See also corrente.

Provided by Democratic Wise Man Lee Hamilton:

President Bush staked out his position on Iraq in January, and the House has now staked out its own. Deep divisions between these positions signal a stalemate among our political leaders. There is no unity of effort. Yet the president and the Democratic majorities in Congress will remain in office for nearly two years. They must seek a bipartisan consensus in the months ahead; otherwise, our efforts in Iraq will falter. . . . The House outlines a 2008 target date for U.S. forces to leave Iraq. It sets a direction for policy but leaves implementation to the president. The residual force it authorizes gives the president considerable flexibility to protect U.S. interests with a substantial presence of U.S. troops. The president manages the war and makes the decision about the force level needed to defend U.S. military forces and civilians in Iraq . . . This transition is flexible, not fixed. . . .

Firm "targets?" The President makes the decision about force level? This was the "big win?" Democrats and the Netroots have been had. Hamilton shows you what is to come. The drive for consensus will remove the few teeth left in the House bill. A month from now the gnashing of the missing teeth begins.

It's time to revisit Operation TIDE, the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. The Washington Post reports it's quadrupled in size and the FBI is now monitoring 1,000 people a day.

Here's how it's done:

Each day, thousands of pieces of intelligence information from around the world -- field reports, captured documents, news from foreign allies and sometimes idle gossip -- arrive in a computer-filled office in McLean, where analysts feed them into the nation's central list of terrorists and terrorism suspects.

....President Bush ordered the intelligence community in 2003 to centralize data on terrorism suspects, and U.S. agencies at home and abroad now send everything they collect to TIDE. It arrives electronically as names to be added or as additional information about people already in the system.

Here's the danger for us ordinary folks:

As always the invective in this post is solely attributable to me

George Will uses unacceptable invective:

There are the tantrums -- sometimes both theatrical and perfunctory -- of talking heads on television or commentators writing in vitriol (Paul Krugman's incessant contempt, Ann Coulter's equally constant loathing).

Did George Will just compare Paul Krugman to Ann Coulter? To write that, Will must have been very angry, temporarily insane or just plain mendacious.

A new low for George Will. He thinks he is being clever in his vitriol towards Krugman. Foolishly angry George Will.

John and Elizabeth Edwards' decision to continue John's quest for the presidential nomination in light of medical tests returned this week showing she has a second cancer battle to face has brought out a range of reactions.

• The Worst: Rush Limbuagh
• Second Worst: Time Magazine's Jay Carney
• Best: Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake.

  Tune into 60 Minutes Sunday Night to hear more from the Edwards.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush won't be getting an honorary degree from the University of Florida. The Senate Faculty voted against it on Thursday.

Some faculty expressed concern about Bush's record in higher education.

"I really don't feel this is a person who has been a supporter of UF," Kathleen Price, associate dean of library and technology at the school's Levin College of Law, told The Gainesville Sun after the vote.

Other dealbreakers:

Bush's approval of three new medical schools during his tenure has diluted resources, Price told the newspaper.

Bush has also been criticized for his "One Florida" proposal, an initiative that ended race-based admissions programs at state universities.

Rejection is a rare phenomenon.

"It is unheard of that a faculty committee would look at candidates, make recommendations and then (those candidates) be overturned by the Senate."

Fresh from snubbing Jeb Bush snark, the defending champion Mighty Gators now take on the Oregon Furs Ducks and their dynamic under 6 foot team (see the exciting 5' 6"" Tajuan Porter) (just kidding), to continue their drive to repeat. I think the Gators should and will win the game. It is not clear how Oregon stops Florida's inside dominance. The Gators advance to a Finals rematch against UCLA.

You'll get sick of watching Michael Jordan's defining 1982 championship winning jumper and Fred Brown's ill fated "pass" to James Worthy in the pregame runup to the Georgetown-North Carolina game. This has the making of a great game. North Carolina has oodles and oodles of talent - Hansbrough, Wright, Lawson and a seeming cast of thousands. But I like Georgetwon to win today. I think Georgetown has the discipline, talent and frontline to not only stand up to Carolina, but to dominate them. Georgetown advances to face Ohio State.

I hit both games yesterday, having picked Ohio State and UCLA.

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.