I'm not one to pick a fight (you can stop laughing now), but I do have a bone to pick with Matt Stoller's critique of critiques of Move On's ill advised "BetrayUs" ad. Matt writes:

[This] tut-tut message from a liberal wonk, an email by Rachel Kleinfeld of the Truman Project that actually encourages progressive veterans to write to military journals and denounce Moveon (thank God wonks can't organize). . . . MORE

Joe Lieberman is not to be believed. Via Spencer Ackerman at TPM again:

"Can't we attack Iran pleeeeeeaze?" sez Joe. "No," sez Petraeus. Watch the disappointment in Lieberman's face. Priceless.

Chris Matthews is hammering this question, from Senator John Warner, and answer, from General Petraeus.

Warner asked Petraeus point blank, will the policy you are recommending make the United States safer. And General Petraeus, in my opinion, to his credit, said he did not know, that he was focused on accomplishing the mission given to him.

And you know what? It is not Petraeus' call to decide what the mission is. It is the job of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States to argue for his own policy. But it is the job of the Congress to decide whether it will fund the policy the President recommends.

Joe Biden was on with Matthews. And he was saying we should leave Iraq. But this same Joe Biden says he will vote to fund Bush's Debacle. That is an indefensible position.

I'm off to drive to this lovely prison on the other side of the state, away from the mountains, towards Kansas.

Here's an open thread for you.

In the diary rescue department, check out this new one on the Move-On ad by veteran Michael Gass, and Scribe's on Larry Craig's motion to withdraw his plea.

I'll be back tonight.

Blogger Beldar just got off the phone with the Hennepin, County Court Clerk. He was trying to find out if there was a Form 11 in the file showing Craig had been advised of and waived his right to counsel.

The Clerk said she didn't see one and told Beldar a hearing has been set for September 26th at 1:30 pm on Craig's motion to withdraw the plea.

Good work, Beldar. For anyone who hasn't read the motion yet, here it is (pdf), with exhibits. There's also a lively discussion by several lawyers in the comments here.

Phil Spector's five month jury trial is coming to a close. The jury began deliberating the murder case yesterday. In the afternoon, they asked to see the gun.

It's been a rocky trial. One of his chief lawyers, New York's Bruce Cutler, missed weeks of the trial to do a tv show and then withdrew before closing arguments over differences in who should preent the closing.

Linda Kenney Baden, who is married to forensic expert Michael Baden, a witness in the trial, gave the closings. She, too, missed some weeks of the trial due to illness. The prosecutor criticized the Kenney-Baden relationship at trial:

More....

Meet Sargent Binkley, an army vet currently facing twenty-plus years in Santa Clara, CA. His high school buddies are trying to publicize his plight and have set up a website. Here's his sad story.

Sargent Binkley is a high school classmate of ours and West Point graduate who is currently facing twenty-odd years in prison for robbing a Walgreens under California's minimum sentencing laws. He used a gun (unloaded) and robbed the drugstores of only Percocet - no money, harming nobody.

Here's the kicker -- he was addicted to the opiates after smashing his hip while serving abroad in the Army -- the military medical system
kept misdiagnosing him, and feeding him more of the painkillers. Add in some serious PTSD (he guarded mass graves in Bosnia from
desecration at one point) and he spiraled down.

Sargent turned himself in, has been in a rehab program in county jail for over a year and a half while he awaits sentencing, and by all accounts is
doing well. The Santa Clara DA wants to chuck the book at him, and he'll be gone.

More....

Last night in his discussion with Frank Rich about Petraeus and Iraq, Keith Olberman said (starting around the 2:30 mark):

Olbermann: . . . You said the Democrats lack the votes but the [Democratic] leadership does not need a majority to stop funding the war. Why do they do so? . . . Does it not cross your mind that the Democrats could thread the needle if they really wanted to on this. Is it too cynical to suggest that some at least are stalling almost as much as the Administration is because it sometimes seems as if there is at least the the outskirts of an either/or situation here, if they wanted to, with a supreme effort they could stop the war still fund those troops and get them home safely . . . but there are some who would rather have it continue into 2008 and [have] it as a campaign signal point?

