Via Spencer Ackerman, Sen. Russ Feingold sees the cavein beginning:

Asked whether he would attempt to filibuster any bill that comes up prior to the Senate’s adjournment for the August recess, Feingold said he would prefer to be able to give his stamp of approval to the measure. “But at the moment I’m feeling a little worried that that isn’t going to be possible,” he said. “It’s not moving in the direction that I’m hoping, but I think it might be moving in the wrong direction, in which case the options have to be potentially utilized.”

I can tell you this, if the Democratic Congress gives Alberto Gonzles MORE power to approve warrantless surveillance, then there should be hell to pay with the progressive activists and bloggers. What I want to know specifically is who is supporting the Bush version of the FISA amendment. And if any of the Senator/Presidential candidates is. Senators Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden, if you vote for Bush FISA amendment, I hope to gawd you catch hell for it.

In his confrontational interview with Senator Chris Dodd (my guy in the Presidential race), Bill O'Reilly got one right:

O'Reilly ended the interview abruptly by saying that Dodd "was no Joe Lieberman."

Darn straight! And hooray for that! Way to go Senator Dodd.

The entire issue of nuclear weapon use doctrine is now pretty much a foreign policy backwater as a result of the end of the Cold War. When I was in college in the 80s, discussions of MAD, first strike capability, the impact of the MX missile, the INF treaty and the like were very much a centerpiece of foreign policy discussion. And Presidential candidates had their pat answers at the ready.

Today Barack Obama was asked a question about use of nuclear weapons and his fumbling answer demonstrated that he was not prepared for it. I think he has committed a serious political gaffe.

The exchange:

Checking in from Yearly Kos in Chicago.

A few notes: The convention center is massive and between a 1/4 and 1/2 mile indoor walk from the hotel. Getting lost is quite easy.

Try to find someplace other than the hotel to eat. Last night Jane and Pach of Firedoglake and I ate dinner at the hotel restaurant. Drink, salad, small fillet and asparagus: $69.00. (a ribeye or strip steak would have been even more.) The food also took almost an hour to arrive.

On the positive side, Yearly Kos registration was smooth last night. We got canvas bags filled with stuff I haven't had time to rummage through yet, and a 70 page magazine consisting of the schedule,speakers and ads. I'd be lost without it, and if you'd like one, you can download it for free at Yearly Kos.

More...

Why The FISA Amendment?

A special court that has routinely approved eavesdropping operations has put new restrictions on the ability of U.S. spy agencies to intercept e-mails and telephone calls of suspected terrorists overseas, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Russ Feingold has this to say on the proposed FISA amendment:

We need to wiretap terrorists, and we should address the problem that has been identified with FISA with respect to foreign-to-foreign communications. But the administration’s overly broad proposal goes far beyond that and would leave critical decisions related to surveillance involving Americans entirely up to the Attorney General. The proposal from the Democratic leadership is better and involves FISA court review from the start. But it does not have adequate safeguards to protect Americans’ privacy. The bill should also include a 90-day sunset to ensure Congress has the chance to identify and fix any problems with this new proposal

I am beginning to believe that regarding the FISA debate the Congressional Democrats are trying to stake a position unacceptable to the Bush Administration while covering their perceived vulnerability if a terrorist attack occurs during the recess.

The basic proposition is a 90 day approval but no Gonzales doing the review. But what if Bush plays chicken? I suspect, unfortunately, the Dems will crack. They are too fearful of Bush on the question of terrorism. I hope I am wrong. We'll see.

Jeralyn is traveling, but I think she would want to highlight this Richard Moran Op-Ed on bad faith prosecution:

My recently completed study of the 124 exonerations of death row inmates in America from 1973 to 2007 indicated that 80, or about two-thirds, of their so-called wrongful convictions resulted not from good-faith mistakes or errors but from intentional, willful, malicious prosecutions by criminal justice personnel. (There were four cases in which a determination could not be made one way or another.)

Yet too often this behavior is not singled out and identified for what it is. When a prosecutor puts a witness on the stand whom he knows to be lying, or fails to turn over evidence favorable to the defense, or when a police officer manufactures or destroys evidence to further the likelihood of a conviction, then it is deceptive to term these conscious violations of the law — all of which I found in my research — as merely mistakes or errors.

