Mark Schmitt points out a serious concern about Hillary Clinton's views on executive power:

I was . . . alarmed by the following passages:

Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president - her ’responsibility gene,’ she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority....

. . . [W]e have just gone through a period of the most staggering expansion of executive power in history, and I suspect that we don’t know the half of it. The setup that was the Iraq resolution, the manipulation of the executive branch itself in order to deceive Congress was one example of it. . . . The last thing we need at this moment is yet another president who "believes in executive authority and Congressional deference." We need a president who respects separation of powers and democracy. After all, the next president will not be our last.

I agree with Mark's concern but it requires a Congress willing to stymie Executive Power to check abuse of power by a President. A President Hillary Clinton asserting strong Executive Power is a concern of course. But Thomas Jefferson disclaimed any number of federal powers that he then used when President.

More....

• Michael Isikoff on Rove crony and lobbyist Richard Hohlt acknowledging (confirmed by Rove's lawyer) that Hohlt faxed a copy of Novak's article to Rove on July 11. Christy at Firedoglake adds her thoughts. I'd just add that those of us in the media room during Novak's testimony found Hohlt's name on the trial witness list (We were trying to figure out how to spell Hohlt.) So at one point, Wells must have been thinking about calling him, but changed his mind.

• Another released Iraqi detainee from Camp Bucca describes his torture at the American detention center. They used an electric prod on him. Another former prisoner says it happened to him too.

• Raw Story on a new, secretive U.S. prison program that targets and isolates Muslim and Middle Easterners, likely in violation of their rights.

• Larry Johnson debunks Victoria Toensing's WaPo op-ed. (Dead link removed 4/28/21

This is simply shocking.

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

John Aravosis of AmericaBlog expresses his outrage. So should we all.

Almost a year ago, our nation's immigrants marched in cities across America, rightly proclaiming, "We are America."

The New York Times takes a look at what's happened in the year since the marches.

• border enforcement
• federal raids
• local crackdowns
• gutted due process
• a web of suspicion
• the bureaucratic trap
• the rise of hate

The Times opines:

Hopelessly fixated on toughness, the immigration debate has lost its balance, overlooking the humanity of the immigrant. There is a starkly diminished understanding that hospitality for the stranger is part of the American ethos, and that as much as we claim to be a nation of immigrants, we have thwarted them at every turn. We must do better.

More...

Hashim Ibrahim Awad was an Iraqi civilian, a retired policeman, who was brutally killed in Hamdaniya, an area west of Baghdad. 7 marines and a navy medic were charged in the death.

Today, Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington,one of the charged Marines pleaded guilty to "conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and kidnapping, and to a kidnapping charge. Other charges he faced were dismissed at sentencing."

He was sentenced to 14 years with an agreement he will serve 8 in prison.

The navy medic flipped and agreed to testify against the Marines. He said:

Awad's hands and feet were bound and he was dragged from his home and shot numerous times. Then, he said, one Marine put the dead man's fingerprints on a rifle and shovel to make it look like he had been caught trying to plant a roadside bomb.

Just one day after the House passed the non-binding Iraq war resolution, the Senate gathered on a Saturday and voted against it.

It was the second time this month that minority Republicans successfully filibustered a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop buildup.

Senators voted 56-34 to invoke cloture and proceed to a floor vote on the resolution, with seven Republicans joining all the chamber's Democrats in calling for an end to the debate. But the motion fell four votes short of the threshold needed under Senate rules.

Here are the Republicans who voted for the resolution:

On Hillary Clinton's website today, she unveils a new message on Iraq.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has called for a 90-day deadline to start pulling American troops from Iraq.

"Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in 90 days or the Congress will revoke authorization for this war," the New York senator said in a video on her campaign Web site, repeating a point included in a bill she introduced on Friday.

As to Hillary's bill, introduced yesterday:

Clinton's bill would cap the number of troops in Iraq at the January 1 level, prior to Bush's decision to add 21,500 to the approximately 130,000 soldiers already there.... [and] would require congressional authorization to exceed her proposed cap on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Hillary also has a clear message for President Bush:

"If George Bush doesn't end the war before he leaves office, when I'm president, I will," Clinton said in the video.

More...

What a welcome surprise. The Dallas Morning News has not only been reading the blog coverage of the Scooter Libby trial, it has been doing a few wrap-ups with quotes from many of the bloggers.

• February 17

• February 3

Hang him:

"[It] is a singular omission in this message [by President James K. Polk], that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At it's beginning, Genl. Scott was, by this same President, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes--every department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do,--after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscious [sic], more painful than all his mental perplexity!"

The Hillary camp says:

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Personally, I don't care about an apology. What I want to know is why she thought a war with Iraq in 2002 made strategic sense, even if the intelligence was not wrong and stovepiped. Because, Senator Clinton, this is perhaps the most serious question we ask of our Presidential candidates- when do you think we should use military force? Your vote FOR the Iraq war in October 2002 was wrong on every level. It is a vote that must be explained. And yes, you voted for war Senator:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq . . .

The question is why. It is a question you should answer.

Former Senator Gary Hart has a new post at Huffpo on the specious argument that the National Guard needs to be fighting in Iraq to protect Americans at home.

....the National Guard units in Iraq are not in the United States standing post over our nation's security at home. They are not being trained and equipped for this vital mission. If we are in fact at war with terrorism, we are leaving our homeland flanks totally exposed. The Administration and its supporters have excused this dereliction in security with the hollow slogan: We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

....The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home. And the relatively small but growing numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify.

We need the National Guard at home, not in Iraq.

More...

Josh Marshall points to a Joe Lieberman statement where Lieberman essentially argues for evisceration of the separation of powers when it comes to the war power.

Lieberman starts with some correct analysis:

Congress has been given constitutional responsibilities. But the micro-management of war is not one of them. The appropriation of funds for war is. I appreciate that each of us here has our own ideas about the best way forward in Iraq, I respect those that take a different position than I, and I understand that many feel strongly that the President’s strategy is the wrong one. But the Constitution, which has served us now for more than two great centuries of our history, creates not 535 commanders-in-chief, but one—the President of the United States, who is authorized to lead the day to day conduct of war.

As I have written before, this is my view:

What is clear is that all this legal tapdancing get us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.