Starting at 5:30. Rahmbo is pathetic and dissembling, just like Pelosi. Transcript here. The key parts, via andgarden:

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer this morning, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrated she has no intention of doing anything to end the war in Iraq:

BLITZER: Let's talk about the war in Iraq. When you became speaker, you said, "Bringing the war to an end is my highest priority as speaker."

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER: It is.

. . . BLITZER: The war, if anything, is not only continuing, but it's expanding. There's more troops now in Iraq than there were when you became the speaker. What are you going to do about that?

PELOSI: Well, we did, when we took office, we took the majority here. We changed the debate on the war. We put a bill on the president's desk that said that we wanted the redeployment of troops out of Iraq to begin in a timely fashion and to end within a year. The president vetoed that bill.

He got quite a response to that veto, and the Republicans in the Senate then decided he was never going to get a bill on his desk again. So we have a barrier and it's important for the American people to know that while I can bring a bill to the floor in the House, it cannot be brought up in the Senate unless there's a 60 vote, now 60 votes.

He got quite a response? What the heck is Pelosi talking about? He got, FROM HER, a bill with no timetables! Who does Speaker Pelosi think she is fooling? Blitzer is not fooled:

The first Monday of October marks the start of a new Supreme Court term. A New York Times editorial reviews some of the important issues soon to come before the Court and offers a useful tip for divining the likely outcome of those cases:

The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?

Of course, conservative Republicans don't inevitably agree amongst themselves; e.g., the moneyed Republicans differ from the Christian-focused Republicans on immigration policy. Sadly, the Times predictor will probably work well for criminal justice and civil liberties (including voting rights) issues. Here are some of the important questions the Court has agreed to consider:

Rounding out the first two weeks of oral argument are a group of criminal cases, addressing the gulf between sentences for crack and powder cocaine, the latitude sentencing judges have to reduce prison time in routine cases, and whether trading drugs to obtain a gun fits the definition of gun "use" barred in the federal drug law. The Court will also weigh the constitutionality of New York's judicial selection system and the appeal of a Mexican death row inmate.

Briefs for cases to be argued in October are available here.

I just landed at O'Hare after a nine hour flight from Madrid and am waiting to change planes to get back to Denver.

One constant thought I've had since packing the night before I left: International travel is exceedingly overrated. Thanks to Lexis Nexis and Martindale Hubbell, all of the board members flew business class (first class on the domestic portions.) I flew Denver to Chicago on American and then Iberia Airlines to Madrid. Iberia was terrific, seats that converted to flat beds for sleep, electrical outlets, even excellent food and champagne. Once in Madrid we stayed at the five star Ritz -- elegant with a great location, across the street from the Prado Museum and Botanic Gardens.

More.....

This morning Frank Rich has the temerity to write:

What I saw on television last Sunday was the incipient second coming of the can't-miss 2000 campaign of Al Gore. That Mr. Gore, some may recall, was not the firebrand who emerged from defeat, speaking up early against the Iraq war and leading the international charge on global warming. It was instead the cautious Gore whose public persona changed from debate to debate and whose answers were often long-winded and equivocal (even about the Kansas Board of Education's decision to ban the teaching of evolution). . .

Come on Frank. Are you going to be the old Frank Rich again?

Via digby, a bit of pontificating and puffing, from Our Media:

Anonymous: You said that Mayor Giuliani aced the Sunni/Shia question. What event in history was he referring to when he said "and then of course there was a slaughter of Shiites in the early part of the history of Islam, and it has infected a lot of the history of Islam, which is really very unfortunate"

Chris Cillizza: I don't claim to be an expert on the history of the Sunni and Shia. In the coverage I watched following the debate, it appeared as though Giuliani was factually correct about the differences between the two groups. That was all I was referencing. And, from a political standpoint, I think Giuliani dodged a major bullet with that question. I wonder how many of the ten men on that stage last night could have come up with something approximating a right answer on that question.

Now, for all I know, Rudy did ace the question. I do not know the history of the Sunni/Shia split in detail. But the problem is Cilizza and Our Media pretend that they do. Thus, Cilizza claimed "Rudy aced it" when in fact, he has no idea if Rudy aced it. His clarification was most revealing however - Rudy dodged a major bullet even though, for all Cilizza knows, Rudy got the answer completely wrong.

This is what passes for political discourse in our country. We are doomed.

