Update: Think Progress has Sen. Patrick Leahy's response to Murray's disclosure.

*****

Murray Waas breaks new ground in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, by unconvering a secret, March 2006 order signed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales broadly delegating hiring and firing of non-civil service Justice Department officials, including high-level staff at the Criminal Division, to his then Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson and to Monica Goodling who became his White House liason a month after the order was signed.

In the order, Gonzales delegated to his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and his White House liaison "the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration" of virtually all non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department, including all of the department's political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.

The existence of the order suggests that a broad effort was under way by the White House to place politically and ideologically loyal appointees throughout the Justice Department, not just at the U.S.-attorney level. Department records show that the personnel authority was delegated to the two aides at about the same time they were working with the White House in planning the firings of a dozen U.S. attorneys, eight of whom were, in fact, later dismissed.

More...

The Maliki government is falling to pieces:

The largest bloc of Sunni Arabs in the Iraqi Parliament threatened to withdraw its ministers from the Shiite-dominated cabinet today in frustration over the Iraq government’s failure to deal with Sunni concerns. President Bush stepped in to forestall the move, calling one of Iraq’s two vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, and inviting him to Washington, Mr. Hashimi’s office said in a written statement. The bloc, known as the Iraqi Consensus Front and made up of three Sunni Arab parties, “has lost hope in rectifying the situation despite all of its sincere and serious efforts to do so,” the statement said.

1, 2, 3, 4, what are we fighting for?

At least 104 United States troops lost their lives in hostile actions in Iraq in April, the highest of any month so far this year. Another 13 deaths among other allied forces have been reported, making it the highest monthly death toll for all allied forces in more than two years. Military reporting typically lags at least 24 hours so the final total for the month could be higher.

Last month, 104 American soldiers lost their lives so that George Bush's feewings don't get hurt. I'm livid tonight. At George Tenet, David Broder and each and every enabler of the worst President in history who has plunged us into the most castastrophic foreign policy debacle in our history.

This Debacle must be ended. By the Democratic Congress. There are no other options.

David Broder take note. Via Greg Sargent, Beltway insider Stu Rothenberg says Dems are the moderate political party:

If you really want to see how times have changed across the nation in general, and on Capitol Hill in particular, all you need to do is consider both the way high-profile Democrats have reacted to recent events and how the Democrats are proceeding in Congress. It’s stunning, and that’s not mere hyperbole. . . . So far, in other words, there is little or no evidence that Democratic leaders are being dragged away from their post-election strategy of keeping toward the political center and demonstrating their moderation.

On substance, the post is utter nonsense, but who cares really? The important thing here is that Beltway insider Stu Rothenberg says the Dems are the moderate party.

Pass the word. We are the middle.

. . . and so does David Broder, who simply has slipped into utter incoherence. But let's read Buckley:

It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. . . . How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters?

Broder said:

[V]ictory in Iraq -- whether that's achievable is really doubtful.

Treason!

I wonder if Joe thinks this is a good plan:

BLITZER: Foreign Minister . . . there's concern here in Washington — Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, raised it — that your parliament is about to take a two-month vacation in the midst of all of these challenges. . . . ZEBARI: . . . In fact, the recess is two months. And we discussed that issue. That really this should be cut down to two weeks or one week because business is not as usual in our country. . .

What will Susan Collins say?

If the president's new strategy does not demonstrate significant results by August, then Congress should consider all options . . .

I predict she'll say '[i]f the president's new strategy does not demonstrate results by August March 2008, then Congress should consider all options.' And so on . . .

Master McCarthyite Smearer Joe Lieberman sez:

And I do think there is a larger message here for our politics. I think the public is fed up. They feel that both the political parties, mostly because of the primaries, maybe because of attack ads, the kind of divisiveness of the cable news coverage of politics, talk radio, the bloggers have added another dimension of vituperation toxicity to it. The majority of people are sick of it.

No Joe, they are sick of the Bush/McCain/Lieberman/GOP Iraq Debacle:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure

24% 71% 5%

Here is some cackle material from Joe:

I think if the two major parties wouldn’t hear this going into ‘08, there is a real chance of an independent third-party candidacy. and watch out if that happens.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!! Joe still pining for the White House. Hilarious.

