When the North Carolina Attorney General declared the three charged Duke Lacrosse players innocent of sexual assault and stated there was no credible evidence to support that any attack had taken place that night, he promised he would be releasing a report.

The report was released today. You can read it here (pdf).

His findings:

• The accusing witness’s testimony regarding the alleged assault would have been contradicted by other evidence in the case from numerous sources;

• The accusing witness’s testimony regarding the alleged assault and the events leading up to and following the allegations would have been contradicted by significantly different versions of events she told over the past year;

• No testimony or physical evidence would have corroborated her testimony;

• The accused individuals were identified through questionable photographic procedures;

More...

This comment really annoyed me for some reason. So I decided to republish a piece I wrote that I think responds to it. Please forgive me this personal privilege.

The War Over The Debacle
by Armando

Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 10:52:24 AM PDT

Over at the normally cool TPM Cafe, there has been a pretty hot exchange going on between the Liberal Iraq Debacle Hawks (I use the word Debacle instead of War because I think it is important that we be clear that what they advocated for is a Debacle, whether they thought it would be one or not.) and those who opposed the Iraq conflict.

I won't get into the details of the debate - I think Matt Yglesias and Sam Rosenfeld wrote the definitive piece on the issue, but I wanted to note this churlish response from George Packer:

I've got court all afternoon so feel free to take over and direct the conversation.

Via Booman, Dana Milbank documents that the Republicans seem to be unaware of where the leadership of Al Qaida is. When debating the Iraq Supplemental, the GOP seemed confused as to where Al Qaida actually is:

"When a newly revitalized al-Qaeda carries out a 9/11-scale attack, you will own that one," Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) told his good friends across the aisle.

Sen. Norman Coleman (R-Minn.) advised his Democratic colleagues that they were "handing al-Qaeda a victory that they will be able to use to strengthen their forces and then hurt and kill more Americans."

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), adopted the Republican language that Democrats were proposing a "deadline for defeat." He warned that "if we follow the plan in this legislation," Americans would lose their "security from terrorism here at home.

Gentlemen and ladies of the Republican Party and their fellow travelers, may I point out to you that the leadership of Al Qaida is to be found in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Michelle Malkin is really funny. Via atrios, tbogg delivers the punchline:

Michelle Malkin, has a bitchin' idea on how to show those defeatosurrenderquitterocrats a thing or two about stick-to-it-tiveness; Send 'em a white feather:

The White Feather has been a symbol for cowardice. I suggest that white feathers be sent to the leaders of the Senate and House for the cowardly vote that abandons our soldiers around the world. . . .Wha? Oh. Michelle has an update: Update: Several readers note that legendary Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock wore a white feather in his hat band. . . .

Maybe not. But if it is a go, how about sending them to Bush and Romney:

[Romney said] "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." [Bush said about the war on terror]"I don't think you can win it."

Let Bush and Romney be as perplexed as Congressional Dems Michelle. I guess white flags are too expensive for this "gesture."

I did not watch the Democratic Presidential Debate because, frankly, I have no real interest right now in an election that is a year and a half away. My main interest now is in how the Congress can end the Iraq Debacle. That is what I listen for from the candidates.

But if Richardson said that he would choose Byron White as his model Supreme Court Justice, cross him off the list today:

[Richardson's] choice of "Whizzer White" as his ideal Supreme Court Justice in tonight's debate is...odd. Myself, I would prefer a justice who was on the right side of (just for starters) Roe, Miranda, and Bowers.

It is worse than odd. It is disqualifying.

Update [2007-4-27 10:36:7 by Big Tent Democrat]: Ed Kilgore's debate roundup was the most interesting I found.

Josh Marshall writes:

With Harry Reid's controversial 'war is lost' quote and with various other pols weighing in on whether we can 'win' or whether it's 'lost', it's a good time to consider what the hell we're actually talking about. . . . The supporters of the war had two basic premises about what it would accomplish: a) the US would eliminate Iraq's threatening weapons of mass destruction, b) the Iraqi people would choose a pro-US government and the Iraqi people and government would ally themselves with the US.

Rationale 'A' quickly fell apart when we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction to eliminate. That left us with premise or rationale 'B'. But though many or most Iraqis were glad we'd overthrown Saddam, evidence rapidly mounted that most Iraqis weren't interested in the kind of US-aligned government the war's supporters had in mind. . . . This is the key point: right near the beginning of this nightmare it was clear the sole remaining premise for the war was false: that is, the idea that the Iraqis would freely choose a government that would align itself with the US and its goals in the region.

. . . It's a huge distortion to say that this means the war was 'lost'. . . . Of course, the damage that's been done over the last four years of denial is immense . . . The reality though is that the disaster has already happened. Admitting that isn't a mistake or something to be feared. It's the first step to repairing the damage. . . .

This is exactly right but understates the case. I'll explain on the other side.

The entire membership of the Democratic Caucus, including Joe Lieberman, wrote this letter responding to David Broder's silliness:

In a diary at daily kos, John Edwards repeats his bad advice on the Iraq Supplemental:

If Bush vetoes the funding for our troops, Congress must send the same bill back to the president -- and they should do this again and again--as many times as it takes for Bush to understand that the American people are right and the war must be brought to an end. In the next few days, the will of Congress will be severely tested. Bush will be doing everything in his considerable power to convince the nation that Congress is responsible for his reckless decision not to fund the troops. Plenty of people in Washington will say the political risks are just too great and Democrats in Congress should just back down.

What made this bill remotely acceptable was that it would be vetoed by Bush. Mr. Edwards seems to believe this bill ends the Debacle. It simply does not. The March 31, 2008 date is advisory, not mandatory. I repeat, it does not end the Debacle.

The goals of Reid-Feingold, announcing a date certain for not funding the Debacle, is the way to end the war. Edwards does not mention Reid-Feingold in his statement. I must say that what this appears to be is a political play from Edwards to put his rivals on the spot. It may be smart Presidential politics but I find it wrong. I think less of Edwards today.

Last Night in Little Rock wrote earlier about the two cops in Atlanta who pleaded guilty to manslaughter and civil rights violations for killing a 92 year old woman in her home during a botched drug raid.

The cops have agreed to cooperate in an investigation into corruption at the Atlanta Police Department's drug unit.

Sentencing in both courts has been deferred until later to allow the men to cooperate with a federal investigation into the Atlanta police department's narcotics unit. The men are expected to serve at least 10 years in prison on the federal charges alone.

The New York Times has more on the "culture of corruption" inside the Atlanta Police Department.

More...

Journalist Dave Cullen, who is writing a book on the Columbine killers, and wrote a diary at TalkLeft on the Virginia Tech killings, The Myth of the School Shooter Profile, has an op-ed (free link) in today's New York Times, proposing a compromise solution to allow the parents of Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho to talk about his early years and psychiatric issues so that the public can glean some insight, without being exposed to lawsuits.

In Columbine, the federal court sealed the depositions of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's parents for 20 years, to protect their privacy.

Dave first explores the questions the public wants the answers to:

More....

MSNBC is carrying the Democrats' debate live. Did you watch? What did you think?

Update: Early AP article on the debate.