In his weekly roundtable blowhard pundit segment, with Ed Rollins, NY Daily News' Michael Goodwin and Dem strategist Hank Sheinkopf, Lou Dobbs and his group skewered Sen. Harry Reid for saying "Iraq is lost."

ROLLINS: It's not fair to the men and women who are there to basically say, they are losing a war. They are in a police action. They aren't fighting a war anymore....
DOBBS: Thank you for saying that.

Not ten seconds later, Dobbs said:

I believe William Odom, General William Odom will be proved exactly right in his characterization of our involvement in Iraq.

Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
By William E. Odom
Sunday, February 11, 2007

Hmmmm. Is Lou Dobbs emboldening . . .?

Why did it take five weeks for Pat Tillman's family to learn that his death was caused by friendly fire? This is why:

Within hours of Pat Tillman's death, the Army went into information-lockdown mode, cutting off phone and Internet connections at a base in Afghanistan, posting guards on a wounded platoon mate, and ordering a sergeant to burn Tillman's uniform.

Wounded by the same friendly fire, Spc. Jade Lane was puzzled to find guards stationed at his hospital bed in Afghanistan.

Later, he said, he learned the reason for their presence: The news media were sniffing around, and Lane's superiors "did not want anyone talking to us," he said.

From another soldier, who learned about Tillman's death when it was reported to the Forward Operating Base where he was assigned:

"The phones and Internet had been cut off, to prevent anyone from talking about the incident," he told investigators.

As TalkLeft reported here, the Seventh Circuit reversed Georgia Thompson's conviction and ordered her immediate release from prison before issuing a written decision. (Additional TalkLeft posts here and here raise questions about US Attorney Biskupic's handling of the prosecution.)

Today the Seventh Circuit issued its well-reasoned opinion (pdf) explaining the reversal. There's a lesson in it for Congress, as well as for overreaching federal prosecutors:

This prosecution, which led to the conviction and imprisonment of a civil servant for conduct that, as far as this record shows, was designed to pursue the public interest as the employee understood it, may well induce Congress to take another look at the wisdom of enacting ambulatory criminal prohibitions. Haziness designed to avoid loopholes through which bad persons can wriggle can impose high costs on people the statute was not designed to catch.

KagroX writes a great post on what Rep. David Obey (D-WI) needs to do now in the Iraq supplemental funding bill conference:

With the bill now heading into a House-Senate conference, and rumors floating that the Senate conferees may seek to strip the much-vaunted timelines and withdrawal triggers from the bill, it seems to me that Chairman Obey has a unique obligation to insure that the teeth of the bill -- such as they are -- remain in the final conference report.

Nobody, as far as I can recall, was ever pressing Congress to "make it illegal to proceed with the war." While that certainly would be a welcome development, it's an innovation created and touted by Obey, and offered unsolicited by him as a defense against the "idiot liberals" who were working to end the war but were, in his mind, "screwing it up."

To each question the activists posed, Obey's every answer was premised on the same objection: "That's not how it works."

Well, now we're seeing how it does work, Mr. Obey. . . . The burden to make sure it remains "illegal to proceed with the war," at least according to the terms of the bill that emerges from conference, is yours.

KagroX's point is entirely missed by MYDD's Chris Bowers, who had no qualms in whipping the Out of Iraq Caucus to vote for the incredibly flawed House bill, but now objects to KagroX pressuring Obey to hold the line. No one doubts that Obey is a great Congressman dedicated to ending the war. What is at issue is whether Obey's stated strategy will work. As Kagro says, for it to work, the binding timeline, such as it is, must survive conference. If Obey's argument meant anything, then Rep. Obey has to fight hard in the conference to keep binding timelines in the bill. That is KagroX's point. How can that be quarreled with?

In light of all the evidence that wrongful convictions are a serious and systemic problem in our criminal justice system (including the conviction of Timothy Atkins, who served 20 years for a murder he didn't commit), one would think prosecutors would desire to fix the errors that lead to wrongful convictions. Why don't they?

