Jon Alter, writing about the Dems' Iraq Supplemental disaster, says:

It isn't easy to make the case for capitulation and gamesmanship when human lives are at stake, but I'm going to try. That's because many Americans—especially on the left—don't understand why Democrats in Congress had no choice but to proceed the way they have this week on the war in Iraq.

I'm going to concentrate only on the politics of the situation here, let's leave the human lives at stake aside. Ahhhhhh. Just writing that sentence tells us what is wrong with this thinking. The POLITICS won't let us leave that aside. For this is the essential Democratic problem, they are viewed as standing for nothing. For having no principles. As Ruy Texeira and John Halpin put it:

The thesis of this report is straightforward. Progressives need to fight for what they believe in -- and put the common good at the center of a new progressive vision -- as an essential strategy for political growth and majority building. This is no longer a wishful sentiment by out-of-power activists, but a political and electoral imperative for all concerned progressives. . . . [T]he underlying problem driving progressives' on-going woes nationally [is] a majority of Americans do not believe progressives or Democrats stand for anything.

Alter's thinking is a reflection of this.

Earlier I wrote about the Government's sentencing memorandum for Scooter Libby, and noted that it would be filing an explanation of how it calculated Libby's guidelines at 30 to 37 months. I've uploaded the newly filed calculations here, and I have to say, I disagree with them. As does the Probation Department.

It's a very complicated calculation because instead of just using the perjury, obstruction and false statement guidelines, it asks the Court to cross-reference those guidelines with the higher guidelines for violations of the IIPA and Espionage Act.

More....

Christopher Newton was put to death like a dog in Ohio yesterday. The execution took two hours and ten attempts.

The execution team stuck Christopher Newton at least 10 times with needles Thursday to insert the shunts where the chemicals are injected.

He died at 11:53 a.m., nearly two hours after the scheduled start of his execution at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. The process typically takes about 20 minutes.

"What is clear from today's botched execution is that the state doesn't know how to execute people without torturing them to death," American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio attorney Carrie Davis said Thursday.

On the other hand, you wouldn't do a dog this way.

The Government filed an 18 page sentencing memorandum for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby today. You can read it here. In the memorandum, the Government says Libby's guidelines are 30 to 37 months and asks the Court to follow the guidelines. The Government said it will follow-up with a filing explaining how it arrived at the guideline range later today. As of now, it has not been filed.

My initial calculation of the guidelines, with links to the specific provisions, is here. Christy at Firedoglake provides her take and Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun reported today. (Both were written before the Government's memorandum was filed.)

Points of interest. The Government did not say it agreed with the Probation Department's calculations of the Guidelines, it said it believed the guideline range to be 30 to 37 months. It may be that the Probation Department calculated the guidelines to be lower than that.

Also, Libby has not filed a Sentencing Memorandum, at least as yet. There are a few explanations for this.

More...

Two new books about Hillary Clinton are set for release in June. One is by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., the second is by Carl Bernstein.

As for the ridiculous assertion that 20 years ago Hillary and Bill were planning on how to each be two-term Presidents, Media Matters provides the debunking.

What's left is like sifting through old coffee grounds. Do we really need new books re-hashing old Clinton marital woes?

How about the facts? Gerth and Van Natta, Jr. make a big deal out of Hillary's non-review of the National Intelligence Estimate when it came out. Why? It's not as if she claimed otherwise. Only six senators did review it (none of whom are current Presidential contenders.)

When Hillary was asked about this a few weeks ago in New Hampshire, she said she was briefed extensively on it. That only six Senators read it was documented during the 2004 presidential campaign, for example by ABC on 4/14/07 and the Washington Post (article by Dana Priest) on 4/27/04.

More old coffee grinds:

If you buy this one, the Times has a nice bridge to sell you:

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

How many times have we heard that one? A lot:

"My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change... We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys. As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists." 11/30/05, George W. Bush

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who I support for the Democratic Presidential nomination, promises to keep fighting to end the Iraq Debacle:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), our newest proponent of the not funding after a date certain option, learns that the GOP does not play nice, and strikes back very effectively:

More please Senator. And fight for the only alternative for really ending the Debacle, the not funding option.

