We all wondered how Frank Rich would try and dance away from his enabling history regarding Don Imus. And predictably, he calls everyone a hypocrite, pulling out the Al Sharpton card. But Rich gets one thing right, he is a hypocrite:

Among the hypocrites surrounding Imus, I’ll include myself. I’ve been a guest on his show many times since he first invited me in the early 1990s, when I was a theater critic. I’ve almost always considered him among the smarter and more authentic conversationalists I’ve encountered as an interviewee. As a book author, I could always use the publicity. Of course I was aware of many of his obnoxious comments about minority groups, including my own, Jews. Sometimes he aimed invective at me personally. I wasn’t seriously bothered by much of it, even when it was unfunny or made me wince, because I saw him as equally offensive to everyone. The show’s crudest interludes struck me as burlesque.

We never heard that from Frank Rich before. NOW he is brave with his opinions about Imus. Shame on you Frank Rich. Take your lumps and stop trying to drag everyone else down with you. And to call this a free speech issue is a joke. We're supposed to worry about the freedom to tell racist and sexist jokes? What a crap column from Frank Rich.

While I agree with Matt Yglesias that demands regarding a "no residual force in Iraq" pledge are not meaningful or even smart, I actually question the entire premise of the discussion.

What matters now, what everyone needs to ask of their representatives, of the Presidential candidates, of the blogs, of the activists, is 'what is your plan for ending the Iraq Debacle?' I get rather impatient with these discussions about residual forces and whatnot. These are fine questions, for the debates and the primaries and for down the road.

The REAL question now is 'what is your plan for getting us out of Iraq?' President Bush is not talking about residual forces - he is sending in MORE troops. We need to stop this Debacle. Right now, Reid-Feingold is the only viable proposal, and no it does not have to become law to end the Debacle.

So my main questions now for all pols, activists, etc. is, and will remain for the time being, "do you support Reid-Feingold? If not, why not?"

I'm headed to the airport now to visit a client in jail in Nebraska tomorrow and Monday. In case it gets quiet around here, please use this as an open thread.

I'll be back late Monday night, but will be checking in from time to time.

When we last checked in with marijuana activist Ed Rosenthal (background here), a federal judge had thrown out added money laundering and tax charges against him finding them based on prosecutorial vindictiveness. That left the Government with a few cultivation charges, on which he had already served his sentence.

Yesterday at a hearing, the Government announced it would stick with the case and re-try Ed even though he couldn't be sent to jail.

The Judge demanded to know who made this decision. It was newly appointed U.S. Attorney Scott Schools. I guess he's one of those U.S. Attorneys who just follow Administration marching orders.

Digby weighs in on this incredible waste of prosecutorial resources.

John McCain is just losing it:

He said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced — if only by the will of public opinion — to end American involvement in Iraq. “I do believe that history shows us Americans will not continue to support an overseas engagement involving the loss of American lives for an unlimited period of time unless they see some success,” he added. “And then, when they run out of patience, they will demand that we get out.”

But the American People HAVE said it. They said it in 2006. They say it in every poll.

The Reid-Feingold bill is the proposal the American People support. By a wide margin. Heck, it even gives Bush and McCain a year to see if their ridiculous "strategy" can work. There is no reason why the Congress, and every Democrat in particular, should not embrace the Reid-Feingold proposal. Especially Democratic Presidential candidates. Why is Chris Dodd the only one supporting Reid-Feingold?

barb has this from CBS :

Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Congress should block all funding war in Iraq no matter what OR 2. Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time OR 3. Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit.

Block all funding 9
Allow only w/time limit 58
Should allow all funding 29
Don't know/No answer 4

Reid-Reingold anyone? How about you Presidential candidates? Who will join Chris Dodd now?

Legal Times has a profile of the Judiciary Committee lawyers who are framing Tuesday's hearing at which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify.

Preet Bahara is Sen. Schumer's chief counsel.

