Glenn Greenwald does a nice writeup on NYT Times Public Editor Barney Calame's review of the paper's recent Iran coverage. I differ with Glenn in this respect, I think Calame's piece a standard for how the work should be done. If Deborah Howell were actually a capable person, she might learn something from it. Glenn sees some significant deficiencies that I don't. In any event, as Glenn points out, the most significant part of Calame's piece is this:

Editing vigilance on intelligence and national security coverage means dealing with the anonymous sourcing that many deem essential to bringing vital issues to light in that murky area. So editors need to ensure that unnamed sources are in a position to know and that any biases are clear to the reporter. The Times’s most important requirement for anonymous sources — that an editor must know their identity — was followed for Mr. Gordon’s Feb. 10 story. Douglas Jehl, a deputy chief of the Washington bureau and his editor, told me he knew the name of each anonymous source in the article. The story also attempted a generalized explanation of why the officials were willing to talk. I do wish, however, that the article had found a way to comply with the paper’s policy of explaining why sources are allowed to remain unnamed.

Human Rights Watch issued a 50 page report yesterday on missing prisoners from secret CIA prisons or Guantanamo, most of whom are unaccounted for after flights on Ghost Air.

"President Bush told us that the last 14 CIA prisoners were sent to Guantanamo, but there are many other prisoners 'disappeared' by the CIA whose fate is still unknown," said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counter-terrorism director at Human Rights Watch. "The question is: What happened to these people and where are they now?"

HRW noted that in September 2006, 14 detainees were moved from secret CIA jails to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On Sept. 6, U.S. President George W. Bush said that following that move, there were no more captives in secret CIA installations.

However, HRW said it had two lists of former detainees who were still missing and that it had sent their names to the U.S. president.

President Bush must provide a full accounting of those seized, held and transferred. Nothing less is acceptable.

Matt Stoller asks that question. The answer is obviously yes. I am a Centrist. And yet on Iraq, the voices joining me on the call to end the Iraq Debacle through the only viable way to do it, defunding, have been relatively few to my knowledge.

In this post, I warned of the Netroots forgetting the lessons learned from the intraparty battles on Iraq and other issues from 2003 to 2006:

Are we forgetting these lessons? I fear we are. The Netroots must not forget this fight, how we won it and how we must continue to win it in our Democratic Party.

See also Glenn Greenwald.

On June 19, 2006, Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed introduced a resolution calling for the phased redeployment of US military from Iraq commencing in 2006. Senator Levin said:

Our current open-ended policy is counterproductive and unsustainable. The Administration’s policy of ‘we’ll be there for as long as Iraq needs us’ will result in Iraqis depending on us longer. Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent. Beginning a phased redeployment this year will add incentives for the Iraqis to make the hard compromises necessary to bring their country together and secure it. They need to do that job themselves and our amendment is one way to prod them to make that commitment and stick to it.

Now, the Democrats do not need to "prod" the President to do anything. They can do it themselves. They have the power. They have no excuses. The question is do the Democrats in Congress actually want to have our troops redeploy from Iraq or not? They can do it if they want. If they believe what they said in in June 2006, then they will.

It's Tuesday open thread day. If you have something you'd like to discuss, here's a place for you.

Vice President Dick Cheney was whisked off to a bunker Tuesday morning in Afghanistan after a suicide bomber attacked the main entrance to the U.S. military base he was visiting.

The Taliban has taken credit for the attack. At least 23 others were killed.

...a purported Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, said Cheney was the target of the attack.

Former Rep. Bob Ney's former chief of staff William Heaton followed Ney's lead by pleading guilty to a federal charge resulting from his corrupt relationship with Jack Abramoff. Talk about having your fingerprints all over the money:

Heaton was also was one of several recipients of a number of other [Abramoff-financed] trips abroad, concert and sporting-event tickets, meals and gambling chips, all taken with full knowledge the gifts were in exchange for official favors from Ney.

During one of those trips, Heaton and another staffer helped Ney conceal $5,000 brought into the country through customs and stored the money in a safe inside Ney’s congressional office. Court documents said Heaton “open[ed] the safe as requested so that Ney could make repeated withdrawals.”

Opposing the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq: two out of three Americans.

The Post-ABC poll found that 53 percent of Americans favored setting a deadline for troop withdrawals. Among those who favored a deadline, 24 percent said they would like to see U.S. forces out within six months and 21 percent called for the withdrawals to be completed within a year. ...

Growing numbers of Americans also favored withdrawing U.S. forces even if civil order in Iraq has not been restored. The poll found that 42 percent favored keeping troops there until order is reestablished, while 56 percent said the troops should be redeployed to avoid further U.S. casualties, even if the sectarian violence is continuing.

Rep. Murtha's congressional colleagues (and critics) may find it easier to support his proposal after reading this:

A young feminist writing at Alternet today says she's torn about voting for Hillary. Her feminist self tells her she should, while politically, she's not sure.

I don't think feminism requires one to to vote for a female candidate. People should vote for the candidate they view as most qualified -- the person they believe is best suited for the job.

It would be a milestone and an achievement to have a woman President. I've frequently said that I think Hillary is more than up to the task.

But, if I decide to support Hillary, it won't be because she's a woman. It will be because I think she's the best choice to lead our country, based upon her experience, intelligence and position on issues -- all issues, not female issues.

No one owes Hillary a vote because she's female. I'm glad she's running. I'm glad a woman is running. But it will be Hillary the candidate not Hillary the woman that sways me in the end if I decide to support her.

American tourists with old misdemeanor records are being turned away at the Canadian border -- after a stop at secondary immigration checks.

Take the case of 55-year-old Lake Tahoe resident Greg Felsch. Stopped at the border in Vancouver this month at the start of a planned five-day ski trip, he was sent back to the United States because of a DUI conviction seven years ago. Not that he had any idea what was going on when he was told at customs: "Your next stop is immigration.''

Felsch was ushered into a room. "There must have been 75 people in line," he says. "We were there for three hours. One woman was in tears. A guy was sent back for having a medical marijuana card. I felt like a felon with an ankle bracelet.''

One point in Lieberman's column I do agree with:

There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds.

In fact, one would expect Joe to have some kind words for Russ Feingold, and his proposal to end funding for the war six months after enactment of such a law. Heck, General Petraeus even gets a chance to "succeed." Or if Joe thinks General Petraeus needs more time, let's make the date certain March 31, 2008. Which would mean the US "occupation" of Iraq will have lasted five years. Does Joe need more time than that?

Funny how Joe does not mention THAT proposal.

Lieberman on Iraq, December 2005:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.

Lieberman on Iraq today:

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Oh, and the lie Lieberman told Connecticut during the 2006 campaign:

What I don't think is right, as I have said over and over again, are many of the Bush Administration's decisions regarding the planning for and execution of the war.

The most dishonest, dishonorable person in Washington, DC today, Joe Lieberman.