Via Newshounds' Ellen, reason number 257,000 why the DLC has become irrelevant:

Alan Colmes said, “I think Barack Obama had a great point when he said that those who voted for the war in Iraq and then had to apologize for that vote should probably be the last people to criticize he who was right about the war in Iraq all along.”

Ford’s responded, “Well, I don’t know who’s been right about this war all along.”

“Oh, sure you do,” Colmes said. Then, sounding flabbergasted, he added, “You don’t know who’s been right about the war all along?”

Harold Ford does not know who got it right on Iraq. Perhaps that explains this statement:

Bush's contempt for Congress:

Bush got angry over a question about whether embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be held accountable. Members of Congress from both parties have called Gonzales' credibility and leadership of the Justice Department into question after congressional testimony on a number of issues. "Why would I hold somebody accountable who's done nothing wrong?" the president said, then turning the issue back on the Democratic-led Congress. "Matter of fact, I would hope Congress would become more prone to deliver pieces of legislation that matter rather than being the investigative body," he added.

But of course, Dear Leader. As you wish.

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline praises McCain calling the Kelo decision "Marxist":

John McCain has done a service to the conservative cause by injecting the issue of private property rights into the presidential campaign. McCain's starting point was the Kelo decision ... McCain called this decision "disastrous" and contrary to our Constitution and our system. He found it more in line with the teachings of Karl Marx.

I guess that makes his Powerline cohort John Hinderaker a Marxist:

The principal threats to property rights lie elsewhere. In particular, regulatory actions often severely limit what an owner can do with his property. Unlike urban development projects, such regulations are often adopted in forums that are remote from, and unresponsive to, the political process. And what an owner generally hopes for in such situations is to be covered by the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of compensation for the loss of use of his property, which is automatic in the case of a condemnation. So it is a good thing that the Kelo decision has focused attention on the erosion of property rights; but, despite the critical consensus that has formed among conservatives, it is far from clear that the case was wrongly decided.

McCain of course is pandering, demagogic and wrong. But it is surprising to see one Powerline writer praising McCain's description, as that essentially labels his colleague a Marxist.

In his interview with Alan Colmes, Gen. David Petraeus said:

[T]he attacks that have the most strategic significance, the -- again, the car-bombings, the suicide vest attacks and so forth that cause such significant damage to the psychological fabric of Iraqi society and as well as just sheer physical damage, those are conducted by al Qaeda Iraq. And they are very clearly linked to the so-called AQSL, the al Qaeda senior leadership, located in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border tribal areas, without question. I mean, we -- you have seen released on a number of occasions communications between them. And I can assure you that that does go on.

If this is so, is it not then essential to US interests in Iraq that the United States attack Al Qaida in Pakistan? Barack Obama has stated, and was criticized by Mitt Romney for it, that as President, he would attack Al Qaida in Pakistan, hopefully with the cooperation of the Pakistani government, but if necessary, without it. If Petraeus is correct that Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan is controlling Al Qaida in Iraq, then why isn't Petraeus urging stronger measures against Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan to help the effort in Iraq?

It's a court day for me and an open thread day for you. I'll be back tonight.

Law Prof Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy says there's lots of good stuff up at:

• Capital Defense Weekly
• Crime and Consequences
• Corrections Sentencing
• Grits for Breakfast
• White Collar Crime Prof

For news, check out the easy-on-your-eyes Hinesight Report and Prison Legal News.

Avedon Carol as Sideshow has her always excellent blog-roundup.

In the politics department, the New York Times reports on how much money John Edwards receives from lawyers. Lawyers have always been his biggest group of contributors, but Hillary and Obama are catching up. There's a chart showing how much each has received from lawyers and showing all sources for John Edwards (but not the others') contributions.

Unlike most of the readership of this blog, and Democrats everywhere, I think George Herbert Walker Bush was a good President. Unlike many of you, I supported Desert Storm and thought Bush 41 did a masterful job of managing the situation, including, especially including, the decision not to continue the war to Baghdad, a much maligned decision at the time, most notably criticized by today's Neocons. So, I must say, I do feel his pain:

There are times in the life of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States and father of the 43rd, that people, perfect strangers, come up to him and say the harshest things — words intended to comfort but words that wind up only causing pain. “I love you, sir, but your son’s way off base here,” they might say, according to Ron Kaufman, a longtime adviser to Mr. Bush, who has witnessed any number of such encounters — perhaps at a political fund-raiser, or a restaurant dinner, a chance meeting on the streets of Houston or Kennebunkport, Me. They are, he says, just one way the presidency of the son has taken a toll on the father. “It wears on his heart,” Mr. Kaufman said, “and his soul.”