One reason change is unlikely is the pressure to win. Successful prosecutors win convictions. Fairness? It's a desirable quality, but to some an unaffordable luxury when it threatens to impinge on a conviction.

Konrad Moore, a supervising deputy public defender in Kern County, California, discusses how the "win at all costs" mentality is affecting (and infecting) the trial of Phil Spector at the expense of fairness.

After the FBI searched his home earlier this week, Rep. John Doolittle (in consultaton with House Minority Leader John Boehner) decided to step down from his seat on the House Appropriations Committee. Doolittle expressed his understanding that "recent circumstances may lead some to question [his] tenure on the appropriations committee."

A GOP aide, who asked not to be identified because the issue is sensitive, said that the party's leaders, after losing control of Congress in a campaign that highlighted ethical lapses by Republicans, wanted to show they were responding swiftly to any possible scandal.

Swiftly? The Doolittle scandal has been in the news for more than a year.

Further cementing in the public record the public's growing disdain for the Bush administration, the Vermont Senate passed a nonbinding resolution today calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust," the resolution reads.

Rudy Giuliani was never a man of principle on any issue but, on the issue of the right to choose, he is laughably contortionist, depending upon what office he is running for. Much is being discussed about his recent flip flop, (previously he criticized Pope John Paul II on the issue) but little is discussed about his initial flip flop in 1989 when he first sought the Mayoralty of NYC:

[A]ccording to a February 22, 1989, Newsday article, leaders of New York's Conservative Party said Giuliani -- then a candidate for mayor of New York City -- "assured them he was personally opposed to abortion, did not favor government funding or criminal penalties, did favor an exemption in cases of rape or incest, and was in favor of overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade." But following the U.S. Supreme Court's July 1989 decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Giuliani reportedly shifted his position to one favoring abortion rights.

So when he now flips again because he is running for a different political office, the Presidency this time, it is simply what one would expect from such an unprincipled man. One flop on choice we can call political expediency or "personal growth" - but another motivated by political ambition? What can one say about such a person? Simply this, he'll say anything to get elected.

In light of the SCOTUS' decision upholding as constitutional a federal ban of an abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction, much activity on abortion ban legislation in the States is now expected:

Both sides of the abortion debate expect a new push for restrictions as state lawmakers around the country digest the implications of the Supreme Court decision Wednesday upholding a federal ban on a type of abortion.

So despite the attempts of many Democrats to avoid the Politics of Contrast, particularly on social issues such as choice, it appears the Democrats will be forced to battle the Party of Dobson on social issues. This is politically fortuitous for the Democrats, particularly on the issue of choice.

Some more discussion on the Politics of Contrast on the flip.

I've got lots to do today. What's on your mind? Here's an open thread to talk about it.

Conservative and liberal bloggers alike are predicting a downfall for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

If you missed today's hearing, and don't have the time to watch it, here's the full transcript.

And this from the New York Times news article (not editorial) on the hearing:

In more than five hours of often-combative testimony, Mr. Gonzales, who sat grim-faced, clasping his hands and hunched over, struggled to offer a coherent explanation for the dismissals. He apologized for his mistakes in what he described as a flawed process, but defended the removal of eight United States attorneys as proper.

I'm not as charged up about this as most people. What will change with Gonzales gone? Bush will appoint another one of his loyal faves to replace him. The war on drugs, war on civil liberties and trend towards draconian sentences will continue. Say what you want about Gonzales, he's nowhere near the threat to constitutional rights that John Ashcroft was. He's continued Ashcroft's policies, but he seems to be more of a follower than a take-charge innovator of new ways to deprive people of their freedom.

More...

The jury returned guilty verdicts Thursday on 19 of 42 counts of insider trading against former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio.

I can't imagine sitting through the verdict, hearing 23 counts of "not guilty" one by one, only to be followed by 19 counts of guilty. Talk about an emotional rollercoaster.

As to my thoughts on the verdict, I've blogged the trial over at 5280.com and my analysis is here.

In a nutshell,