President Bush refused to answer this question:

Q: There’s been some very dramatic testimony before the Senate this week from one of your former top Justice Department officials who describes a scene that some Senators called stunning, about a time when the warrantless wiretap program was being reviewed. Sir, did you send your then chief of staff and White House counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft while he was ill to get him to approve that program, and do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?

BUSH: Kelly, there’s a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn’t happen. I’m not going to talk about it. It’s a very sensitive program. . . .

No one asked him about the program. The question was a simple one - did he send Card and Gonzales to visit Ashcroft?

Atrios has the nuts*:

Back in those happy days in the 90s, if Clinton had refused to answer a question like this a shitstorm would've erupted. Ted Koppel would've put up a "17 days and still no answer" clock. Tweety would have had 37 blond conservative lawyers on every night to demand "accountability." etc... etc...

• in the poker sense.

KagroX writes a misinformed post on the efficacy of not funding the Iraq War:

Let's see that first one again:

Was it a full-bore data-mining program of some sort, akin to the TIA program that Congress had de-funded? (John Yoo suggests as much in his new book.)

What jumps out at me there is this: the possibility that we're talking about the reincarnation of a program that Congress had de-funded.

That'd be idle speculation but for the mention that John Yoo apparently makes such a suggestion himself.

It's idle speculation particularly because it is from John Yoo. Let's consider what John Yoo was doing in 2003:

Professor Yoo was a visiting professor at the University of Chicago Law School in 2003.

John Yoo was not at Justice when the program in question was not funded as it was originally. He does not know anything about it and could not. It is by definition idle speculation.

The Senate has reached a deal with the White House on immigration reform.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine and returning to their home countries — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and a high-tech worker identification program were completed.

More...

Arivaca, Arizona is making a big stink over proposed surveillance towers planned for the Mexican Border. They liken it to Big Brother.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is installing a network of nine towers with ground radar and night vision cameras to monitor a 28-mile (45-km) stretch of border near Arivaca, southwest of Tucson.

It is the first trial for the communications and technology arm of the government's Secure Border Initiative announced in 2005. Dubbed "SBInet," authorities say it will be extended across some 6,000 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders in segments in coming years.

The town's population of 1,500 is very upset. They say the entire town will be under surveillance. I think they are right. They cost a bundle too.

More...

The Iraq Supplemental funding fight has been something I consider of less importance because it has long been clear to me that the issue of setting a date certain for ending the war (I believe NOT funding it is the only way, but earlier versions discussed "binding timelines") would not be in it. And indeed, the talk is all of short leashes and benchmarks, not date certains for ending the war. The initial House bill, while supported by Move On and the Netroots, was in fact the worst deal possible, as it would have ostensibly set an end date two months before the 2008 elections, thereby insuring that in fact, the Debacle would continue past the end of the Bush presidency. It truly was a terrible bill.

Since then, the House passed a so-called "short leash" bill that provided 2 months of funding with a release of remaining funds in July. For those who favor the "ratcheting up the pressure" approach, this bill makes good sense. I do not think much of that approach, but it does notwork against a date certain for not funding approach I favor, the framework embodied in the McGovern Amendment and in Reid-Feiongold.

Now we see what is lkely to emerge as the Senate proposal, and it is something Bush will sign. GOP Senator John Warner proposed it:

Via Atrios, Al Gore's new book takes us all to task:

A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: "What has happened to our country?" People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it. . . . It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.

As is apparent, I spend a great deal of time writing about ending the Iraq Debacle. Particularly on ending it by not funding it after a date certain. To me it is easy to decry Republican disconnect from reality. But where is the condemnation of Democratic disconnect from the reality of the Constitutional mandate to the Congress to exercise its Spending Power? We are all to blame now. From those of us who always opposed the war, like Barack Obama, to those who learned what a mistake the Iraq Debacle was after supporting it, like Tom Friedman. The truth is that too few are accepting that Bush will never end the war and that the Democratic Congress must exercise its Constitutional power and end it - by not funding it.

Meteor Blades writes:

According to many, defunding isn’t just bad because it’s impossible, it’s a bad idea per se because the polls say most Americans don’t support it. And, they say, if too many elected Democrats do support it, they are going to screw up the party’s prospects for winning the Presidency and perhaps even retaining a majority in the Senate and House come 2008.

