Update [2007-3-28 11:9:44 by Big Tent Democrat]: BTW, I think Swampland is becoming a great must read blog, for some intentional, but mostly unintentional reasons.

And I am not talking about Casey Stengel, but rather Rick Stengel, Time Managing Editor, who got called out by Ana Marie Cox on his embarrassing performance as a Kewl Kid. But Stengel's reply to Cox is worse:

In reading your reaction to my comments on Chris Matthews, I realize that I've been caught out speaking as a citizen rather than as editor of Time.

I had no idea Citizen Stengel had been invited on to the show. I could have sworn that Matthews introduced him as the Managing Editor of Time, not as Citizen Stengel. But it gets better (worse):

[A]s a citizen, I think it's unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted for Democrats to be perceived as focusing on the past rather than the future. If people see the Democrats as obsessively concerned with settling scores, that's not good for the Democrats or the country.

Perhaps Citizen Stengel can talk to Managing Editor Stengel and make sure this FALSE talking point does not become the new narrative at Time Magazine. Citizen Stengel is a unique "concern troll" in that he can actually do something about his "concern."

Via Atrios, via Yglesias, Karen Tumulty has a question:

What is a "concern troll"?

Atrios and commenters provide the answer. What other questions should be answered on blogging lingo? I imagine you know what a "purity troll" is by now. And you are all aware of the the "pimping" and "whoring" rampant in the blogs. A veritable Sodom, not to mention Gomorrah.

I claim authorship of one term, but I think both the term and the practice really has not caught on - "linky thread." This is an Open Thread that contains links to other posts from other blogs that you feel merit attention. Now a staple at daily kos and other sites.

My favorite insidery blog phrase was "Holden gets a pony." I think everyone knows that story, but if you do not, Google and Wikipedia have it. Just kidding, one of the leading atriots, NTodd, quoting athenae, explained:

I'm off to Connecticut today to hang out with Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake. I'll be staying with her through Monday, as she continues her battle with breast cancer.

We planned the visit while in D.C. at the Scooter Libby trial. I'm really looking forward to it. Jane is an inspiration, a warrior and a total trooper. She's going to win this battle.

Except for Wednesday and Monday which are travel days, I'll be blogging here as usual. Big Tent Democrat, TChris and Last Night in Little Rock will be here in my absence, as their schedules allow.

Let's start the day off with an open thread, where you can all weigh in with what's on your mind. I'll be following along as internet access allows.

When the going gets tough, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gets going.

A scheduled 15-minute news conference with Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales was quickly cut short in Chicago on Tuesday, with Gonzales leaving the room after just three questions about the controversial dismissal of a group of U.S. attorneys.

He answered a few questions about PurgeGate, but when it got to Monica Goodling, the heat must have been too much, and he left.

Gonzales then was asked how that push for cooperation squares with the decision by his senior counselor Monday not to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Monica Goodling invoked her 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination at the advice of her attorneys.

"I'm not going to comment on the decision by an employee of the department to exercise her constitutional rights," Gonzales said.

How many questions did he answer about the topic before splitting? Three.

Should judges be armed in the courtroom? This reminds me of a scene out of one of my favorite law movies, And Justice for All, starring Al Pacino and Jack Warden.

A Jacksonville, Fla., judge drew his handgun when an accused child molester was attacked by an alleged victim's father in court. "I didn't know if he was going after me or the bailiffs or the defendant," Circuit Judge John Merrett told The (Jacksonville, Fla.) Times-Union.

The father, who had not seen the defendant before the court appearance, hurdled a railing and landed several punches on the handcuffed and shackled man before bailiffs restored order. Merrett said that once he saw the situation was under control, he handed his gun to the court clerk and asked her to lock it in a drawer. Merrett has a concealed weapon permit and said he'd do the same thing again, the newspaper reported.

The public defender is complaining and wants to talk to the Chief Judge about whether judges should be armed in court.

More...

The family of Pat Tillman is not taking yesterday's report on his death quietly.

"The Army continues to deny the family, and the public that pays for the Army with its taxes, access to the original investigation, and the sworn statements from that investigation,” the statement read, adding that eyewitnesses’ statements of Corporal Tillman’s death have been altered. “This is not a misstep. It is evidence tampering.”