Bharara leads a small team of Senate lawyers that includes Jeremy Paris, a former Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld associate, and Jennifer Duck, the chief counsel to Judiciary Committee member Feinstein. On the House side, Republican Daniel Flores is handling duties for ranking Judiciary Committee member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, while Mincberg is leading the investigation for committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. One of Mincberg's deputies, Robert Reed Jr., is also a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia.

In advance of Gonzales' April 17 hearing, Bharara, representing Senate Democrats, and three other lawyers -- representing Senate Republicans and House Democrats and Republicans -- spent two full days querying top Justice officials behind closed doors.

Bahara is a former AUSA from the Southern District of New York.

More....

The Administration, after violating FISA for years while claiming the President as Commander in Chief during Wartime is a King, now wants the Congress to codify violations of the Fourth Amendment:

The Bush administration yesterday asked Congress to make more non-citizens subject to intelligence surveillance and to authorize the interception of foreign communications routed through the United States. Currently, under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, individuals have to be associated with a foreign terrorism suspect or a foreign power to fall under the auspices of the FISA court, which can grant the authority to institute federal surveillance. . . . The proposed revisions to FISA would also allow the government to keep information obtained "unintentionally," unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance, if it "contains significant foreign intelligence." Currently such information is destroyed unless it indicates threat of death or serious bodily harm.

This would run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. In U.S. v. Duggan the Second Circuit explained why FISA as currently written is constitutional:

What Matt said.

See also my vitriolic attack on SYFPism, quoting pach:

It's amazing to me to see how many commenters are personality/candidate partisans rather than progressive value partisans, independent of candidate affiliation. . . . The purpose of writing about this stuff is to make a public argument about the role of the US in foriegn policy, a discussion that is not really happening today. I happen to agree with Matt on all these fronts. This is what a progressive movement does: put pressure on the party and its high profile candidates to transform the conversation from one dominated by the Georgetown foreign policy elites.

Rocker Patti Smith has a new song about Guantanamo, "Without Chains." She says it will be available soon for download on her website.

"I feel responsible as an American citizen," Smith told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from New York. "It’s a terrible injustice and I think it will be a stain upon us when history examines this period."

Smith’s "Without Chains" focuses on Murat Kurnaz, a German-born Turkish citizen who said he was kept under fluorescent lights for 24 hours at a time and complained of being beaten at the U.S. military detention center in southeast Cuba. Detainees are held there on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban, many without the opportunity to face trial.

More like Patti, please.

San Quentin prison houses 600 death row inmates, more than any other prison in the country. State legislators were surprised during a visit last month to learn that construction is almost complete on a new death chamber.

Staff members with the California Legislative Analyst's Office were made aware of the project to build a lethal injection chamber during a visit to the prison Tuesday, according to Dan Carson, director of the office's criminal justice section. The news spread Thursday to legislators after it was discussed at an oversight hearing for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's budget.

Legislative analyst staffers were "surprised" to learn the construction had started, Carson said, adding the project is "very far along."

The cost: $399,000. The figure is important because had it been $400,000., approval would have been required.

More...

I have criticized Senator Barack Obama for the politics he is practicing. Some Obama supporters, as supporters do, take great umbrage at any criticism aimed at their candidate. But Obama and his supporters need to wake up to an emerging trend, Obama is losing support. Look at the trends:

CBS News Poll. April 9-12, 2007.

Obama 24

3/26-27/07 28

American Research Group poll. April 9-12, 2007.

Barack Obama 24

3/2-5 31

Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. April 5-9, 2007.
4/5-9/07

Barack Obama 26

3/23-26 30

Gallup Poll. April 2-5, 2007.

Barack Obama 19

3/23-25 22

I think the reason for this slippage is clear - Obama does not project an image of someone fighting against President Bush and Republicans. It seems to me that is what he has wanted to project. I think that if he does not get himself straightened out on this, the trend will continue.