Between, John Edwards, Senator Obama and my personal favorite, Sen. Dodd, we have three more leaders capable of leading on this issue. Senator Clinton's voice in this fight would be most welcome. Her recent votes are a good start, but I personally would like to see more leadership. I am confident she can deliver such leadership. Please step up Senator Clinton.

EJ Dionne's column, and I love EJ, is replete with many misconceptions and wrongheaded thinking, some of it his, some of it attributed to Democrats. I want to start with Speaker Pelosi's delusion:

Pelosi's case is that the war's congressional opponents have already helped move the debate by passing antiwar measures and by prying Republicans loose from the president's policy. "It is just a matter of time," she says, before Republicans can "no longer stay with the president.

This is a bad joke. Speaker, you pried no one loose and you never will. Until you get that right, you have no chance to effectively end the Iraq Debacle. This is quite dioscouraging to hear. Speaker Pelosi seems not to get it at all. The Republicans will never abandon Bush on Iraq. You must formulate your strategy accordingly.

Muqtada Al Sadr demanded US withdrawal from Iraq today in his first public appearance in four months:

The powerful Iraqi cleric Moktada al- Sadr surfaced in his home base of Kufa in southern Iraq today, delivering a sermon in a local mosque after what American intelligence officials called a four-month sojourn in Iran.

The cleric, addressing a large crowd amid heavy security, called for American forces to leave Iraq and for the Iraqi government to make sure that the Americans leave as soon as possible. He called for and end to fighting between his own Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces and police, asking his followers to conduct peaceful demonstrations instead.

. . . Mr. Sadr’s appearance came as the American military announced today that six more soldiers had died in Iraq, five on Thursday and one on Tuesday, according to Reuters. April was the worst month this year for the American military since the invasion, with 104 soldiers killed. About 90 have been killed in May so far.

Not a new position for Sadr, but the timing makes for an interesting development to say the least.

After the passage of the original House Iraq Supplemental, the much lionized measure, in response to the praise the bill received, I wrote:

Chris Bowers articulates his [analysis]:

The more I think about it, at least in the short term, both camps in the progressive side of this debate will actually get what they want. This bill will pass the House, but it will also never pass into law. . . . At the same time, those of us now favoring the bill will get what we wanted: headlines showing Democrats trying to end the war, but being thwarted by Republicans. . . . We all won.

Actually, in the short term, I have always accepted this point, IF it played out that way. But it won't.

. . . The very same pressures that forced the capitulation to the Blue Dogs will force further capitulations along the way starting with the Senate, IF a bill is to be approved. . . .

Ironically, unlike most everyone else, I am not so discouraged about what can happen next. For I believe, after this hard lesson, for Democrats in Congress, for progressive activists, for the Netroots, we can now go forward with a PRAGMATIC, realistic plan to end the Iraq debacle AND play smart politics. Yes, from these ashes should rise the Reid/Feingold/McGovern/Dodd/Kerry/ Edwards/Obama/Clinton/Boxer, et al. NOT funding after a date certain framework.

A New York Times - CBS poll finds public support for the Iraq War at its lowest point since the invasion in 2003.

Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

....President Bush’s approval ratings remain near the lowest of his more than six years in office. Thirty percent approve of the job he is doing over all, while 63 percent disapprove.

More Americans — 72 percent — now say that “generally things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track” than at any other time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The number has slowly risen since January 2004. Then, 53 percent said the country was “seriously off on the wrong track,” and by January of this year it was 68 percent.

If we don't cut off funding, how do we ensure the war ends? What's so difficult about bringing the troops home by a date certain and refusing to fund Iraq war spending after that date?

The latest New York Times poll shows a strong majority of Americans favor allowing undocumented residents to obtain legal status:

Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demands, the poll found.

Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who had a good employment history and no criminal record should gain legal status as the bill proposes, which is by paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving a renewable four-year visa.

The respondents weren't specifically asked about the compromise legislation.

More...