Mistakes are good-faith errors — like taking the wrong exit off the highway, or dialing the wrong telephone number. There is no malice behind them. However, when officers of the court conspire to convict a defendant of first-degree murder and send him to death row, they are doing much more than making an innocent mistake or error. They are breaking the law.

Christy cites from a past NYObserver article:

In all, Mr. Lieberman’s This Week appearance lasted about 11 minutes, and if anything became clear in that time it’s how decreasingly relevant to the national political debate he’s becoming—a decline that not many foresaw last November, when Connecticut’s voters returned him to the Senate, prompting talk that a new power-broker, coveted equally by both parties, had been born.

TalkLeft last November:

What Joe Lieberman has to say on Iraq is simply irrelevant. What Reid, Levin, Pelosi and Murtha say matters from the Congress. And of course what Bush says from the Executive. Joe Lieberman is not part of the conversation.

and this:

Joe will not be relevant unless he breaks his word on caucusing with the Dems.

Just sayin'

Via digby, Canadian born David Frum says people like me lack something:

[a] deep attachment to the American nation (and who are thus immune to the most potent of Republican appeals.)

The irony of a Canadian born person stating that he will have a deeper attachment to the American nation than I, a native born Hispanic-American, is deep.

The despicable nature of a WHITE Canadian born person assuming he has a higher capacity for deep attachment to the American nation actually is the BEST explanation of why Republicans are now relegated to a dim political future.

The funny thing is, say what you will about Bush and Rove, they had the good sense to know that darker skinned Hispanic Americans were just as capable of a deep attachment to the American nation as white Canadian Americans.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has responded in writing regarding the apparent discrepancies in his testimony regarding the dispute in the Bush Administration over intelligence activities. My review of the letter leads me to the conclusion that Gonzales has largely abandoned his story about the supposed limited nature of the dispute. It seems entirely different from his previous testimony, though he does weakly cling to the notion that the discrepancies were a result of the different understanding of the term TSP. See for yourself and tell me what you think. Senator Leahy was not impressed:

The Attorney General’s legalistic explanation of his misleading testimony under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week is not what one should expect from the top law enforcement officer of the United States. It is time for full candor to enforce the law and promote justice, rather than word parsing.
“The Attorney General has until the end of this week to correct and supplement his testimony. I hope he will take that opportunity to clarify the many issues on which he appears not to have been forthcoming and to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people the whole truth.”

That seems a fair request in light of this letter from Gonzales. What does it all mean? I think a non-confrontational approach is what the Bush Administration has chosen. I think Gonzo will, in essence, recant his testimony.

While O'Hanlon and Pollack ignore their consistently erroneous track record on assessing the Iraq War, their big claim is that they were "on the ground." But, Michael Ware has been on the ground in Iraq the whole time and he vehemently disagrees with their conclusions. And he has a better track record on the Iraq War:

h/t Think Progress.

Yglesias reminds us of this 2004 TNR article of how retribution in the foreign policy establishment works:

For many in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Dean was seen as dangerous. . . . No one was more concerned on this score than Daalder's Brookings colleague and occasional co-author, Michael O'Hanlon, who penned scathing op-eds in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times attacking Dean. O'Hanlon, who advises several of the candidates--including Kerry--told me, "More Democrats should have recognized [Dean's] danger and spoken out against him." . . . [N]ow that Dean is done, Rice and especially Daalder may find their career prospects also dimmed. When I spoke with the foreign policy gurus who would likely stock a Democratic administration, they seemed to regard the Dean campaign as a debilitating black mark on one's resumé. . . . "This whole campaign causes me to question [Daalder's and Rice's] judgment . . ."

Now O'Hanlon and Pollack dishonestly claim to have been critics of the war and the Surge. So they are dishonest AND wrong. There should be repercussions for such behavior. No Democrat should consider having them in their Administration. Their judgment AND their word can not be trusted.

Traveling Day here to Chicago and Yearly Kos. I'm not really bringing all that luggage, but close enough.

I'll stop in here at the airport as wi-fi and time allow. In the meantime, here's an open thread.