Where do these false memes come from? The first is obviously false. As of today, an Iraq Supplemental funding bill has not become law because President Bush vetoed the bill Congress passed. NOT funding is merely a function of not passing a bill, it does not require passage. Right now the Democratic Congress is grappling with a way to force an end date to the Iraq Debacle by means other than NOT funding it. Benchmarks, timelines, "short leashes," etc. are ways that, given a President less obstinate and incompetent and more respectful of the American People, would likely work. But the President IS George Bush.

Yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about his sworn testimony that "the Terrorist Surveillance Program had aroused no controversy inside the Bush administration, despite congressional testimony Tuesday [by James Comey]that senior departmental officials nearly resigned in 2004 to protest such a program."

Gonzo's response? "The Justice Department said yesterday that it will not retract . . ." Must have been talking about some different illegal surveillance program. But these questions still stand; does Gonzales still stand by these statements?

I take my responsibilities very seriously in respecting the role of the Department of Justice, given to the department by Congress, to decide for the executive branch what the law requires . . .

I understand and it's my judgment that I don't get to decide for the executive branch what the law is. Ultimately, that is the president, of course. But by statute, the Department of Justice is given the authority to provide advice to the executive branch.

And so, while I certainly participate in discussions about these matters, at the end of the day, that opinion represents the position of the department and therefore the position of the executive branch.

James Comey testified that Gonzales did not accept the Justice Department as the "decide[er] for the executive branch what the law requires." Surely then either Gonzales' above testimony requires clarification at the least or Gonzales needs to refute Comey's testimony.

Paris Hilton hasn't started serving her sentence yet, but it's already been halved to 23 days with time off for good behavior. What's good behavior? It includes showing up for her sentencing.

She'll be in a special housing unit, and that is not synonymous with special treatment. It means isolation from the general public for her protection. Her fellow inmates:

Hilton will stay in a unit that contains 12 two-person cells reserved for police officers, public officials, celebrities and other high-profile inmates, he said.

Like everyone else in the 2,200-inmate facility, Hilton will get at least an hour outside her cell each day to shower, watch television, participate in outdoor recreation or talk on the telephone, he said.

In other words, she'll be in 23 hour lockdown. That's ridiculous. She's being treated more harshly because of who she is. Her sentence was for violating probation by driving with a suspended license. She didn't drive drunk on probation. She didn't hurt anyone. I really doubt anyone else in that situation would have gotten more than five or ten days.

23 days in isolation (2 pairs of underwear a week) is absurd.

Ok, I've only watched American Idol for the past four weeks since Bon Jovi was on and they did their Africa benefit. Tonight was the selection for the finals and one of the final three contestants, Melinda, Blake or Jordin was going home.

Melinda was the most accomplished singer by miles, in my opinion. Jordin had the best personality and is a really good singer. Blake left me cold.

So how could Melinda get sacked? Because America voted. 60 million votes in 24 hours. And they selected Blake and Jordin.

What does this mean?

More...

Via mcjoan, Sens. Schumer, Feingold, Kennedy and Durbin are concerned about discrepancies in Gonzales' Congressional testimony concerning the objection of then Deputy Attorney General James Comey to the BushCo warrantless surveillance program:

In very dramatic testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified . . . that you and former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card went to Mr. Ashcroft's bedside at George Washington Hospital, where he was in intensive care, in an effort to get him to agree to certify the legality of a classified program that he and Mr. Comey, who was serving as acting Attorney General at the time, had concluded should not be so certified. . . .

. . . You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing.

. . . We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey's testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

I have one more for the Senators. During his confirmation hearings in January 2005, Gonzales testified that:

British authorities have decided it's too dangerous for Prince Harry to go to Iraq -- his face has been too well-publicized and he's too big a target.

Prince Harry is said to be very disappointed. I can only think about how relieved Diana would be, if she were alive. A smart decision. If he is a individualized target, there's also a much greater risk of danger to his team members traveling with him.

I don't think it's a question of valuing his life more than others. I think it's a question of whether sending him amounts to state-assisted suicide because he'd be such a trophy for the insurgents.