Atrios appears not to think much of Broder's prediction of a Bush Bounce:

Dean Broder says the Bush Bounce is coming!!!!!!!!! AWESUM!!!!

It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.

Well, politics, like everything, is relative. What I think Broder is really talking about is that the Democratic Congress is likely to take a tumble, because of Iraq:

[Bush] minimized the stakes in the House debate by endorsing the good motives of his critics, rejecting the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops' morale or embolden the enemy -- all by way of saying that the House vote was no big deal. . . . [B]y contrasting today's vote on a nonbinding resolution with the pending vote on funding the war in Iraq, he shifted the battleground to a fight he is likely to win -- and put the Democrats on the defensive. Much of their own core constituency wants them to go beyond nonbinding resolutions and use the power of the purse to force Bush to reduce the American commitment in Iraq.

Sure the Dems support with the base is going to suffer if that happens. But more than that, Dems will join Bush in being blamed on Iraq if that happens. The Dems must see that a position on Iraq can not be avoided. And the choices are binary - in or out. Vote funding for the war and the Iraq Debacle becomes your Debacle too. Vote against it and it does not. It is that simple.

It is "cut and run" all over again. In 2006, the Dems were smart enough not to bite on Rove's gambit. I smell them biting this time, and taking the Iraq Debacle on their shoulders. Incredibly stupid politically as well as being bad policy.

And when that happens, Bush will look better relatively in comparison. Call it an Einstein Bounce.

In a post, Matt Yglesias sparked a discussion of what exactly is the President's war power, what view did the Clinton Administration espouse and what does the War Powers Act say to the matter. In a comment, Marty Lederman expressed his view:

The big question here is not the War Powers Resolution, but the Constitution. What sorts of hostilities can the President initiate unilaterally under the Constitution? Matt is right that the Clinton Administration took a very broad view -- see Haiti, Bosnia Bosnia and Kosovo, for starters; we basically concluded that congressional pre-approval is only required for a complete, or total, war (see footnote 5 of the Bosnia opinion, hinting that the Korean War might have been unlawful because Congress had not authorized it in advance).

. . . as a practical matter, the issue is determined -- the President believes he has the power, and he won't hesitate to exercise it.

Unless. Unless Congress actually passes a statute, probably over Bush's signature, that would prohibit military action against Iran. . . .

There is much to disagree with in what Lederman writes. Mostly because he is comparing apples (Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti) to oranges (Iran.)

Greg Sargent has the goods on the lying phony "civil" Republican David Brooks. David Brooks now:

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?... Today, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party believes that the world, and Hillary Clinton in particular, owes it an apology. . . .

David Brooks then:

Here's what Brooks wrote in The Weekly Standard back in 2003 after the Saddam statue fell:

I'm curious about how all the war opponents are going to react if things continue to go well. Sure, they opposed Saddam, they will say. They just didn't want to do anything about him. . . . They were tolerant. Tolerant of tyranny. They doubted, and continue to doubt America's willingness and ability to serve as a force for good in the world. That was their crucial mistake. I suspect they will not even now admit their errors. I doubt the people of Europe will say: We were wrong. . . . I doubt the Arab propagandists will say: We will never spread such distortions again. We will never again be so driven by resentment and dishonesty.

What a piece of work. A dishonest piece of work.

This is how the Iraq Debacle happened:

. . . But precisely because these Democrats want to avoid war with Iran that they must offer the now familiar formulation: no nukes for Iran, no options off the table. Hillary Clinton stated this today, Barack Obama gave a version of it two years ago, and John Edwards said it last month. . . . Does this mean that we should not be skeptical of the Bush Administration’s attempt to “sell” an Iran adventure? No. Does this mean that Congress should not have oversight over any such potential action (as Senator Clinton said today)? No. What it means is that the keyboard commentariat needs to come to grips with the realities of diplomacy. . . .

Kenny Baer needs to come to grips with reality that George Bush is the worst President in the history of the nation and that in such circumstances, the normal rules do not apply. As Ezra writes:

Some folks seem to think you can continually threaten Iran while never meaning to attack, an outlook that reminds me of all the liberal hawks who spent the runup to the Iraq War advocating for their personal Iraq Wars, rather than the one George W. Bush wanted to fight. In the end, of course, everyone who voted for the resolution based on giving Bush strength at the UN, or sending 600,000 troops, simply enabled the war Bush wanted to fight.

Ken Baer should shut up for a while.

Like the Right Wing blogs, as described by Blogometer, I am not comfortable with what the Politico blog describes as the Democratic strategy on Iraq, but for different reasons of course. Politico reports:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

. . . As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Unlike the deluded Right, which describes this strategy as Surrender without Responsibility!, my problem is that it does not move to end the war immediately. The contrargument is that defunding the war does not have the votes and this is the quickest way yo end the war. If that is true, then this might be defensible. I do not think it is.

The new police chief of Bunnell, Florida likes to drive around town and introduce himself to people. And if those people are black, he likes to arrest them. To his way of thinking, they must be drug dealers.

