The Washington Post today publishes the first-hand account of a recipient of an FBI national security letter. His name isn't included because he's gagged from discussing it, so the Post verified it with his lawyer and publicly available documents (which I assume are the pleadings in his lawsuit brought by the ACLU which is ongoing.)

The author, who ran "a small internet access and consulting business," never gave up the documents on his client demanded in the letter and eventually the FBI said it no longer needed them. But he's still challenging the gag order that prevents him from discussing the matter.

He describes what his life was like living under a gag order.

More...

The NYTimes, in its inimitable style, seems to be asking the question do we believe Gonzo or our lying eyes? Check the phrasing on this lede:

An accumulating body of evidence is at odds with the statements of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that he played little role in the deliberations over the dismissal of eight United States attorneys.

We use the L word where I come from, but the NYTimes is quite genteel. So what next? Robert Kuttner says impeach:

THE HOUSE of Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Welcome to the call:

Attorney General Gonzales has the audacity to state that the Judiciary should not enforce the Constitution and the laws of the land when the President chooses to ignore his responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and the Constitution of the United States . . . He is unfit for the office of Attorney General. He should be removed from office.

Giving this week's Democratic radio address, freshman Congressman Paul Hodes (D-NH), a good man who no doubt thinks he is doing the best he can, said:

The Democrats' plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq next year responds to voters' demand for change, New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes said Saturday. . . ."After four years of a failed policy, Democrats are insisting on a new direction in Iraq and a real plan that holds the Iraqi people accountable for their own country."

Does this legislation do that? It clearly does not. Here's the puzzle, why not PASS a bill that matches the rhetoric? If that is the message, why not the deeds to support the rhetoric? This is puzzling indeed.

I and other opposers of the Iraq supplemental funding bill are taken to task by a blog because of supposedly:

find[ing] a feeling of sickness because Move On dares to stick to it's founding principles . . . and applauding members of Congress who chose to vote the Dem line.

Following the Dem line is what Move On is about? It seems so but why then did Eli Parisier say:

"the job of a party is to get elected and the job of a movement is to promote ideas and an ideology," and that "we're definitely on the movement side of the equation. We don't want to be the party."

I buy that actually. I just think that Move On is incredibly wrong on the Iraq supplemental and will soon discover this. The tragedy is there is no going back. The die is cast. I predict that in a month Move On, MYDD, David Sirota, et al. will be vituperatively protesting against "cave in" Dems. They will be a month late with that cry.

This is the spin TODAY:

It was a sharp rebuke to the president, a clear message that “his policy of more troops, more money and more time has overstayed its welcome,” as Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democratic caucus chairman, said after the vote.

I ask, what was the 2006 Election? What was the Iraq Study Group Report? Sharp rebuke today. But what about tomorrow? Bush won't change his position.

But Democrats almost certainly will. I think we all know what is going to happen -- the "firm" date for withdrawal, August 31, 2008, will become a "goal." And this "goal" was once December 31, 2006, then 2007, now 2008.

I think that rhetoric will not be a the winning political position for a Democratic Congress in November 2008. Not when it has the power to end the war, through the Spending Power.

Fred Hiatt can not understand why the Republicans blocked the voting rights bill for the District of Columbia:

WASHINGTONIANS probably could live with Republicans' sabotaging their latest chance at congressional representation; that's nothing new. More galling are those Republicans too gutless to admit their true position.

Well, I doubt Washingtonians are quite as nonchalant about their voting rights as Fred Hiatt is with their voting rights, but the intriguing question is 'what true position is that Mr. Fred'?

Mr. Fred asks:

The ferocity of GOP opposition to democracy for the District became clear last week when the White House dropped its pretend indifference in favor of an all-out assault, complete with the threat of a presidential veto. What's unclear are the reasons for this antipathy.

Unclear? What is it that you are not seeing Mr. Fred? Do you NOT see black people? There is your reason.

Where do we go from here? The battle's done, and we kind of won, so we sound our victory cheer. Where do we go from here? -From Joss Whedon's "Once More With Feeling"

I'm stealing my title line from both Joss Whedon and mcjoan, whose fine piece on the Iraq Supplemental reflects a lot of what I think, but stated in her usual persuasive manner, as opposed to my shrill one. Joan writes:

My very pragmatic observation of the Iraq supplemental was that in cobbling together a bill that could make it through the House and set up the veto showdown with Bush, the leadership was setting a very, very low baseline with the Blue Dogs, negotiating away too much substance. . . . It's . . . unclear . . . as to how that fits in to the larger battle plan to make significant progress on actually getting the troops out.

I agree with this but I think it does not go far enough. I think this is ALSO a terrible political move. I'll explain it all on the flip.

McClatchy newspapers has posted yesterday's document dump in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal.

The problem for Alberto Gonzales in a nutshell:

The e-mails, delivered to Congress Friday night, show that Gonzales attended an hourlong meeting on the firings on Nov. 27, 2006 - 10 days before seven U.S. attorneys were told to resign. The attorney general's participation in the session calls into question his assertion that he was essentially in the dark about the firings.

At a news conference last week, Gonzales said....
"We never had a discussion about where things stood," Gonzales said on March 13. "What I knew was that there was an ongoing effort that was led by Mr. Sampson ... to ascertain where we could make improvements in U.S. attorney performances around the country."

Also check out the LA Times:

More below, including the 16 day e-mail gap and DOJ lawyer Monica Goodling goes on personal leave.

Today Kansas meets UCLA in what should be a fantastic matchup. UCLA has a terrific coach in Howland, play great defense and has big stars in Afflalo and Collison. Kansas probably has the most talent of any team left. Rush is a bigtime player. Self, the coach, is not all that however imo.

I pick UCLA to win.

In the other game, the miracle Buckeyes meet the no respect Memphis Tigers. I had A&M winning this region but they blew the Memphis game. I still don't respect Memphis. Ohio State has its one easy game.

Yesterday I was 4 3 for 4 in my picks, and what a breeze it was [I forgot I picked USC on the day after picking UNC earlier] . . . heh.

The Chicago Tribune has a five page article on Barack Obama's life growing up. Using his book as a guide, the reporters interviewed his schoolmates, friends, teachers and others, both in Hawaii and Indonesia.

I think it's worth the read, particularly for people like me who aren't as familiar with him as the other candidates.

Bloomberg News reports Harry Reid said on their tv program, to be aired this weekend, Alberto Gonzales will be gone in a month, "one way or the other."

As to the others,

``Certainly, Karl Rove, with his resume, would have to be under oath,'' Reid, 67, said in an interview with Bloomberg TV's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to air this weekend. ``He simply in my opinion, and I think the majority of the American people, is not trustworthy.''

The House and Senate judiciary panels voted this week to authorize subpoenas to compel testimony by Rove and other White House officials. The administration is insisting that the officials be permitted to talk in private with lawmakers and not under oath.

Reid stressed that he thinks a compromise is possible, and that not all officials need to give sworn statements. ``Well, I think that there could be some testimony taken in private'' and ``would be recorded,'' Reid said. ``We could do that.''

[Hat tip Raw Story.]

Rudy Giuliani once again re-invents himself to cater to the Republican conservative base. Now he's flip-flopping on gun rights.

As Mayor of New York:

He spoke in favor of a licensing system for gun owners that would require trigger locks and firearms training, and he lobbied Congress to outlaw most military-style assault weapons. He was the only Republican mayor to join a lawsuit by dozens of cities against the gun industry, and he complained that Southern states had lax gun laws that fed the illegal weapons trade in the Northeast.

In his current attempt at recarnation as a presidential contender, he's reversed course:

More...