Paul Krugman makes an interesting point, while missing a main one:

Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding. Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public utterly disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it’s not clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.

It seems true that politicians are not convinced that voters will punish Bush-style fearmongering. But that is not the Democrats' problem. The Dems' problems is precisely that they need to be convinced of that before they will act with political courage. And everyone knows this. The last few days I have been harping on the Democrats' central political weakness - that are believed to have no convictions they will fight for.

For T-Rex and all those suffering in Georgia. Let it Rain.

This is the type of thinking that will lead to poor Democratic results in 2008:

All the Democratic sorrow and Republican gloating of the past week came from the heart. With the passage of the Iraq funding bill, Democrats will be forced to watch a thousand more soldiers die, while Republicans can enjoy many more months of pretending they're good at fighting terrorists. But the political impact of the bill is exactly the opposite of what the partisans believe. The Republican Party just signed away its best chance to avoid catastrophe in 2008. As in 2006, Republicans will be left with total ownership of the Iraq War, and in voters' eyes, total responsibility for disaster. . .

In 2006, Democrats won because there was a belief that they could do something about Iraq. In 2008, if nothing else happens, that belief willbe shattered. Why indeed would non-Dems (or purity troll progressives to use the pejorative term for folks who distrust the triangulating Dems) vote for Dems on Iraq when they proved so spineless? This is just the type of thinking that could blow 2008 for the Democrats.

One was pregnant. Another were mother and daughter, with baby in tow. Seven women went off to get firewood when men on camels in Janjaweed uniforms surrounded them, beat them and then gang-raped them, leaving them naked to walk hours back to their camp.

Rape is practically an everyday occurrance in Darfur.

U.N. workers say they registered 2,500 rapes in Darfur in 2006, but believe far more went unreported. The real figure is probably thousands a month, said a U.N. official.

Rape is a strategy of war.

In Sudan, as in many Islamic countries, society views a sexual assault as a dishonor upon the woman's entire family. "Victims can face terrible ostracism," says Maha Muna, the U.N. coordinator on this issue in Sudan.

Some aid workers believe the janjaweed use rape to intimidate the rebels, and their supporters and families. "It's a strategy of war," Muna said in an interview earlier this year in Khartoum, the capital.

As to the death tolls,

Meanwhile, more than 200,000 civilians have died and 2.5 million are homeless out of Darfur's population of 6 million, the U.N. says.

Save Darfur.

Who could forget Chandra Levy and Gary Condit? The San Francisco Chronicle featured Chandra's death this past week because it was the fifth anniversary since the discovery of her remains.

No one has been charged with the crime. It's considered a "cold case" but it's not closed. Chandra's mother still goes to D.C. once a year to meet with the police chief.

Whatever became of Gary Condit? He and his wife live primarily in Arizona where they own two ice cream shops.

"It's a family-run shop," Chad Condit told CNN's Larry King in 2005. "We scoop ice cream." Last year, Baskin-Robbins filed a federal suit claiming that the Condits had breached their franchise agreement.

Two families that just can't catch a break. Sad.

The latest tall tale on Iraq is from Dem apologists -- that even if Congress elected to not fund the Iraq Debacle, President Bush could unilaterally fund the Debacle through invocation of the Feed and Forage Act of 1861 (41 USC, Section 11.) This is the misconception of folks who simply do not understand how the Constitution and the law works. Let's consider the language of the Food and Forage Act:

(a) No contract or purchase on behalf of the United States shall be made, unless the same is authorized by law or is under an appropriation adequate to its fulfillment, except in the Department of Defense . . . for clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, or medical and hospital supplies, which, however, shall not exceed the necessities of the current year.

Consider the implications of the interpretation being forwarded by some that this grants the President unlimited power to fund the war unilaterally. It would make the law plainly unconstitutional as it would violate the the express separation of powers, the statements of the Federalist Papers, uncontroverted by any and all writings by scholars, conservative or liberal. In short, it is an argument that is only made to excuse the inaction of the Democratic Congress. NO Republican I know of has made this argument. Only enabling Democrats. Very telling.

