Good riddance!. This article is false:

The Senate rejected legislation Friday that would have ordered most U.S. troops home from Iraq in nine months, culminating a losing week for Democrats who failed to push through any anti-war proposal. The vote, 47-47, fell 13 votes short of the 60 needed to pass.

(Emphasis supplied.) The bill would NOT have ordered any troops out of Iraq. It was not binding on the President. Only funding restrictions bind the President

Senator Dodd voted against the bill for the right reasons:

This bill (Levin-Reed) will not stop this President from continuing to wage this war. While a firm deadline is necessary, it is not sufficient without it also being enforceable through the power of the purse. Given this President's loyalty to his own failed policy, it is clear to me that anything short of firm, enforceable deadline that forces his hand will only serve to perpetuate our involvement in this civil war. I will only vote to fully fund the complete redeployment of our troops out of Iraq."

(Emphasis supplied.) I repeat my question, is Chris Dodd the only person in the Senate who understands this? Oh by the way, the Democrats have lost NOTHING yet on Iraq. They will only lose if they PASS a bill that funds the war without establishing a date certain for ending funding.

Via Greenwald, Rudy says one of the dumbest things said about anything by anyone this year:

In London this week, Rudy Giuliani proposed what is probably the single most extremist policy of any major presidential candidate, certainly this year and perhaps in many years:

Rudy Giuliani talked tough on Iran yesterday, proposing to expand NATO to include Israel and warning that if Iran's leaders go ahead with their goal to be a nuclear power "we will prevent it, or we will set them back five or 10 years." . . . .

If this is something the US would insist on, there would no longer be a NATO. The US would lose everyone with such a proposal. No serious person would even say this as a pander. A standard pander on Israel, one Hillary used in fact, is calling for a unified Jerusalem under Israeli control. As Yglesias notes, even Israel knows that is a nonstarter. But as a pander, it has been a standard call for many US politicians.

And I guess that was the point, Rudy felt he had to say something even more ridiculous. And he did.

In an editorial today The New York Times writes about the Republican filibusters and recommends:

There were votes, of course, but not on the bills. They were cloture votes, which require 60 or more Senators to agree to cut off debate, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster, so Senators can vote on the actual law. In both cases, Democrats were four votes short, with six Republicans daring to defy the White House. We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now.

(Emphasis supplied.) The highlighted passage is indicative of the profound misunderstanding of what the Democrats can do on Iraq. From the NYTimes to Move On (I would have censured them for their idiotic political strategy on Iraq), there seems to be no understanding that Congress can end the Iraq Debacle BY DOING NOTHING!!

How hard is it to understand - Democrats need only say and do one thing - NO funding of the Debacle after a date certain. No funding without a timeline. Filibusters and vetoes are powerless against the Spending Power on this. Will anyone on our side ever get it? Besides Chris Dodd?

The Senate today found time in its busy schedule to pass a resolution by Sen. John Cornyn condemning the Move-On ad regarding Gen. Petraeus.

It couldn't pass habeas reform or the Webb Amendment but could rally behind a stupid, toothless resolution?

The roll call vote is here.

And Obama can't be bothered to show up and vote against it? When he voted an hour earlier on Boxer's alternative resolution and also on Russ Feingold's amendment to begin immediate troop withdrawal?

At least Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the Cornyn Amendment condemning the ad. For more:

• MyDD

• Taylor Marsh

• Open Left

• Firedoglake

The Jena Six case is huge news today. Here's some links to today's articles.

• Jena Six News Page

• New York Times

• CNN Jena Six Page

• Al Sharpton wants a Congressional inquiry.

• Friends of Justice account of Mychal Bell's trial (very compelling)

• Update: Christy at Firedoglake has a thoughtful post on the Jena Six

Note: I have removed the link to the Jenna Times page because I found the coverage selectively inclusive -- meaning it omitted important details which in my view, prevents a full, unbiased and accurate understanding of the events that have transpired.

Norman Hsu has been charged in federal court in New York with conducting a ponzi scheme to defraud investors of $60 mil and with campaign finance violations.

Today's charges stem, in part, from new allegations that Hsu defrauded a group of New York investors who entrusted him with more than $40 million, believing they were financing a clothing venture.

