Glenn Greenwald makes an excellent point about the unquestioning nature of Media scrutiny of statements by the U.S. military, especially Generals, very especially, General David Petraeus:

Klein, while paying lip service to "surge" opposition, hails Petraeus' brilliant counter-insurgency strategies and spends his time demonizing war opponents as morons while lavishing "surge" proponents and Bush's chosen military commanders with the most obsequious praise. That is who Col. Boylan [Petraeus' press liaison] then gets to hold up as an example of "liberal" "journalists" to whom Gen. Petreaus has given interviews. That is why there are few things more damaging than how reverent and gullible and authority-worshipping and Beltway-defending are those assigned to play the "liberal pundit" role in the Beltway court.

This phenomenon is not limited to the Joe Kleins of the Media. Too often our representatives, witness Sens. Clinton and Biden discussing withdrawal from Iraq last night, do too. It is why I have such trepidation about Petraeus' September report.

More.

There were a flurry of motions yesterday in the case of Qwest former CEO Joe Nacchio who faces sentencing Friday in Denver. Among them was a motion for bail pending appeal. I discuss them at length today at 5280.com.

As I wrote, the test for bail pending appeal is set by statute.

A defendant is entitled to bail pending appeal if he is not a flight or safety risk, the appeal is not for purposes of delay, and he will raise a “substantial question” on appeal which, if decided in his favor, will likely result in reversal of the conviction or a new trial.

In the Tenth Circuit, the Court has interpreted “substantial question” to mean:

.... a “close” question or one that very well could be decided the other way.’”

As I wrote when Scooter Libby was seeking bond pending appeal,

It's not necessary that Judge Walton believe he was wrong, or that reversal is probable, only that the issue presents a close question or one that could have been decided the other way.

More...

The conservative Republican site Red State says:

Indeed, it has been conceded from the outset that Congress has the power to bring the war to an end by stopping all funding. And if [NYTimes Editorial writer] Adam Cohen had been paying attention, he might have noticed that ever since the beginning of the 110th Congress, Republicans--including those found in the Bush Administration--have been daring Democrats to bring an end to the war by stopping all funding if they believe so strongly that the war and America's continued presence in Iraq is a mistake.

President Bush has said the same thing. John Yoo says the same thing. Bruce Fein says the same thing. This appears to be a settled question in the political debate.

(Update: Firedoglake is live-blogging the hearing -- Part 1 and 2 so far.)

Attorney General Gonzales, scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, says in his prepared testimony that he has no intention of resigning.

"I could walk away, or I could devote my time, effort and energy to fix the problems," Gonzales said.

"Since I have never been one to quit, I decided that the best course of action was to remain here and fix the problems. That is exactly what I am doing."

More quotes from his statement are here. Why should he get the opportunity to fix problems he either created or negligently allowed to occur on his watch?

As to the topics he'll be quizzed about, TPMuckraker lists these:

Two federal judges Monday ordered the creation of an oversight panel to determine whether overcrowding is causing the pathetic lack of medical and mental health care to inmates.

If the panel determines they are, it would have authority to make drastic changes in the system, including ordering the early release of prisoners.

"This is an historic moment; we're hoping it means we will take a step back to constitutionally operated prisons," said inmate attorney Michael Bien, who petitioned the court for a federal takeover. "Our prisons are horrific places, they are an embarrassment to all of us. We think these very reasoned, deliberate and careful decisions by both judges represent a breath of hope that we can somehow get control of over the prisons again."

Gov. Schwarzenegger promised reform and didn't come through. He and the state legislature thought by pumping $7.4 billion into prison expansion, all would be fixed.

Now, a prison cap is possible. But it's not likely to result in mass early release of inmates.

More...

If you haven't contributed to TalkLeft in a while, and can spare a few dollars, I'm hoping you will do so now so I can get this new Macbook. All amounts are welcome and appreciated.

If you'd rather donate anonymously, please use Amazon here.

If anyone would like to buy it for me, I've put it on my Amazon Wishlist.

Thanks, everyone.

CNN's Jack Cafferty's post debate question:

Is Dennis Kucinich right that the Congress should end the Iraq war by not funding it?

Answer? Yes. What did the candidates say?

Also, Democratic Underground extremely upset with CNN for not asking a question on impeachment.

John Edwards had the best candidate video I've seen so far.

What did you think about the non-Iraq issues covered?

I would have liked to see something on immigration reform. I don't think there was a single question about crime policy.

There's was lots about race, health care, global warming, gay marriage, foreign relations.

Who impressed you? Who let you down?

What did you think of the questioners' videos? You can view them all here. My favorite was this one.

More..

It starts in about 10 minutes. I changed my mind on one point. I will watch the questions on Iraq because of the poll finding Jeralyn highlighted, Hillary "has a 51 percent to 29 percent lead over Obama among those in favor of a complete, immediate withdrawal." Of course now all the candidates favor this approach and all voted for Reid-Feingold.

As I have stated for a while, Obama has licked away the Iraq issue by his timidity on ending the war through use of the Spending Power. There is not a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Obama on the issue now. Dodd and Edwards have not gained any traction on the issue but Obama had a natural advantage, he opposed the war. All the candidates including mine, supported it.

Obama needs to move decisively on ending the war through the use of the Spending Power imo. I am interested to see if he will.

More...

A new WaPo poll:

Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions over a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. . . . [M]ore than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home. The president has steadfastly asserted his power as commander-in-chief to make decisions about the war, but his posture is now viewed by majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans as too inflexible. Asked whether Bush is willing enough to change policies in Iraq, nearly eight in 10 Americans said no.

I'll say it again - there is one way for Congress to have the finakl say on Iraq - not funding the Debacle after a date certain. If this is explained to the American People, they will support it.

More.

John Roberts of CNN, doing a standup for tonight's CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential Candidates' Debate makes a "bold" (READ idiotic) prediction - we will all be talking about Mike Gravel tomorrow.

Unless he pulls a Cheney (and I don't mean an 'f you' Cheney; I mean a 'shoot someone in the face' Cheney), I am confident Mike Gravel will not be the name on everyone's lips tomorrow.

Is Roberts trying to act as if he gets the blogs? Gravel had his night. Months ago. I also predict that I will not be watching the first sanctioned debate (the fourth actual debate). I'm sick of them already. My gawd, there are like 10 to go before Iowa. They will be all the same questions, all the same nonsense. Who started this thing so early anyway?

You're watching an utterly irrelevant, shallow television celebrity [Chris Matthews] dominate everybody who claimed they want to lead the most powerful nation in the world -Newt Gingrich

Heeeeeeere's Newt!

Dismissing the GOP presidential field as a "pathetic" bunch of "pygmies," Newt Gingrich hinted Monday he might step in to beat Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. . . ."If it becomes patently obvious, as the morning paper points out, that the Democrats have raised a hundred million more than the Republicans, and at some point people decide we are going to get Hillary unless there's a radical change, then there's space for a candidate," he added. "So you'll know by mid-October one of those two futures is real." Asked by the Examiner if he was prepared to commit to a run, Gingrich said, "I'm perfectly happy to do what I do," he said. "Whether that leads to the presidency is the country's problem, not mine."

(Emphasis supplied.) It sure as heck would be our problem if Newt became President. Thank Gawd there is no chance of that. h/t atrios.