Time magazine gives space to Juan Williams to attempt to shut down criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Jaun Williams, like O'Reilly, is an employee of Fox News. Williams writes two things that struck me as pathetic and ridiculous. The first:

That twisted assumption led me to say publicly that the attacks on O'Reilly amounted to an effort to take what he said totally out of context in an attempt to brand him a racist by a liberal group that disagrees with much of his politics.

Um, so Juan, you feel comfortable smearing poeple while at the same time taking umbrage that you were smeared by ONE commentator on CNN?

But the out-of-context attacks on O'Reilly picked up speed and ended up on CNN, where one commentator branded me a "Happy Negro" for allowing O'Reilly to get by with making racist comments without objection.

Well, shame on that commenter Juan, but shame on you for smearing people yourself. For smearing people like Eugene Robinson:

"24" star Kiefer Sutherland could use a little Jack Bauer intervention right now. He was arrested Sept. 25 for DUI. The complaint is here (pdf) and alleges he was driving under the influence of alcohol and an unspecified drug.

Rocky Delgadillo, the City Attorney that went after Paris Hilton, is also seeking to revoke Kiefer's 2004 probation for a prior DUI.

We have charged Mr. Sutherland with a second DUI offense within 10 years, which we believe also constitutes a violation of the terms of his probation from his 2004 conviction," said Nick Velasquez, a spokesman for the City Attorney's Office.

"Since he is still on probation from this 2004 DUI, we have also requested that the court revoke his probation and set a probation-violation hearing."

Looking at the complaint, Kiefer was charged on October 29, 2004, pleaded guilty 4 days later on November 2, 2004, and was put on 5 years probation.

I'm wondering why he pleaded guilty so fast in 2004 -- and isn't 5 years probation for a DUI a bit excessive? Kiefer finished his alcohol treatment and 50 hours of community service in 2005.

Yesterday's question -- "Will the Supreme Court's decision to review the constitutionality of the death penalty by lethal injection cause states to postpone scheduled executions?" -- has been answered by Texas. Ain't nobody tellin' Texas that it can't be killin' people, it seems.

A day after the United States Supreme Court halted an execution in Texas at the last minute, Texas officials made clear on Friday that they would nonetheless proceed with more executions in coming months, including one next week.

Constitution? Texas don't need no stinkin' Constitution. Sentencing expert Doug Berman suggests that states outside the United States of Texas might be more hesitant to conduct executions by means of a procedure of dubious constitutionality.

“There is a momentum quality to this,” said Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who has a blog, Sentencing Law and Policy. “Not only the Supreme Court granting the stay, but also the Alabama governor doing a reprieve that is likely to lead to other states with executions on the horizon waiting to see what the Supreme Court does. I’ll be surprised if many, and arguably if any states other than Texas, go through with executions this year.”

Let's hope Doug is right.

Via the Out Of Iraq Blogger Caucus, Alex, a "phony soldier", at his site Army of Dude. A great post. Make sure you read it.

This is an Open Thread.

Via Glenn Greenwald, Fox News contributor retired Col. David Hunt writes:

Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead Friday , September 28, 2007

By Col. David Hunt

Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again

Sorry, but I have to get your attention on this one. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States Army — not the much maligned “LIBERAL PRESS” or BILL CLINTON or the LIBERALS IN CONGRESS — NO, the UNITED STATES MILITARY is prosecuting its soldiers for doing their jobs.

. . . Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them. The Marines have actually prosecuted a Marine for shooting a terrorist too many times and the Army — well, the Army has the Pat Tillman tragedy, the Abu Graib disaster and many more to answer for, and now these courts martial. . . .

I condemn this offensive smear. Will the Right? Will the GOP? Don't hold your breath.

Will the Supreme Court's decision to review the constitutionality of the death penalty by lethal injection cause states to postpone scheduled executions? Alabama stayed an execution that was to have taken place last night.

Gov. Bob Riley said the state would not execute an inmate named Tommy Arthur while it came up with a new formula for lethal injection. State officials said they wanted to make sure prisoners were completely unconscious before they were killed.

Texas would have killed a man last night, but the Supreme Court stayed the execution.

Although the court gave no reason for its decision, the inmate, Carlton Turner Jr., had appealed to the court after it agreed on Tuesday to consider the constitutionality of lethal injection, the most commonly used method of execution in the United States. The decision suggests that until it issues a ruling on lethal injection, the court may be receptive to requests to delay such executions, at least for defendants whose cases raise no procedural issues.