Olbermann is alluding to the option of NOT funding the war after a date certain. His reference to an "either/or" situation is exactly right. The choice now is binary for Democrats - NOT funding is the only way Democrats can end the Debacle. And there is the question - will Democrats try to do everything they can to end the Iraq Debacle? Olbermann raises the critical question now. What Bush and the Republicans will do has never been in doubt. More.

Hillary Clinton's campaign tonight announced that it will return not only the money Norman Hsu donated to her campaigns, but also the money donated by 260 persons associated with Norman Hsu. The total amounts to $850,000.

Hillary's campaign also will begin conducting background checks on its bundlers.

I hope, as the article says, the background checks are limited to bundlers. Bundlers legally collect money from other persons to donate to campaigns. So long as the bundler doesn't reimburse the donee, it's legal, and all the campaigns have bundlers.

For the individual donor, I think it's important they be allowed to donate to political campaigns, up to the allowed $2,300.00, without fear of a background check. We should encourage former offenders to participate in the electoral process. By providing them an outlet to express their interest, we increase the likelihood they will remain law abiding. Continuing to stigmatize them is not only unfair, but likely to increase recidivism.

More....

Speaking only for me of course

I have not been shy about the need to demythologize General Petraeus as the "honest broker" who will provide an independent assessment of the Surge. I wrote:

[T]his is not meant to doubt General Petraeus' integrity or competence. It is meant to treat him for what he is - not an infallible disinterested observer, but a soldier who believes he can accomplish an impossible mission and will view events in a manner that most favors that belief. This is to be expected from ALL human beings

What I must condemn is the use of the phrase "General Betrayus" by Move On in its ad today in the New York Times. This inexcusable use of the detestable Republican tactic of labelling those who disagree with you as "traitors" is something I have long objected to and I must, in good conscience, strongly condemn Move On's use of this deplorable tactic. Moreover, not only was this morally contemptible, it was political idiocy as the coverage of the ad clearly demonstrated. There is a way to take on the Petraeus myth. Glenn Greenwald demonstrated how to do it. And he is featured here showing how again:

Open Left has a petition you should sign.

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The politics of fear and prejudice are front and center. Conservative politicians and talk show hosts can’t seem to get enough of it.

Two unrelated, random crimes on opposite sides of the country are the genesis of the latest wave of immigrant-bashing — a gangland-style execution of three college students in Newark, N.J., and the slaying of a 15-year-old girl in Oregon.

One of the suspects in the Newark case is an undocumented resident from Peru who was out on bail on a serious felony charge at the time of the crime. Both suspects in the Oregon case are noncitizens, one of whom has a DUI conviction and the other a clear record. The two cases are fueling unwarranted hysteria against immigrants.

There is no immigrant crime wave in the United States. Statistics prove it. In June, as it does every year, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released its “Report on the Number of Prison and Jail Inmates.”

As of June 2006, there were more than 2.25 million federal and state inmates. Just 4 percent — fewer than 100,000 — were noncitizens, a group that includes both those here legally and those here without proper documentation. While there were 331 more noncitizen inmates in 2006 than 2005, that number was still 700 less than in 2004.

In 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, young foreign-born men were five times less likely to be incarcerated than those born in the U.S, accounting for only 4 percent of the prison population.

While our immigrant population has increased in the past decade, the crime rate has dropped dramatically, both for violent crimes and property crimes.

There is no correlation between where one is born and his or her propensity to commit a crime. Crime is the result of myriad conditions, from poverty to drug and alcohol abuse to a variety of other factors. Immigration is not one of them.

We have effective laws for the removal of noncitizens who are convicted of crime. Since 1996, the list of “aggravated felonies” mandating deportation has steadily grown. When a person subject to deportation is charged with a crime, the law allows for the placing of a detainer on that person so that when released from state or federal custody, whether on bail or following conviction, he or she is transported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for continued detention or to face deportation proceedings, rather than be released into the community.

Sometimes, people fall through the cracks. It may have happened in Newark and Oregon. That doesn’t mean we need different laws. It means we need to enforce the ones we have. We don’t need a “one strike, you’re out” or a no-bail policy for immigrants.

Politicians will do anything to get elected, as demonstrated by their recent and nonstop hue and cry against “sanctuary cities” and “illegal immigration.” In their demagoguery, they encourage fear, prejudice and bigotry. In their attempts to be viewed as tough on illegal immigration, they foster inaccurate stereotypes.