The White House has released the transcript of Dick Cheney's commencement address yesterday at West Point.

Scarecrow at Firedoglake takes issue with his statements.

BarbinMd at Daily Kos recaps and interprets Cheney's statements on how we are winning the war on terror:

Our government has used every legitimate tool to counter the activities of an enemy that likely has cells inside our own country. We've improved our security arrangements [dug a deeper bunker for me], reorganized intelligence capabilities [repeatedly broke the law], surveilled and interrogated the enemy [tortured], and worked closely with friends [Great Britain] and allies [Great Britain] to track terrorist movements.

The season finale of "24" included the implanting of a microchip in a teenager to track his whereabouts. I remember one other episode where the same thing was done.

Looks like some legislators in Oklahoma had the same idea:

Legislation that would authorize microchip implants in people convicted of violent crimes was sent back to a committee yesterday. This after state House members questioned whether the proposal would violate constitutional civil liberties.

The measure, approved by the Senate, authorizes microchip implants for persons convicted of one or more of 19 violent offenses who have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. (my emphasis)

The tiny electronic implants are commonly used to keep track of pets and livestock, but several House members questioned whether their forced use in people would be unconstitutionally invasive.

The measure passed the Senate? Is this an aberration? Sentencing Law and Policy thinks it may be the trend of the future.

I've been appalled at GPS monitoring of my clients. I've fought it unsuccessfully when it was imposed as a bond condition in a stalking case. But a microchip? I'd take it to the Supreme Court. And little good that will do if we get more Bush-nominated right wing judges on the Court.

If Rudy Giuliani can't even manage civil discourse with his children and ex-spouse, how will he manage the various adversarial encounters he will face as President?

Rudy and Judy went to Harvard-bound Caroline's high school graduation today. They sat 30 yards from former Mrs. Giuliani Donna Hanover and son Andrew and never spoke to them.

When the commencement speaker, Sen. Charles Schumer, noted Giuliani's presence and the audience broke into applause, Hanover and her son, Andrew Giuliani, sat stone-faced and didn't clap.

But Hanover and Andrew jumped up and cheered when the Harvard-bound 17-year-old Caroline received her diploma from the tony Trinity School, while Giuliani and his wife, Judith, didn't even crack a smile.

Then Rudy and Judy ducked out early.

Rudy and Judith Giuliani avoided his children and ex-wife by arriving minutes before the ceremony began, entering through a side entrance, and they ducked out 10 minutes before it ended....At the graduation yesterday, Andrew did not acknowledge his father and stepmother and would not say whether the couple would join them later.

Rudy didn't attend Andrew's high-school graduation. Did he attend this one only so the press would report he was there?

I have been a somewhat lonely defender of both Jane Harman and Joe Klein of late, finding that Rep. Harman has been quite good in her votes and statements since she engaged the blogs a year ago in the face of a strong primary challenge from the invaluable Marcy Winograd, and that Klein had improved greatly since he began blogging at Swampland.

Now, apparently, Harman had a conversation with Klein before the Iraq Supplemental vote and Harman indicated to Klein that she was going to vote for it. Apparently, Harman changed her mind as she voted against it. Klein wrote a blog post not knowing Harman changed her mind, and held her up as an example of what he preferred from Dems on the Iraq Supplemental, a vote for it, and criticized Sens. Clinton and Obama for voting against it. Obviously, I think Joe was wrong on the merits. But so what. Joe is wrong in a lot of opinions. That he got the facts wrong is the problem here. But he corrected it, though not in a timely nor gracious way. But the strangest thing is the upshot, where Rep. Harman apologizes for not telling Klein she changed her mind.

It's too nice to stay inside today and blog. But, maybe it's raining where you are or maybe you're at work or otherwise logged on.

Here's a place for your thoughts.

The L.A. Times brings back the story of the under-qualified immigration judges appointed during Alberto Gonzales tenure.

I wrote about this in 2005 with respect to John Ashcroft and I'm glad to see it back in the news.