During the Connecticut Senate Democratic primary, Joe Lieberman said:

Ned Lamont seems just to be running against me, based on my stand on one issue, Iraq. . . . I'm a Democrat with a 35-year record of fighting for progressive causes, for the middle class, for civil rights, for women's rights, for human rights and a lot more. I voted with my Senate Democratic colleagues 90 percent of the time. . . .

Joe Lieberman, with Hugh Hewitt yesterday:

[JL:] . . . I’ve declared myself for now an independent. . . . So I’m just watching, and I’m not going to endorse anybody until after the two parties have their nominees, and I’m going to support whoever I think is best for the country, regardless of party. . . .

HH: Oh, that’s fascinating. Last question, how do you think history’s going to evaluate George W. Bush?

JL: . . . I think overall, over time, his ratings among the historians will be greater than his ratings in the polls today. . . .

Thank you Joe for demonstrating how right we were to oppose you for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Connecticut.

The conflicted jury in the Conrad Black case, which last week told the court it couldn't agree on all of the 16 counts against him, has returned a guilty verdict on three fraud charges and obstruction of justice.

Black faced 20 years in prison on the most serious counts. The three fraud charges carry a maximum penalty of five years each.

David Brooks, as always an apologist for the GOP, writes:

To simplify a bit, roughly 20 senators, led by John McCain and Joe Lieberman, believe in Gen. David Petraeus and the surge. There are roughly 30 Republicans, led by Dick Lugar, John Warner and Lamar Alexander, who believe that the U.S. should scale back its mission and adopt the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. There are roughly 30 Democrats, led by Carl Levin and Jack Reed, who also want to scale back and adopt the study group’s approach. And finally, there are roughly 20 Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, who just want to get out as quickly as possible.

(Emphasis supplied.) If it is true that "[t]here are roughly 30 Republicans . . . who believe that the U.S. should scale back its mission and adopt the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations[,]" then where is their proposal? Are we to expect the Lugar-Warner proposal today to do this in a meaningful fashion? I won't hold my breath. More.

We'll be reading a lot of these stories for a while:

An attorney who admitted leaking the confidential grand jury testimony of Barry Bonds and other athletes to a reporter was sentenced Thursday to two and a half years in prison, by far the harshest penalty to result from the government's sprawling probe of steroids in sports. . . . White also rejected Ellerman's argument that he should get a lighter sentence because President Bush commuted former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence for perjury to probation. White said to do so would open the door to doling out unduly lenient sentences for other white collar criminals. "If Mr. Ellerman is dissatisfied with his sentence, he should seek a commutation from the president," White said.

Watching the Iraq Debate in Congress, I noticed that there are still some GOP "dead enders" who argue the Debacle is going well. For the most part, these arguments are rightly ignored as foolish inanity. Indeed, it seems clear that in the country, and even in the Beltway, such arguments are dismissed as silly.

The new argument is, as mcjoan discussed the other day, we can't leave because even worse things will happen. Predictably, Fred Hiatt and David Ignatius and all the "Very Serious People" at the Washington Post and in the Beltway, who have gotten it wrong on every single issue regarding Iraq (I kid you not, look it up, wrong every time), are now mouthing the latest Bush talking point. Hiatt, writing for the Post Editorial Board, states:

Conditions in Iraq today are terrible, but they could become "way, way worse," as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, a career Foreign Service officer, recently told the New York Times.

Way, way worse. Sure it is possible. Not very likely. But possible. The question is then what is the force of such an argument? Keeping things from getting "way, way worse" at the tune of thousands of American soldiers' lives and $120 billion a year is not a strategy. More.

Update [2007-7-12 18:31:2 by Big Tent Democrat]: The House just passed its Iraq withdrawal bill, 223-201. 4 Republicans voted for the bill. 10 9 Blue Dogs and Kucinich voted against it.

C-Span 1 and 2 are covering all Iraq all the time in the Congress today. And this is as it should be. Indeed, it saddens me that the Left blogs are not as comprehensive in their coverage of the most important issue of the day. And the Democrats are doing important political work on this issue. And who knows? Maybe this will help "ratchet up the pressure" and get us a veto proof majority soon.

I do not believe so. I believe nothing going on in these two weeks of scheduled debate is going to end the Debacle. but perhaps it will convince Democrats that there is only one way to end the Iraq Debacle -- setting a date certain when a Democratic Congress will no longer fund it.

Can things get any worse for John McCain's campaign?

Justin Rood at ABC News reports:

An official with the John McCain presidential campaign was arrested for allegedly soliciting oral sex from a policeman in Florida yesterday.

Bob Allen, a member of the Florida House of Representatives, is one of six Florida co-chairs for the Arizona Republican senator's 2008 White House bid.

The allegation is he offered an undercover cop $20 for a quickie.

This shouldn't be illegal at all, but that doesn't make it any less a hit for the McCain campaign.

The North Carolina State Bar today filed its formal opinion in the disbarment of Durham DA Mike Nifong for his actions in the discredited Duke Lacrosse players' case.

The opinion is here.

Nifong also has a criminal contempt hearing on deck for July 26. He has been ordered to appear personally. He also has a new lawyer.

Tom Edsall of the Huffington Post watches Fred Thompson on Hannity and Colmes so you don't have to:

Hannity[:] "They have attacked you, they have attacked your family, and now, they come out in the Los Angeles Times with a piece that says you lobbied for abortion rights. You say that's absolutely not true."
[THOMPSON]: "You need to separate a lawyer who is advocating a position from the position itself."

In others words, sorrry, Sean, it is absolutely true. Edsall wry notes:

If ever an answer demanded a follow-up, this fit the bill. . . . Hannity, however, must have missed that.

Read Edsall's whole piece. It is a good one.

Tom Tancredo is in need of an attention fix for his fledgling Presidential campaign that while never getting off the ground still took a nose-dive when immigration reform fell off the table.

His latest is to introduce a bill that he knows will not pass but hopes will push emotional buttons back into overdrive.

Everybody knows that if you are born in this country, you automatically are a U.S. citizen. Under Tancredo's bill, a baby born to undocumented residents would be stripped of citizenship.

Tancredo's legal foundation for this is his unique view of the 14th Amendment. How unique?

Tancredo doesn't have any co-sponsors for his bill. Asked what support he expected, Tancredo, standing alone on a podium, looked to the right and the left and noted the absence of fellow lawmakers.

More...

Via The Gavel (blog of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi)As we wait for President Bush's report to be released today that will lower expectations for Iraq, here's a graphic from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. CRS reports that since the President's escalation began, the cost of the war in Iraq has increased to $10 billion per month.

In 2007, so far, our Government has spent $27 billion on the War on Drugs.

No wonder our Government can't provide us with adequate health insurance.

This clip

is, of course, political theater. But it is also the heart of the matter. I repeat again, Ms. Taylor's refusal to discuss certain matters at the behest of the President is flouting a legal subpoena which has been unchallenged LEGALLY by the President.

While the President can, in my view, direct subordinates to not answer a Congressional subpoena on the grounds of executive privilege, he can not do so to persons who do not work for him, as neither Ms. Taylor or Ms. Miers do. The President has no legal power over them. The Congressional subpoena power does bind them until set aside by a court of law. What Ms. Taylor did do in fact was honor her political oath to the President will ignoring her legal duty to comply with a Congressional subpoena. Ms. Miers apparently will do the same today.

My bottom line remains the same, it is incumbent on the President to seek to quash these subpoenas, by making such a motion before a court of law.