No kidding. To have being the father of the worst President in history as your principal legacy has to be hard to take after a having lived a distinguished public life.

Via Instapundit and Hugh Hewitt, Gen. Petraeus is interviewed by Alan Colmes, who no kidding, does a great job. A very sincere thanks to Hewitt for providing it. The most interesting parts, based on the unofficial transcript provided by a Hewitt reader:

COLMES: The surge strategy has been referred to by some as the Petraeus Doctrine and when you and Ambassador Ryan Crocker report to Congress on September 15, it would be unlikely for you to report that your own strategy isn't working, right?

PETRAEUS: Well, I have vowed that I will provide a forthright and comprehensive assessment and I'm not going to pull punches, and I have all along, frankly, reported setbacks as well as successes and we intend to do that when we go back and it will not be an unblemished report.

The interim benchmark report was not an unblemished report. It's more of a mixed bag. There has been progress in certain areas. Certainly there has been tactical progress. There has been progress again in this sort of local reconciliation but there has not been comparable progress at the national political level here in Iraq. . . .MORE

The ACLU today filed a motion today with the FISA Court (text here, pdf) demanding that the secret court release its opinions that led to the new FISA legislation.

In the first effort of its kind, the American Civil Liberties Union will today file legal papers with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requesting that it disclose recent legal opinions discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in secret wiretapping of Americans

"Publication of these secret court orders is vitally important to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "Virtually everything we know about these orders we've had to learn from executive branch officials, but executive branch officials are plainly not disinterested parties in a debate about the appropriate reach of executive branch surveillance. The public has a right to first-hand information about what the court permitted and what it disallowed."

A voter in Iowa asked Rudy Giuliani yesterday how much his Catholic faith affected his views on abortion. Rudy wouldn't say.

"My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests," Giuliani said. "That would be a much better way to discuss it. That's a personal discussion and they have a much better sense of how good a Catholic I am or how bad a Catholic I am."

Rudy on his personal life:

"I believe that things about my personal life should be discussed personally and privately," he said, adding that his personal life is relevant only to the extent that it would affect his performance in office.

Rudy touted both the war on drugs and his extensive experience jailing people:

[H]e told about 300 people at the town hall meeting that it was essential to expand the nation's anti-drug effort. He said no other presidential candidates has his experience fighting drugs.

"It's something I understand really well," said Giuliani, noting his experience as a prosecutor and mayor of New York City. "I've been doing this kind of work longer than I've been in politics."

Yes, Rudy, you have. And you are terrible at both.

Republican hopeful Mitt Romney didn't serve in the military because he had a religious exemption for his missionary work and a high draft lottery nuimber.

Why aren't his sons serving? Because they are supporting the country by helping him get elected. Seriously, that's his reason.

"My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."

He added: "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Great read today, in the Nation: Data Mining Our Liberties. Aziz Huq examines the recently passed "Protect America Act of 2007." The Brennan Center says:

Azi believes the law "is a dramatic, across-the-board expansion of government authority to collect information without judicial oversight," and "an open-ended invitation to collect Americans' international calls and e-mails."

Huq breaks down how and why this law came into being and notes that, in truth, the law actually does not expire in 6 months. Ultimately it gives the Administration "power without responsibility" and "allows the government to spy when there is no security justification."

Just a few of the points:

The notion of Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell as the "honest broker" regarding the Bush FISA amendment was always nuts. Spencer Ackerman writes about it:

[A]fter last week's rapid, controversial revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in which McConnell played chief Congressional negotiator, lawmakers are wondering: Was McConnell set up by the Bush administration? Or is he a willing flunky?

He was neither. He was doing his job, serving the Bush Administration. This notion of allowing the Bush Administration to determine what the Congress decides is the problem. Senator Russ Feingold made this point in response to Sen. Lieberman's shameful performance in the senate FISA debate, when Lieberman called for the Senate abdicating its responsibility and instead just blindly doing what McConnell said. And we are in for a repeat in September when General Petraeus reports on Iraq. More. See also General Wes Clark's discussion of Petraeus and Iraq