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

Bill Clinton once said:

"The main idea here is still the old idea of the American dream ... that if you work hard and play by the rules, you ought to have a decent life and a chance for your children to have a better one, " he said.

Ezra Klein and Ady Barkan wonder why Dem Senate Leader Reid does not go to the mattresses for Sen. Webb's amendment for resting troops:

Harry Reid should bring the amendment up for consideration in September, and he should make clear that he's not going to table it. If he demands that the bill get an up-or-down vote and sticks to his guns, Reid will almost surely emerge victorious. Why? First off, the Webb amendment is exceptionally popular. Republicans can't seriously oppose more rest and recuperation time for soldiers and marines. They'll say that Congress shouldn't micro-manage the war, but with many troops on their third tour in Iraq, that argument doesn't carry much weight. Second, because the vote was so close last time, at the outset of this debate the outcome would be in sincere doubt. Add to that the fact that such Very Serious Republicans as John Warner and Dick Lugar have long billed September as the moment of truth regarding Bush's surge, they may finally (with some pushing) feel the need to vote against the president, and the Webb amendment offers the perfect "non-defeat" bill on which to do it. All of this adds real uncertainty -- which constitutes exactly the drama that the press loves. If Reid can keep the floor debate going for 3 or 4 days, the excitement will only build -- if the Senate is deadlocked over the fate of thousands of U.S. soldiers, America will tune in.

Assuming each of these very dubious assumptions is true, I think each and every one is NOT true, then what? Why the least suspenseful veto in history will occur. I have to ask this question - is anyone interested in ACTUALLY getting the troops out of the Iraq Debacle? Because if they do they need to come to grips with the fact that there is only one way to do it - by not funding it after a date certain. More.

Update: Here's just the 13 second clip of the end of Hillary's statement, Olbermann and the booing:

********

The tv pundits are saying that the audience at the AFL-CIO debate booed Hillary after her criticism of Obama for saying what he thinks about Pakistan.

I've watched the replay twice. Her answer was done, there were no boos until Olbermann interjected asking Chris Dodd to respond. That's when the audience began booing.

I think they were booing Olbermann for giving Dodd instead of Obama the chance to respond.

On a related note, Thomas Edsall, writing on Huffington Post, has some campaign contribution numbers from Open Secret for Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

More...

The AFL-CIO Democratic candidate's debate, moderated by Keith Olbermann, is tonight at 7pm ET. MSNBC will air it live. More than 12,000 union members and guests are expected to attend.

Here are the candidates' two minute opening statements.

Seven of the eight contenders are participating. (Mike Gravell is not.)

I'll be watching and will live-blog in updates below.

The TL kid is in town for a few days, fresh from taking the NY bar exam, so my blogging will be light today. Here's an open thread for you.