After an unproductive meeting with Justice officials, the ACLU writes a letter to Attorney General Gonzales:

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

Today, my staff was briefed by the Justice Department regarding guidelines to institute the new foreign to domestic wiretapping authority Congress granted to you this month by The Protect America Act.

Regrettably, my colleagues reported that they learned virtually nothing new about how you intend to use the broad new authority to intercept emails and phone calls when one party is in the U.S., or how those U.S. people will be protected from unwarranted government intrusion. With so much at stake, the public needs to have a fuller understanding of what its Justice Department will be doing with its most private communications.

More...

Yglesias points to this piece by Moira Whelan and it give me an excuse to repeat a point I made to Peter Beinart in 2006. Whelan writes:

Sitting back and expecting that everyone will walk towards the light that is the sound foreign policy as presented by whoever is writing the piece, simply ignores the political realities that exist. Ignoring political realities that exist in other countries is considered irresponsible in foreign policy wonk circles. (Take, for example, the arguments used against the administration ignoring political realities in Iraq.) Ignoring it here is standard fare. . . . The line between "foreign policy" and "politics" exists only in the minds of some in the Foreign Policy Community. . . .

Hear, hear! That's what I told Peter Beinart, and told Yglesias and Atrios again recently:

TalkLeft has frequently called attention to the problem of false confessions. Donald Connery writes today about three Connecticut convictions that were the product of untrue statements made during police interrogations. Two of the innocent confessors have been set free, but the judge in Richard Lapointe's case has, in Connery's view, shown little interest in finding the truth.

I heard Judge Stanley T. Fuger proclaim, "I don't know anything about this case." Worse, he seemed determined not to know anything. He told the lawyers at the beginning that he would read no briefs at the end. He refused to look at a just-arrived DNA report favorable to Lapointe. After just three days of testimony, he abruptly announced that he had heard enough.

A Lapointe supporter asks:

"How could he do it? It was a highly athletic murder. Boy Scout knots were tied around her neck and arms - Richard could hardly tie his shoes," said Perske, who has been making the hourlong trip from his house to visit Lapointe at least once a week for the past 17 years.

Lapointe's case is another example of the injustice that follows when "confessions" aren't recorded. The jury never heard the the interrogation tactics that were employed against the mentally disabled man, and therefore had no basis for deciding whether his incriminating statements were coerced.

Kevin Drum writes:

Instant analysis: It doesn't really matter. History will judge Rove a colossal failure, a man who never understood how to govern and, for all his immense knowledge of polls and politics, never really understood the times he lived in. It was 9/11 that both made and broke the Bush presidency, not some kind of mystical McKinley-esque realignment. Rove was blind to that, and blind to the way Bush should have governed after 9/11. His one-track mind, in which every problem is solved by wielding the biggest, nastiest partisan club you can lift, just couldn't adapt. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) What was Karl Rove's job? It was to win elections and expand Republican control. Until 2006, Karl Rove was spectacularly successful, especially considering the weak government he was working with. Karl Rove did not decide to invade Iraq, but he used Iraq in 2002 to further Republican control. That was his job. It was a job that should not have existed. But Republicans believed that using national security issues to expand political control is fine.

Iraq has led to the downfall of Bush and the Republicans. Rove did not decide that. More.

Karl Rove is leaving the Bush Administration at the end of the month. He needs some more family time.

Update: Christy live blogs the Bush-Rove Press Conference.

Reaction from Joseph Wilson (received by e-mail):

“Karl Rove’s resignation signals the final chapter in the Bush administration's betrayal of the identity of a covert CIA officer. When this breach of national security occurred, the President promised the American people that anybody in his administration responsible for the leak would be removed. Rove, identified by the prosecutors as one of the leakers, not only was not summarily dismissed, but has been allowed to leave on his own terms, to praise from the President. This sordid tale of compromising national security to cover-up and distract from the false rationale for the invasion of Iraq will forever remain in history a black mark on the Bush presidency”

Update: Arianna weighs in.

Hillary Clinton's first campaign ad has been released in Iowa. She says that everyone who has been invisible to George W. Bush won't be invisible to the next president.

The Sopranos' video it isn't, but I think it's what plays in Iowa.

I don't think Hillary needs to keep pointing out Bush's failures ... he's not running against her. I'd like her to compare the current Republican candidates with Bush and explain how she will be different than them.

When we last reported on Robert Pennington, he was serving 8 years for his part in the murder of Iraqi Hashim Ibrahim Awad. He's just been freed, following a grant of clemency.

Of the eight members of the squad involved only one remains in prison. In making the decision, Lt Gen James Mattis considered the defendants' ages, military experience, rank and involvement in the death, the marines said in a statement. He reduced the sentences of Pennington and others to ensure fair treatment, the marines said.