Rudy on universal health care:

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani pulled out the S-word to criticize universal-health-care plans advocated by Democratic presidential candidates. The Republican hopeful said in a visit to Raleigh, N.C., that Democrats who urged "mandatory" universal health care at a debate Thursday night were "moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin," according to the Associated Press.

As always, Rudy was for "socialized medicine" before he was against it:

The June issue of Vanity Fair has an article by Michael Wolff (free link) on "Crazy for Rudy." Shorter version: He may be nuts.

Wolff writes that almost anyone who’s ever worked for Rudy Giuliani expects his presidential campaign to implode at any moment, thanks to his propensity for periods of mania, outbursts, and frequent forms of behavior that generally don’t win elections.

Bernard Kerik, his frosty relationship with his children, his famous smackdown of a listener (and ferret owner) who called in during his radio show, Judith Giuliani’s stint at a medical company that experimented on live dogs (killing them in the process), the list goes on—there are plenty of past deeds that may block his path to the White House.

But what is it about Rudy that makes him so compelling? Wolff opines that the consensus among people who know him best is that, “He is nuts, actually mad.” And Wolff argues that maybe that’s just what he needs to win. After all, he writes, “You can better trust a crazy man, lacking normal artifice and equivocations, not to sh*t you.”

I'd rather see his campaign implode. I don't think you can trust a crazy man, I think you need to beware of him and watch him like a hawk, which I have no doubt, the liberal blogs will do.

Jose Medellin has been on Texas death row since he was 19. He is a Mexican National. A history of his case is here. TalkLeft background is here.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted cert to hear his case.

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether President George W. Bush had the authority to direct a state court to comply with an international tribunal's ruling in the case of a Mexican on death row in Texas.

The justices agreed to review a decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that concluded Bush had exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary.

Medellin is one of the 50 foreign death row inmates whose cases were taken to the Hague where the World Court found their rights had been violated:

The World Court in The Hague in 2004 ordered the United States to review the cases of Medellin and 50 other Mexican death row inmates because U.S. officials failed to tell them of their right under the Vienna Convention to talk to consular officers immediately after their arrests.

Bush in 2005 decided to comply with the World Court's ruling and he directed state courts to review the 51 cases to determine whether the violation of their rights caused the defendants any harm at trial or at sentencing.

The Supreme Court today refused to hear the cases of Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Khadr, challenging the legality of the military tribunals under which they are to be tried.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would have granted the request to hear the case, the court said in turning it down. It takes four votes, though, to hear a case.

The court's action follows its April 2 decision not to step into related aspects of the legal battle regarding other Guantanamo Bay detainees. The issue there is whether the prisoners may go to federal court to challenge their confinement.

I blogged about this Richardson gaffe earlier, but it seems the Governor of New Mexico has not put away his shovel and keeps digging:

Having blundered last week by saying Whizzer White would be his model chief justice, a reporter asks him how he can reconcile that with his strong pro-choice position when White wrote the dissent in Roe v. Wade. Richardson says, "White was in the 60s. Wasn't Roe v. Wade in the 80s?" Bzzzzzzzttt!!!

Bzzzzzzzzttt!!! indeed.

h/t Trapper John.

In the Democratic Presidential Debate. Sen. Hillary Clinton said:

"we need Republican support" to achieve the Democratic goal of leaving Iraq.

Sen. Barack Obama said:

We have to gather up 16 [Republican] votes to override [President Bush's] veto.

We'll be waiting for Godot then. The Republicans will never ever cross Bush on Iraq. Here is some evidence:

The experiences of the few Republicans to vote against the war help explain the remarkable unity that the party has maintained in Washington behind an unpopular president. Just four Republicans -- two in the House, two in the Senate -- voted last week for a $124 billion war funding bill that would require troop withdrawals to begin by Oct. 1, legislation that Bush has vowed to veto. That cohesion reflects the views of the GOP's core voters, who see the war in Iraq in fundamentally different terms than Democrats and political independents do, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

This reality is reflected in this article: