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]

General Petraeus speaks (his opening remarks are here. Via TPM, here is Ambassador Crocker's opening statement):

Will discuss "his recommendations to his chain of command." Insists that this is his personal statement uncleared by anyone.

"The security goals of the Surge are being met."

Second political highlight - "we can reduce forces by next summer." Does not say in any detail what that means.

More below the fold.

The Joint House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on the Surge, featuring the testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, has just commenced. You can view it online on C-Span3.

I will be live-blogging the testimony below the fold. Please add your comments.

Update: Sen. Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is available here.

****

The Idaho Statesman reports Larry Craig's motion to vacate his guilty plea have now been filed. CNN has more. I'm waiting to find a copy and will post them when available.

Some reported quotes:

“While in this state of intense anxiety, Senator Craig felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer; namely, that if he were to submit to an interview and plead guilty, then none of the officer’s allegations would be made public,” said the documents filed in Hennepin County District Court.

“Thus, rather than seek legal advice from an attorney to assist him in publicly fighting these charges and potentially protract the issue, Senator Craig’s panic drove him to accept a guilty plea, the terms of which offered him what he thought was a private, expeditious resolution of this matter,” the papers said.

Craig’s filing argued that his guilty plea was not “knowingly and understandingly made.” It also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the plea as a matter of law.”

Via Yglesias, I give O'Hanlon credit, he has stopped fibbing about being a "Iraq war and Surge critic." And he does so in an appropriate venue, National Review, where he becomes an open apologist for General Petraeus:

For those reading this after watching General David Petraeus’s Monday testimony, I strongly suspect that my main argument will have become apparent to many: General Petraeus is a straight shooter who does not and will not cook the books. . . . Some of Petraeus’s critics will argue, as they already have, that he wrote an oped in the fall of 2004 that was too optimistic about the training of Iraqi Security Forces then — and too closely timed to the American elections that November. To them, that suggests he was and is acting as an agent of White House spin. That oped may in retrospect have been somewhat too optimistic. . . . However, a possible misjudgment on this matter hardly shows Petraeus to be a spinmeister. If anything, it shows him to be human. . . .

Sure, O'Hanlon, sure. I see "Fox news analyst Michael O'Hanlon" in your future.

Big Tent Democrat will be live-blogging Gen. Petraeus' testimony before Congress in other threads today.

For those of you who want to discuss other issues, here's an open thread.

Diary Rescue: Check out:

• Geekesque's diary, Obama to reboot his Iraq policy and rhetoric.

• Randinho (of Beautiful Horizens)'s diary, When Will They Learn Volume XX

• John Horse writing How Bush Used Lt Cmdr Speicher

Also check out the pix of some of your favorite bloggers partying in LA this weekend. Jane identifies them in comment #26.

I'll be waiting for Larry Craigs' plea withdrawal filing to hit the internet so I can parse it and give my opinion.

stemming from this WaPo article:

For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.

The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops. . . .

In an atrocious piece of reporting fueled by a rigged poll question, the New York Times "reports:"

Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. . . . Asked to choose among the administration, Congress and military commanders, 21 percent said they would most trust Congress and 68 percent expressed most trust in military commanders.

There are many problems with this storyline. First and foremost, Americans do not get to choose who gets to "end the war." Perhaps the New York Times does not know this, but we are a country that has civilian control of the military. The military follows the orders of the civilian Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Bruce Ackerman has written on this alarming view of military control apparently endorsed by the news pages of the New York Times.

More.