The Pentagon report, released on Monday, said officers had suspected early on that Corporal Tillman had been killed by American troops in an accidental fratricide, not hostile fire, as was initially reported. But despite their suspicions, it said, officers did not immediately inform the family of the possibility of such a death, in violation of Army regulations. As a result, four generals, and five other officers, will face disciplinary action.

But the Pentagon found no criminal wrongdoing or evidence of a cover-up in the death...

Pat Tillman's mother was on Countdown tonight, and she said she could not rule out that her son was killed intentionally.

Amidst the celebration, is it uncouth of me to point out that the Iraq supplemental funding bill that will come out of conference will almost certainly contain a NON-binding withdrawal timeline?

Markos writes:

Reid did an incredible job of keeping Democrats together. I mean, he even brought Ben Nelson aboard! Pretty impressive.

Hello? He got Nelson and Hagel because the language was NON-binding! Did anyone hear Hagel's floor speech on the issue? HE stressed that point.

Now the headlines are fun and all but here is some constructive advice for the "pragmatists" - you want to force Bush to veto? Then you have to place MAXIMUM pressure on Pryor, Nelson, Hagel, Smith and any other soft supporters in the Senate. They must be made to accept a binding timeline. If that happens, I will apologize to every "pragmatist" I have criticized on this. At the least, if such a bill is passed, Bush WILL veto it, particularly if the March 31, 2008 date holds.

A lawsuit filed by nine former military prisoners against Donald Rumsfeld and military officers has been dismissed on the ground that they are immune from suit when they make decisions about the treatment of prisoners. Here's what the prisoners alleged:

The lawsuit contends the prisoners were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First had argued that Rumsfeld and top military officials disregarded warnings about the abuse and authorized the use of illegal interrogation tactics that violated the constitutional and human rights of prisoners.

Calling the case "lamentable," Judge Thomas Hogan ruled that "authorizing monetary damages remedies against military officials engaged in an active war would invite enemies to use our own federal courts to obstruct the Armed Forces' ability to act decisively and without hesitation." Obstructing the government's illegal behavior isn't such a bad thing, is it? Holding Rumsfeld accountable wouldn't be such a bad thing, either.

The Senate voted down the Cochran Amendment, intended to strip the Senate version of the Iraq supplemental funding bill. Every Republican excepting Hagel and Smith voted for the Cochran Amendment. Two Democratic Caucus members, Lieberman and Pryor, voted for the Cochran Amendment and against the non-binding withdrawal timeline.

The next action is a conference, as the House and Senate bills are in conflict, at least ostensibly. The House bill claims to set a firm deadline for withdrawal, August 31, 2008. The Senate bill sets a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008. What emerges from the conference. A broken tooth or none at all?

And then what?

The Senate will vote on an amendment - the Cochran Amendment (Thad Cochran is a GOP Senator from Mississippi) to its toothless version of the Iraq supplemental funding bill today. Debate is going on now.

The debate is on a current Republican amendment to strip the bill of its nonbinding provision of setting a goal of removing all combat troops involved in the Iraq Debacle by March 31, 2008. Oh by the way, the provision is NON-binding!! And it is likely to be stripped out!!

Sam Rosenfeld finds the closeness of the vote on stripping the NON-binding withdrawal date significant:

[T]he saga of the congressional war supplemental bill has really taken a dramatic turn in the last two days toward a confrontation with George W. Bush himself over a Senate-House conference bill that does in fact include language calling for withdrawal from Iraq.

This is what we are reduced to -- making NON-binding goals for withdrawal from the Iraq Debacle a SIGNIFICANT achievement! This is the big pragmatic win! You have to be kidding me.

FBI Director Robert Mueller's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee amounts to this: Yes, we abused our Patriot Act authority by spying on Americans who weren't suspected of terrorism, even though we promised that we wouldn't, but now that we've been caught, we really really promise not to abuse that authority again, so please don't take it away.

Senator Leahy's response:

"Last year the administration sought new powers in the Patriot Act to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation and to more freely use National Security Letters," Leahy said in opening remarks. "The administration got these powers, and they have badly bungled both."

Last week, Leahy said "we need to consider whether Congress went too far" when it removed restrictions on FBI use of national security letters. The Senate should remove that authority altogether. If the FBI wants to snoop into personal information, it should get a warrant.

I'll be live-blogging the Joseph Nacchio insider trading trial for 5280 this afternoon. There's a lot of posts up here already today, but in case you want more, here's an open thread.

There will also be an open thread tomorrow since it's a travel day for me.