Paul Krugman:

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not, in fact, present any actual evidence . . . [b]ut many people in the political and media establishments swooned: they admired Mr. Powell, and because he said it, they believed it.

. . . The administration, this time relying on Gen. David Petraeus to play the Colin Powell role, has had remarkable success creating the perception that the “surge” is succeeding, even though there’s not a shred of verifiable evidence to suggest that it is.

. . . [T]he usual suspects [say], General Petraeus is a fine, upstanding officer who wouldn’t participate in a campaign of deception — apparently forgetting that they said the same thing about Mr. Powell.

. . . So here we go again. It appears that many influential people in this country have learned nothing from the last five years. And those who cannot learn from history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it.

One thing Krugman does NOT say is this - where are the Democrats? So, I will. Where are the Democrats?

This may be the best Keith Richards compilation I've seen yet. I can't believe he was ever that young. Watch the whole thing.

Who cares what one critic in Sweden thinks?

Barristers in Britain are criticizing the country's policy of trying juveniles as adults for serious crimes. In response, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice had this to say:

"When a person under 18 is tried at a Crown Court, special provisions are made to make the proceedings less intimidating. For example, gowns and wigs are not worn, frequent breaks are taken and the defendant is allowed to have a parent in the dock with them."

In a recent murder trial in which five young boys were convicted of killing the father of one of them during a cricket game, the Judge complained during the trial:

More...

(2002 White House Photo)

The New York Times presents some excerpts from "Dead Certain", a new book on President Bush that hits the stands Tuesday. Author Robert Draper (grandson of Leon Jaworski) got Bush to cooperate with his effort and had several long interviews with him.

On his plans after the White House:

“I’ll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol’ coffers.”

....“We’ll have a nice place in Dallas,” where he will be running what he called “a fantastic Freedom Institute” promoting democracy around the world.

On Iraq:

“I’m playing for October-November.” That is when he hopes the Iraq troop increase will finally show enough results to help him achieve the central goal of his remaining time in office: “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence,” and, he said later, “stay longer.”

The Washington Post, in its article about the book, reports that it was (now)Chief Justice John Roberts who suggested Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Rove was opposed but nobody listened to him, and Harriet didn't want the job but Bush and the first lady talked her into it. [Update: A later version of the WaPo article includes a dennial from Roberts that he recommended Miers to Bush.

On getting rid of Rumsfeld:

Raw Story reports that Sen. Arlen Specter said on Fox News Sunday that Sen. Larry Craig should use the time between now and Sept. 30 to withdraw his plea and fight the case and not resign as planned.

Specter notes that Craig didn't resign, only stated his intention to step down.

"I'd still like to see Senator Craig fight this case. "He left himself some daylight Chris, when he said that he intends to resign in 30 days. I'd like to see Larry Craig go back to court, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and fight the case.

"I've had some experience in these kinds of matters since my days as Philadelphia district attorney, and on the evidence Senator Craig wouldn't be convicted of anything, and he's got his life on the line and 27 years in the House and the Senate and I'd like to see him fight the case 'cause I think he could be vindicated."

RS also provides the video.

More...

Federal Times is a publication geared to federal executives and managers. It has an interesting article this week on Gonzales' resignation and the politicization of the U.S. Attorney's offices under Republican reign.

A February study by professors at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and Illinois State University found that since President Bush took office, U.S. attorneys have investigated or indicted four times as many elected Democratic officials as Republicans.

Joseph Rich, who was chief of the voting section in Justice’s Civil Rights Division from 1999 to 2005, published a column in the Los Angeles Times in March that said his office had been politicized. He said his superiors told him to alter performance evaluations to favor attorneys who supported the administration and punish those who disagreed with the White House.

Rich said that no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of black or Native American voters between 2001 and 2006 and that his office was ordered to focus on voting fraud cases instead. This crushed morale in his section, Rich said, and drove more than half of the voting office’s attorneys to go to other offices or leave the department since 2005.

The list of departing DOJ officials so far:

Apologies to Atrios, via Joe Sudbay, President Bush asks:

[T]he fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of [Bush's] leadership?”

After picking myself off the floor after reading the ridiculous question from Bush, I answer "are you freaking out of your mind?" The leadership of a newborn would have been better than Bush's. Worst President in history.

In 2005, the Democratic Party wanted to avoid taking a strong stand on Iraq. The Democratic base and the Netroots strongly criticized people like Rahm Emanuel for not standing strongly on Iraq, particularly on ending the Iraq Debacle. In 2006, the Democratic Party got religion, brushed off Karl Rove's summer 2006 "cut and run" nonsense and went on to a smashing victory in the 2006 elections, because of the contrast on Iraq.

Now in 2007, Matt Stoller writes:

As Glenn Greenwald has noted, the Iraq war debate is lost until Bush leaves office.

On Meet the Press this morning, Bob Shrum and James Carville sounded very much like Stoller and Greenwald. If the Democratic Party listens to Shrum, Carville, Stoller and Greenwald on Iraq, and runs on the idea that nothing can be done about Iraq until 2009, Democrats will suffer politically. Shrum, Carville, Glenn and Matt are wrong. Iraq will not go away until 2009. It will be the leading issue from now until November 2008. And Democrats need to fight as hard as they can on Iraq NOW.

This is poor punditry and poor activism and implicit bad advice from Carville, Shrum, Matt and Glenn. If the Democratic Party, the Democratic Presidential candidates and the Democratic base and the Netroots follow the views espoused by Matt and Glenn, the Dmeocratic Party will suffer. Moreover, for folks who do not care about ending the war in Iraq as soo as possible, acting as if nothing can be done about Iraq except as a political issue in 2008 (as Move On seems intent on doing), then the political issue will be blunted. Their approach is self defeating, even when viewed cynically.

Luckily, Atrios, FireDogLake and Daily Kos, three of the leading progressive sites, are not taking the tack Stoller implicitly recommends. And I am thankful for that.

Bump and Update: For those of you hanging out online this weekend, here's a new open thread.

And don't forget we're seeking new diarists this weekend.

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson has had his problems with expressing his views on gays. Today, in commenting on Sen. Larry Craig's resignation, he stepped in it again.

I remember him fondly. But he did the right thing (by resigning). He obviously did a terrible thing.

Wow. I'd expect that comment from a Republican, family values guy, but from a progressive Democrat? If that's how he views gay sex, he's going to have an even bigger problem with the gay community than he did before.

Sen. Larry Craig has retained Washington lawyer Billy Martin to determine his options in his Minnesota disorderly conduct case.

Martin most recently represented NFL player Michael Vick in his dog-fighting case. He also represented Monica Lewinsky's mother in her grand jury appearance.

Martin says:

Martin said, "The arrest of any citizen raises very serious constitutional questions, especially when that citizen says that he is innocent and pled guilty in an attempt to avoid public embarrassment.

Senator Craig, like every other American citizen, deserves the full protection of our laws. He has the right to pursue any and all legal remedies available as he begins the process of trying to clear his good name."

Thanks Duncan [and Jane too]:

[W]hile the Senate Leader is technically Harry Reid, the real leaders of the Democratic party at the moment are Senators Obama and Clinton. They can get press (if not always fair and accurate press) any time they want. They have a prominent platform and a large megaphone which they could use not simply to inspire voters but to browbeat their colleagues, plot a course of action, enlist their supporters into helping push through a legislative agenda, etc. They could, you know, lead instead of campaign. The former might even help the latter.

And they might even see how leading might help campaigning when folks like Move On, Duncan and Markos start pointing out how they are failing to lead on Iraq.