The vast majority of immigrants in this country, whether present with or without proper papers, are hardworking, law-abiding people with strong family ties. They are little different from the immigrants of 100 years ago. They are not stealing our jobs or draining scant public resources. They pay taxes and help make our country a better place for all of us.

Most immigrants enter the country legally. According to the INS Statistical Yearbook, 75 percent of immigrants have legal, permanent visas. Of the 25 percent who are undocumented, 40 percent overstayed temporary visas, meaning their initial entry into the country was legal.

Immigration does not breed crime. Our prisons are not overflowing because of crimes by the undocumented. They are overflowing because of our failed criminal justice policies and over reliance on incarceration versus treatment and rehabilitation with respect to our nonviolent homegrown offenders.

There is nothing wrong with having a debate about immigration. But it is deplorable to falsely stereotype and malign millions of law-abiding people because of one’s desire for a particular outcome in that debate.

That is what conservative politicians and talk show hosts are doing today. Someone needs to call them on it. Let their campaigns know you’re onto their tricks, and in the case of the talk show hosts, just change the channel. Ratings speak louder than words.

Jeralyn Merritt is a member of The Examiner’s Board of Bloggers and blogs at Talkleft.com.

Originally posted at the Washington Examiner

The politics of fear and prejudice are front and center. Conservative politicians and talk show hosts cannot seem to get enough of it.

Two unrelated, random crimes on opposite sides of the country are the genesis of the latest wave of immigrant-bashing — a gangland-style execution of three college students in Newark, N.J., and the slaying of a 15-year-old girl in Oregon.

One of the suspects in the Newark case is an undocumented resident from Peru who was out on bail on a serious felony charge at the time of the crime. Both suspects in the Oregon case are noncitizens, one of whom has a DUI conviction and the other a clear record. The two cases are fueling unwarranted hysteria against immigrants.

There is no immigrant crime wave in the United States. Statistics prove it. In June, as it does every year, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released its “Report on the Number of Prison and Jail Inmates.”

As of June 2006, there were more than 2.25 million federal and state inmates. Just 4 percent — fewer than 100,000 — were noncitizens, a group that includes both those here legally and those here without proper documentation. While there were 331 more noncitizen inmates in 2006 than 2005, that number was still 700 less than in 2004.

In 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, young foreign-born men were five times less likely to be incarcerated than those born in the U.S, accounting for only 4 percent of the prison population.

While our immigrant population has increased in the past decade, the crime rate has dropped dramatically, both for violent crimes and property crimes.

There is no correlation between where one is born and his or her propensity to commit a crime. Crime is the result of myriad conditions, from poverty to drug and alcohol abuse to a variety of other factors. Immigration is not one of them.

We have effective laws for the removal of noncitizens who are convicted of crime. Since 1996, the list of “aggravated felonies” mandating deportation has steadily grown. When a person subject to deportation is charged with a crime, the law allows for the placing of a detainer on that person so that when released from state or federal custody, whether on bail or following conviction, he or she is transported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for continued detention or to face deportation proceedings, rather than be released into the community.

Sometimes, people fall through the cracks. It may have happened in Newark and Oregon. That doesn’t mean we need different laws. It means we need to enforce the ones we have. We don’t need a “one strike, you’re out” or a no-bail policy for immigrants.

Politicians will do anything to get elected, as demonstrated by their recent and nonstop hue and cry against “sanctuary cities” and “illegal immigration.” In their demagoguery, they encourage fear, prejudice and bigotry. In their attempts to be viewed as tough on illegal immigration, they foster inaccurate stereotypes.

The vast majority of immigrants in this country, whether present with or without proper papers, are hardworking, law-abiding people with strong family ties. They are little different from the immigrants of 100 years ago. They are not stealing our jobs or draining scant public resources. They pay taxes and help make our country a better place for all of us.

Most immigrants enter the country legally. According to the INS Statistical Yearbook, 75 percent of immigrants have legal, permanent visas. Of the 25 percent who are undocumented, 40 percent overstayed temporary visas, meaning their initial entry into the country was legal.

Immigration does not breed crime. Our prisons are not overflowing because of crimes by the undocumented. They are overflowing because of our failed criminal justice policies and over reliance on incarceration versus treatment and rehabilitation with respect to our nonviolent homegrown offenders. [More]