On Feb. 7, Cecil Hubbert, a 21-year-old resident of Palm Coast who grew up in Bunnell, was walking to his aunt's house with Nateshawn Royal, his sister's boyfriend. Both men are black. Hubbert says Bunnell Police Chief Armando Martinez pulled up and at first said he was just introducing himself as the new police chief in town. ... Immediately, Hubbert says, the chief then accused him and Royal of being drug dealers prowling in "a known drug area," had them arrested on a charge of loitering and prowling, and confiscated the cash they carried. No drugs were found on them.

So much for probable cause. Being black in a "known drug area" is cause enough in Bunnell.

Guantanamo has been a well documented embarrassment. John Murtha is looking for a way to force the military to close the detention center.

"We're looking at a schedule -- a reasonable schedule -- to close it down in stages," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said on National Public Radio's Morning Edition. "We can limit the funds for it, and that would shut it down."

Maybe, maybe not.

The Pentagon declined to respond to a query about Murtha's plan -- how feasible the proposal is and whether there is in fact Guantánamo-specific funding that Congress could cut from future appropriations.

I'm flying back to Denver today and will be back to regular blogging Thursday night to Sunday, when I return to the Libby trial for closing arguments. If anyone would like to donate, here's how.

If you'd rather donate anonymously, please use Amazon here.

As always, thanks in advance. Your generosity is really appreciated. As an added incentive, the top three donors will get a free TalkLeft 4th Amendment Subway Tote.

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, Marcy Wheeler of The Next Hurrah who has been live-blogging this week at Firedoglake and I discuss the day in court and whether Fitz proved his case or Wells succeeded with his defense strategy.

I had a great week covering the trial for Huffington Post and I'll be flying home to Denver and my day job in the morning. I'll fly back to DC Monday to live blog closing arguments on Tuesday.

This has been one of the best blogging experiences yet. Why? Because bloggers bond. As you can probably tell from the week of Politics TV videos, Jane Hamsher, Marcy Wheeler and I got along famously. We don't compete, we complement and support each other and we share our knowledge. It's all about adding another dimension to the reporting.

Firedoglake has made an amazing contribution to the Libby trial reporting, as the New York Times documents today.

John Amaechi, former NBA player and UConn Penn State star, disclosed that he is gay. Dan LeBatard wrote:

"I feel exhausted already," he said. "All this is about to happen, this complete unknown. I like structure. I've planned my entire life to this point. This wasn't in there. I'm in the vehicle, but I'm a passenger now. There is no driver. But I did choose to open the door and get in, and it's the right choice for a number of reasons. I'm sure that will become plain soon." It just wasn't plain in the moment. What's the saying? Courage isn't the absence of fear but the ability to overcome it? Amaechi has never been so scared, which says plenty. Consider: When asked if he ever felt free in the NBA, he said, "Never. Just lonely and isolated and afraid." The biggest relief in his career? When he got the call that it was over. He felt, in his words, "the deepest and most profound of sighs -- every muscle in my body relaxing at once."

What an indictment on the homophobia that permeates sports. And Tim Hardaway, unapologetically confirmed that bigotry, flatly stating that he would not want Amaechi as a teammate and that homosexuality simply should not exist period.

I guess Timmy never heard of the ancient Olympics. But of course, in many ways, this was the attitude Karl Malone reflected when he balked at Magic Johnson's return to the NBA after he had retired when he was diagnosed as carrying the AIDS virus.

Just an ugly reminder of how far we still have to travel as a society.

People who have a "throw the book at 'em" attitude about all crime, large and small, often experience a change of heart when a son or daughter is arrested and charged. It's difficult to watch as one's child is chewed up by the criminal justice system.

Justice Scalia doesn't necessarily have a "throw the book at 'em" attitude, but it is interesting to wonder whether his daughter's experience with the criminal justice system will cause him feel a bit more sympathy toward the hardships that ordinary defendants endure during and after an arrest.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's daughter was arrested this week and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and child endangerment, officials said Wednesday.

Ann Banaszewski was arrested after driving with an undisclosed blood alcohol level. Three children were in her van.

Apparently, Barack Obama apologized for saying that US troops' lives have been wasted in Iraq:

Obama has twice apologized since implying that U.S. troops had died in vain, telling a rally crowd in Ames, Iowa, on Sunday, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should never been waged, and on which we have now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

. . . In an interview with the Des Moines Register, the leading newspaper in the critical first-in-the-nation caucus state, immediately backpedaled saying, "I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term."

But, the first-term Senator's use of the term in a very public setting has forced Obama to elaborate on that apology, telling a house party crowd of potential supports in Nashua, N.H., Monday night, "Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken."

Obama did indeed misspeak. The fact is our troops in Iraq have not been wasted, they have been used in an enterprise that has been as damaging to the United States as any in memory. They were worse than wasted -- they were employed in a Debacle that was foretold from the first moment PNAC dreamed up this insane scheme in the 1990s.

I am not sure about the politics of it all. Chris Bowers is upset with Obama.

I am upset with the Bush Administration, which has done severe damage to our country and in the process caused the death and maiming of tens of thousands of our fine soldiers, who have, in the main, acted in the best traditions of our country. I feel tremendously sad for the families of our brave soldiers, who must realize what Bush has wrought and at what cost. I would certainly not want to see them caused further pain. But the truth is the truth.