As someone who thought Jane Harman had learned her lessons about the Bush Administration and its "intelligence techniques," I thought those who favored Silvestre Reyes over her for Chair of the House Intelligence Committee were wrong. Reyes was not competent to fill the slot and had no record to speak of on the issues. But Speaker Pelosi's anti-Harman sentiments swept all this aside. Here is our reward, via Greenwald:

In an interview, Reyes said he believes that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden should be kept in their posts. . . . [Reyes]recommended to Obama's transition team that some parts of the CIA's controversial alternative interrogation program should be allowed to continue.

Reyes, knowing nothing about the subject, has been rolled by the intelligence community. He never should have been named Chair of the Intelligence Committee and gawd knows he should not be listened to now on the subject. Let's hope Obama has the good sense to ignore him.

Speaking for me only

Now we know Arlen Specter (R-PA) is seriously considering running for another term as Senator (and fears another challenge in the GOP primary from extreme conservative Pat Toomey.) He is proposing a confirmation fight over Eric Holder:

In a speech on the Senate floor today, reports The Hill, Specter expressed surprise that Leahy, the committee chair, had scheduled a January 8 kickoff for Holder's confirmation hearing for the Attorney General job. Barack Obama is scheduled to be sworn in January 20. Specter cited concerns about Holder's role in the pardon of Marc Rich in the waning days of the Clinton administration.

Specter voted for the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales after the worst confirmation hearing performance (not to mention a record of support for torture) that I can remember. Who is Specter kidding? This is about extreme conservative Pat Toomey running in another GOP primary against him in 2010. Book it now - Specter is voting no on Holder - and will make quite a show of it.

Speaking for me only

It's not often that liberal John Amato at Crooks and Liars and conservative Ed Morrissey at Hot Air agree. Today, they do, in reacting to news reports brought to our attention by Robert Cox that New Rochelle High School bowdlerized school library copies of the book "Girl Interrupted."

Students at New Rochelle School High School are going to find it difficult to complete their next assignment: comparing the film adaptation of "Girl, Interrupted" to the best-selling book. In the book, Kaysen recounts her confinement at a Massachussets mental hospital in the 1960's.

Pages from the middle of the book have been torn out by the school district after having been deemed "inappropriate" by school officials due to sexual content and strong language.

...."The material was of a sexual nature that we deemed inappropriate for teachers to present to their students," said English Department Chariperson Leslie Altschul, "since the book has other redeeming features, we took the liberty of bowdlerizing."

As a graduate of NRHS, I'll add my disappointment in the censorship attempt. It's certainly not the New Rochelle I remember.

The book mutilation has been widely criticized. The good news is the school district has now acknowledged it was wrong. [More...]

These are not the words Don Siegelman's appellate lawyer wanted to hear during Tuesday's oral argument:

“I don’t think that’s going to be your best argument today,” Judge Edmondson said.

You never know the content of a judge's thought bubble, or whether the judge is speaking for any other member of the panel. Still, "that's not your best argument" doesn't usually permit the optimistic reading that Siegelman's lawyer hopes to give it.

“I think it’s absolutely ambiguous as to whether it means, ‘I’m not convinced,’ or, ‘You’ve already got me, don’t worry,’ ” [Sam] Heldman said afterward.

"I'm not convinced" would be the most benign interpretation of a phrase that is often taken to mean "You can't convince me." [more ...]

It seems hard to believe that the question needs to be answered, but apparently so. Via James Joyner, Ed Morrissey asks:

[H]ave we become such pantywaists that we can’t tell the difference between a joke and “denigration”, “disempowerment”, and “humiliation”?

"Pantywaists" is defined as "[a] boy or man who is considered weak or effeminate." A sexist critique of sexist behavior - or, if you will, a sexist "joke." Well done Mr. Morrissey. Your "he man" status is now assured.

Speaking for me only

It's a court day for me, so here's an open thread for you.

All topics welcome.

Brian Ross of ABC News reports law enforcement sources have told him Jesse Jackson, Jr. is Senate Candidate # 5 in the Rod Blagojevich complaint.

Candidate 5 is significant to the story because the complaint alleges Blagojevich was taped saying #5's emissaries were willing to pay to play for the Senate Seat. What does Jackson, Jr. say? According to ABC,

Jackson Jr. said this morning he was contacted yesterday by federal prosecutors in Chicago who he said "asked me to come in and share with them my insights and thoughts about the selection process."

Jackson Jr. said "I don't know" when asked if he was Candidate #5, but said he was told "I am not a target of this investigation." Jackson Jr. said he agreed to talk with federal investigators "as quickly as possible" after he consults with a lawyer..... [He] denied that anyone had been authorized to make payments or promises to the Governor on his behalf.

Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson have just released this statement responding to Karl Rove's latest comments about PlameGate (no link, received by e-mail):

“In a December 7th interview discussing his upcoming tell-all book with Cox News, Karl Rove asserted that it was Richard Armitage, not he, who was responsible for the betrayal of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame Wilson. As usual, he shades the truth.

[More...]

Former Time Magazine Washington Bureau Chief Matt Cooper remembers his adventures with Patrick Fitzgerald in the Scooter Libby-Valerie Plame-Judith Miller case and has some advice for Gov. Blagojevich.

Shorter version: Suck it up, take a deal for under 7 years and go to a camp. Even though federal prison camps are no longer Club Feds, they beat the socks off being behind the walls at a real federal prison, which is what could happen if you go to trial and lose.

Cooper also has some (but not overdone) praise for Fitzgerald and a fairly good take on how it works. His funniest line:

And even if it was inclined to show any mercy, do you think Rahm would sit idly by? He took your seat in the House and you know him well. I don't have to tell you that you're better off dealing with the Crips and Bloods than with a pissed off Rahm.

My only nitpick: Matt takes a slam at drug dealers: [More...]

I'm headed out for dinner with the TL kid for his birthday. Here's an open thread for topics we haven't discussed today.

If you are just getting home from work, the transcript of Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference is available here.

The complaint (pdf) says the latest phase of the Blagojevich investigation began in early October, 2008 with information from "Individual A." The wires and bugs were in by October 21, 2008. The wiretap of Blagojevich's home phone went up on October 29. The details of the fruits of the wires and bugs and information received from Individual A begins on page 28.

The Complaint says Individual A is a subject but not a target, someone hoping for immunity and is associated with the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. Individual A gave information about Fundraiser A, who is the chairman of Friends of Blagojevich.

Is Individual A John Wyma? I suspect so, because his lawyer says Wyma didn't wear a wire talking to Blagojevich and Fitz says in the complaint Individual A refused to have his conversations recorded. More indications this may be correct here.

Anyone else have any ideas on who the other little people are -- the fundraisers, advisors, etc? (We ran down the Senate Candidates here.)As for Rezko, his deal with Fitz may have fizzled. [More...]

While I am not sure I completely agree with Bowers's critique of Tomasky, I do love that he is not afraid to deliver it. No sacred cows. Not Obama. And not fellow "progressives." If we disagree, we disagree - and we shoud say so.

Greenwald took on Atrios the other day. More of this please. We can not be afraid to disagree with each other.

Speaking for me only