And with yesterday's addition to the centerpiece of the convention, the Leadership Forum, you're not going to want to miss it.
• NC-Sen: A new poll shows Elizabeth Dole's vulnerability in 2008. She's polling well below 50% against all potential comers, and has a sub-50 approval rating at 46. Bush's approval in NC is 35%.
• But never mind Bush's approval ratings, one person is certain that "overall, over time, his ratings among the historians will be greater than his ratings in the polls today." Three guesses who said that.
• John McCain, the next "Comback Kid"? Steven Benen has the gory details of ABC News' adulation.
• And Election Central has his big Iraq speech, the one he's using to try to launch that comeback:

  The speech oozes desperation. It's chock full of the usual flim flam and bells and whistles commonly used to appeal to the wingers who are deserting him. There's the obligatory attack on Hillary, the usual cant saying that if Dems accomplish withdrawal the terrorists will follow us here, etc., etc.

• Where's the NYT's real Michael Gordon, the one always beating the Iran war drum using unnamed administration sources and no evidence? Because this Michael Gordon sounds incredibly reasonable:

  [Bush's] references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

  Not that I'm complaining, but this is a little weird. Not surprisingly, Greenwald shares my confusion.

• Greg Sargent has a good question about Mitch McConnell:

  If you were a Kentuckian watching your Senator lie in your face about your sentiments on Iraq -- making it very clear that he values the President's legacy far more than the wishes of constituents like you -- would it make you more or less likely to support him for reelection in 2008?

• When former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan can’t wait for this failed presidency to be over and starts calling Bush "strange" and "weird", you know for sure that the ship be sinking.  (Adam B)