In today's press briefing, David Gregory asked Dana Perino, Acting Press Spokesperson for the White House, if there is room for compromise with the Congress on the Iraq supplemental bill.

In marked contrast to the Decider's defiant uncompromising statements, Perino flatly stated there is room for compromise and tried to frame the Congress' position as "extreme," ironically citing the Iraq Study Group report as the mainstream. Yes, the very report President Bush tossed in the trash can when he ordered his Escalation.

Via Atrios.com

Specter asked about Attorney General Gonzales' "candor" in saying earlier this month that he was not a part of any discussions on the firings. He asked about the November 27, 2006 meeting "where there were discussions" and Gonzales allegedly attended. Was Gonzales' statement about taking part in no discussions accurate?

"I don't think it's accurate," Sampson said. "He recently clarified it. But he was present at the November 27 meeting."

"So he was involved in discussions in contrast to his statement" this month? Specter asked.

"Yes." Sampson replied.

More...

Bumped because of update. -BTD

Update [2007-3-29 11:25:1 by Big Tent Democrat]: Senate Passes Iraq supplemental 51-47. The game is on. And by game, I mean Bush's veto game. Getting out of Iraq is no game. Not sure but it appears that all Dem Caucus members save Lieberman voted for it. That would mean Pryor (D-Ark) voted for it. The 2 Republicans who crossed over were Smith and Hagel.

Sam Rosenfeld notes that one plan, to provide only short term funding for dealing with a Bush veto of the Iraq supplemental funding bill that has been bandied about, has been floated by some conservative Dems Congressmen:

Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding, if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.

The source of the idea intrigues more than the idea itself. I prefer a different approach, but it is a good sign when conservative Dems are preparing fighting tactics, as opposed to rollover tactics.

Here's one view of a plan by D.C. Metro police to crack down on jaywalkers.

The right to jaywalk isn’t in the Constitution, but neither is the right to suspend habeas corpus or arbitrarily wiretap citizens, and you don’t see Metro giving the President a $20 ticket. If this ordinance is enforced, the terrorists have already won.

The Iraq Debacle, and the perceived reesolve of Democrats of late has the Beltway perplexed:

Their aggressiveness and unity on a major foreign-policy challenge to the president is a striking change for a party that has, on many occasions over many years, seemed to be on the defensive on national security issues.

The article also provides textbook examples of how to discuss and NOT discuss the Politics of National Security.

The Senate Judiciary Comittee holds hearing today on the attorney purge scandal. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson has his Norma Desmond moment. C-Span covers it.

TChris has the latest developments.

Karl Rove had to play the part of a rapper at the White House Correspondent's dinner -- with David Gregory as a backup singer.

Think Progress has the video.

The administration's newest explanation for the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys -- "they did not sufficiently support President Bush's priorities" -- deliberately blurs the distinction between politics and performance.

Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, in remarks obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, spoke dismissively of Democrats' condemnation of what they call political pressure in the firings. "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," he said. "A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful."

A president may certainly fire a U.S. Attorney who refuses to implement legitimate policy. A president who fires a prosecutor because he or she refused to use the office to influence election outcomes deserves to pay a heavy political price. Today's spin assumes that the public doesn't understand the difference.

We understand.

A lot of folks are strategizing on what to do on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. A lot of complicated suggestions. I think that KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) applies here. Don't try to finesse this. Not Bush. Not the Blue Dogs. Not the American People. The American People have said two things. End the war. Don't abandon the troops. The war will be funded for some period of time. No one can hope otherwise.

I propose my old refrain:

Let me explain again - I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. . . .; Second, spend the time to the not funding date reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

Get the votes for that. Should be easy. No restrictions, benchmarks, etc. Bush will ignore all that. But he can not fight the war without money.

In short, fund the troops AND end the war.

The National Review calls for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

We do not need more evidence . . . to reach a conclusion about the suitability of Alberto Gonzales for the leadership of the Department of Justice.

. . . His claim not to have been involved in the firings suggests that he was either deceptive or inexcusably detached from the operations of his own department. . . . Gonzales’s latest tactic has been to concede that improper motives may have played a role in the firings, but to blame his underlings for any misconduct and to pledge to get to the bottom of it.

What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. . . . Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start.

When is the last time you agreed with the National Review? I can't remember either.

Shaquandra Cotton, 15, shoved a teacher's aide. She claimed that the aide pushed her first, but a jury evidently believed the aide, and Shaquandra was convicted of a felony. Despite the absence of any serious injury, a Texas judge sentenced Shaquandra to remain in the Ron Jackson Correctional Complex, about 300 miles from her home, "until she meets state rehabilitation standards or reaches her 21st birthday."

Six years for a shove? How ridiculous. Even a day in the Ron Jackson Correctional Complex would be excessive.

The facility is part of an embattled juvenile system that is the subject of state and federal investigations into allegations that staff members physically and sexually abused inmates.

The case raises serious questions about the impact of race on juvenile sentences.

Creola Cotton, Shaquandra's mother, and activists argue that while [Judge] Superville sent Shaquandra to the state's juvenile prison system, he gave a white 14-year-old arsonist probation.

The GSA political scandal produces high hilarity.

Anyone who has taken a deposition has seen this approach before by a witness, but I never understood how anyone would try it in a public hearing. I love her put upon attitude, as if there could be nothing wrong with it. A strange performance. Some more fun here.