Hsu was charged with felony mail fraud and wire fraud in connection with the Ponzi scheme and a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act in connection with campaign donations.

Background on the New York investors case is here.

The campaign violation counts allege he made "contributions to candidates in other people's names."

The Complaint isn't unsealed yet on PACER. But the docket says the feds intend to seek his transfer to federal custody "shortly." Here's what the docket says so far.

Last June, Frank Rich wrote:

As General Odom says, the endgame will start "when a senior senator from the president's party says no," much as William Fulbright did to L.B.J. during Vietnam. That's why in Washington this fall, eyes will turn once again to John Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give political cover to other members of his party who want to leave Iraq before they're forced to evacuate Congress. . .

I wrote:

Not again. We wait for the Godot Republicans. John Warner will do NOTHING. John Warner will bring along few if ANY Republicans. As I wrote before, John Warner has undercut the drive to end the Debacle at every turn.

Today, Dana Milbank writes:

"I endorsed it," Warner said. "I intend now to cast a vote against it." With those dozen words, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee put a surprise end to the latest efforts in Congress to limit the Iraq war.

Hey Frank! Told you so. More.

The National Journal has an interesting new site for folks to test their political prognosticating skills:

Welcome to National Journal's Political Stock Exchange. From now until Election Day '08 NJPSE is the best destination where you can test your political prognostication prowess ... for free! Sign up now and you can be using your 10,000 NJPSE fantasy dollars (NJ$) to compete with other politicos in minutes. By tapping into the most advanced prediction market on the web, Intrade.com, NJPSE lets you buy and sell contracts whose 'price' (always between 0-100) represents the percentage likelihood a given outcome will occur. Think Fred Thompson's rocky rollout has doomed his candidacy? Has Hsu sunk Hillary Clinton? Then sell! Sell! Sell! Do you believe John Edwards can ride an IA victory to Denver? You think John McCain's 'No Surrender' tour can win him NH? Then buy! Buy! Buy! . . .

Could be fun. Check it out.

I'll be in court most of the day, so here's an open thread for you. There's lots of good reading out today. Some things to check out:

• Huffington Post has added a new section, Living Now. Check out the post in the Mind, Body and Soul section by Dr. Timothy Brantly, highly praised by Howie Klein and Jane Hamsher

• Jason Leopold at Truthout reports the Senate Ethics Committee probe of Sen. Domenici is intensifying.

• I have an op-ed in the Washington Examiner today, TV Payback Time for O.J., criticizing those who think he should go to jail as some kind of karmic justice.

More...

They're dropping like flies in the Milbert-Weiss law firm investigation into an alleged payback scheme for plaintiff referrals in class action cases.

Named partner Melvyn I. Weiss is expected to be indicted today. He's going to fight the charges, says his lawyer Ben Brafman.

Last year, prosecutors in Los Angeles initially charged that Milberg Weiss paid $11 million in kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 cases, a strategy that allowed it to beat other firms to the courthouse and earn more than $216 million in fees.

Tuesday, it was announced that a former lawyer in the firm, William S. Lerach, agreed to plead guilty and serve up to two years in prison. Lerach is not cooperating against other lawyers in the firm.

[More...]

I can't understand the Judge in the Phil Spector case. Yes, if you're a prosecutor or a judge, it's a drag to try a case for five months and get a hung jury. But when the jury is deadlocked, you don't get a do-over on the charges or the instructions just to force a verdict. That's a recipe for reversal, in my opinion.

Yesterday, the Judge said he was contemplating allowing the jury to consider a lesser charge to solve the impasse. At least a good night's sleep cured him of that.

But today, while deciding against allowing the jury to consider a lesser charge, he decided to modify a critical jury instruction by striking a central statement from it. To make up for any prejudice, he said he'll allow the attorneys to present additional closing arguments.

As the LA Times characterizes it, he "threw the prosecutors a life preserver."

More...

Rudy Giuliani touted his celebrity today during a visit to Great Britain, calling himself one of the four or five most famous people in the world.

When asked who the others were, he answered "Bill and Hillary" before his aides led him out of harm's way.

Rudy is also certain that the Democratic nominee will be Hillary:

"It's not going be about George Bush. It's not going to be about Ronald Reagan. It's going to be about who does America want for their future: Rudolph Giuliani or Hillary Clinton?"