How did Awad die?

Mr Awad, a police officer, was taken from his home, put in a hole and shot in the head 10 times.
A gun and a shovel were then placed by his body to make it look as if he were an insurgent planting a roadside bomb.

Pennington's role:

Pennington, the squad's radio operator, told the court martial that he did not shoot Mr Awad but that he helped to force him into the hole and held his hand over his mouth.

This is Pennington's second break. When he agreed to plead guilty, his sentence was reduced from 14 years to 8 years. Another marine, Trent Thomas, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served.

Via Yglesias, Iran on Maliki's visit to Teheran:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki said Baghdad in its ties with other countries only acts based on the interests and demands of the Iraqi nation. The office of the Iraqi Prime Minister on Saturday in response to a warning by the US President George W. Bush against Baghdad’s development of ties with Tehran announced in a statement: The groundless warning was issued with the aim of overshadowing the successful achievements of Mr Al-Maliki in his recent visit to Tehran.The Iraqi Prime Minister’s office further announced: If the US President assumes that the level of Iraq’s ties with other countries would be determined according to his views, then he is wrong.George W. Bush on Thursday on the second day of Maliki's visit to Iran repeated his baseless claims that Iran interferes in the internal affairs of Iraq. This is while Nuri Al-Maliki on the same day appreciated Iran for helping Iraq establish security and stability, calling for expansion of ties with Iran.

Glenn Greenwald makes many great points in his article discussing his interview of Michael O'Hanlon. I'll discuss those on the flip but I do want discuss O'Hanlon's offense at what he thinks were unfair attacks on him.

Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack are and were Iraq Debacle and Surge supporters. There was nothing as bad to me in their work on this than their misleading description of themselves as critics of the war. As Glenn states, they were critics the way Bill Kristol, Frederick Kagan and John McCain were critics - they wanted more troops. They wanted the Surge. They got the Surge. So their praise for the Surge was to be expected. Do I believe they were going to praise the Surge no matter what they saw? In a word, yes. Because they were going to see what they wanted to see.

Let's face it, the only way to make this trip and their Op-Ed a newsworthy story was to deceive as to their views as Iraq Debacle and Surge supporters. They had to be sold as critics of the Debacle and the Surge and they dishonestly did that. I have said from the beginning, that this was their major sin - their deliberately dishonest presentation of themselves in order to make their views on the Surge newsworthy. After that, I did not think their actual views merited a fair hearing. If they were willing to lie about that, how could you trust them on anything else? Personally, I think they should no longer be considered honest observers on Iraq after what they did. The dishonesty should disqualify them as persons to be listened to on the subject. More.

Force-feeding is painful. Newsweek this week examines whether doctors should be force-feeding the detainees in the wake of a recent visit by Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the new assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs. His verdict: it's okay.

Casscells watched as a half-dozen Gitmo prisoners went through the 45-minute procedure. They were strapped into "restraint chairs" and a L/jo-inch soft rubber tube was fed through their noses. (Prisoners may request a local anesthetic to ease the discomfort.) The patients ingest a tasteless high-protein mix, and guards watch them for an hour to make sure they do not self-induce vomiting. "Nobody kicked or screamed," Casscells says.

Other Gitmo doctors agree:

There are seven doctors at Gitmo, and according to Casscells, none has objected to the forced feedings."

Hundreds of other doctors around the world disagree and sharply condemned force-feeding in a letter to the Lancet medical journal.

From the Sunday London Observer:

Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis.

....[T]he exhaustion of the US army emerges most powerfully in the details of these soldiers' frayed and worn-out lives. Everywhere you go you hear the same complaints: soldiers talk about divorces, or problems with the girlfriends that they don't see, or about the children who have been born and who are growing up largely without them.

Some, including Colin Powell, say our army is just about broken:

More...

Update (TL): Crooks and Liars has the video.

***

I just finished watching the Meet the Press debate between Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas and DLC Chairman Harold Ford, Jr. and they both acquitted themselves admirably.

The theme of the program was much more unites the DLC and the Netroots than separates them. I think that is true. So what are the differences? Kos laid them out eloquently - it is a question of not being afraid to tout Democratic values. Kos argues for contrast with Republicans. The DLC has in the past argued for blurring distinctions. Today, Ford appeared to be abandoning his objection to contrast with Republicans.

But, while both performed well, I thought Kos was outstanding. Obviously I think he has the better case to make. I was especially impressed by his explanation that he understands that not all Democrats in the country can, or even should, adopt liberal orthodoxy on all issues. I have known this about him of course (like him, I have railed against single issue groups that support GOP incumbents over better Democrats on their issues, see NARAL and Linc Chafee), but his explanation on MTP was an excellent one. It is a much misunderstood insight. I have written about it in the past: