More troops, more death. The BBC reports:

More than 3,000 US troops have arrived in Baghdad, the first deployment of extra forces promised for the Iraqi capital by US President George W Bush.

As the deployment began, the US military said four soldiers and one marine had been killed in the restive western province of Anbar.

It took to 25 the number of US deaths in Iraq on Saturday - one of the worst days for US troops since the invasion.

Right wing chatterers, outraged as always, are calling upon the president to pardon Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed Mexican in Texas. The agents, having been tried and convicted, would seem unlikely candidates to become a conservative cause celebre, but advocates of a more lethal approach to border security stand in strong support of their rogue tactics. In their simple world, law enforcement officers are always heroic, and suspected drug dealers from Mexico inevitably deserve to be shot. They have no interest in the actual evidence.

Johnny Sutton, the United States attorney who oversaw prosecution of the case, dismissed the idea that the two men were simply doing their jobs or defending themselves. During their trial, the agents said they had scuffled with the suspected drug dealer, who they believed had a gun, before firing at him. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” Mr. Sutton said in a statement last week, noting that the two men did not report the shooting to their superiors.

“These agents shot someone who they knew to be unarmed and running away,” Mr. Sutton said. “They destroyed evidence, covered up a crime scene and then filed false reports about what happened. It is shocking that there are people who believe it is O.K. for agents to shoot an unarmed suspect who is running away.”

Since when did conservatives lose their abiding faith in guilty verdicts?

Ed Kilgore writes an interesting post about Netroots attitudes towards Bill Clinton. Only problem - it is based on a false premise:

Chris [Bowers] and others didn't come to grips with Scott [Winship]'s underlying argument about the anti-Clinton worldview of the Netroots Left. And that's a shame.

Sorry Ed. Indeed, I think that is part of the whole problem of the discussion at TPMCAfe - the idea that the Netroots has some type of New New Left ideology. That simply is wrong. More.

A big thanks to TChris and Big Tent Democrat for posting the past few days while I've been at a seminar in Miami. I'll be home late tonight and back to regular posting Sunday at some point.

If we haven't covered your topic du jour in a few days, here's some space for you.

Say hello to HillaryClinton.com.

Hillary has announced the formation of her presidential exploratory committee. She will begin with "a live conversation with America – an unprecedented series of video webcasts beginning Monday, January 22nd at 7pm EST for three nights."

I chronicled Hillary's 2000 run for Senator daily, back when TalkLeft was just a website, not a blog. I'm looking forward to following her presidential bid with the same enthusiasm -- although I like John Edwards as a candidate too.

It is exciting to have a serious female candidate for President. I'll be anxiously awaiting her position on issues to see if she's the candidate for me.

Which federal crime deserves a harsher punishment? Selling 5 grams of crack or selling out your country? The crack sale triggers a 5 year mandatory minimum. Bob Ney's "significant and serious abuse of the public trust" (in the words of the sentencing judge) earned a sentence of 30 months -- three more than the government recommended.

“You have a long way to go to make amends,” Judge Huvelle told the former lawmaker, citing tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of luxury overseas travel and other gifts he accepted from [Jack] Abramoff and the corrupt Republican lobbyist’s partners in return for official favors.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has advanced the minute hand of its Doomsday Clock by two minutes. It now shows five minutes to a catastrophic midnight.

Current nuclear worries touched on by the speakers included the ambitions of North Korea and Iran, the nuclear rivalry between Pakistan and India, new initiatives to expand nuclear power plants around the world and the lack of progress toward realizing the goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The board also added climate change to their list of doomsday concerns, because "it could cause irremediable harm to the habitat humanity needs for survival."

Corporate accountability does not come easily to AT&T. The corporation's cozy relationship with the NSA prompted a lawsuit (discussed here) seeking redress for violations of customer privacy. Concerned about corporate decisions that harm customers and the corporation, shareholders are asking management to answer some questions.

[Shareholders have] introduced a resolution for consideration at AT&T's stockholder meeting in April. It asks the company's management to explain what steps it is taking to ensure customer privacy and to disclose how much money it has spent on collaborating with the NSA program.

Management has no interest in being held accountable.

AT&T is asking the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for permission to exclude the resolution from its proxy statement, claiming it would interfere with business and the company should not have to divulge information because of state secrets privileges, according to a statement released by the groups pushing for the resolution.

David Ignatius has a remarkable quote in his column today:

"Over the years, he got tired of suffering fools," says one longtime Cheney friend. "He thinks it's all BS."

BS? I'll show you some BS:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

You want BS? Here is some BS:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community, disagree.

And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong.

More?

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

More?

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. . . . We learned . . . that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s . .

More?

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

More?

[September 14, 2003] I still remain convinced that the judgment that we’ll need “several hundred thousand for several years” is not valid.

More BS:

I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

And the piece de resistance:

[Iraq] will be an enormous success story.

I think the whole country is tired of the damned fools that pretend to run it - the worst Administration in history.

Huh?:

Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said today that the additional troops being sent to Iraq could begin to be withdrawn by late summer if security conditions improve in Baghdad. “I believe the projections are late summer,” General Casey said, adding, “I think it’s probably going to be late summer before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods.”

Ah. IF security conditions improve. Well, since they won't, that means when pigs fly. Casey has played this game before:

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early [2006].

Come to think of it, BushCo has been promising withdrawal since 2003:

According to a March 3, 2003, CNN report, "Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the number of troops required to win the war. He also said 'the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark.'" Specifically, Pentagon officials announced a plan in the weeks following the fall of Baghdad to lower U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 30,000 by the fall of 2003.

The worst Administration in history.

Barack Obama will propose legislation on Iraq:

It now falls on Congress to find a way to support our troops in the field while still preventing the President from multiplying his previous mistakes. That is why I not only favor capping the number U.S. troops in Iraq, but believe it’s imperative that we begin the phased redeployment I called for two months ago, and intend to introduce legislation that does just that.”

The thrust of Obama's statement is good. Indeed, the emphasis on withdrawal is exactly right. But Obama falls into the trap of believing the Congress can order withdrawal, phased or immediate. As I wrote a week ago:

The bottom line is clear. WHETHER the United States enters war or CONTINUES at war is the exclusive decision of the Congress. Bt the CONDUCT of that specific war, subject to Congress power of military rulemaking (on torture, the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, etc.), belongs exclusively to the President. The Congress' power here seems clear to me. IT can END the Iraq war. But it can not dictate how it is conducted on military questions. That power belongs to the President.

My plan is this:

[T]o set a date when funding ends, say October 30, 2007. Announce it NOW. Vote on it NOW. Then it is up to Bush to have the troops out by then. If he does not, then he is the one endangering the troops. He has 9 months to get them out. This is the only policy and plan left. And it is good politics. The American People will support such an action. In fact, I bet at least a third of Republicans in the House and Senate vote for it.

SAT Question time:

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

The question:

Alberto Gonzales is to the office of Attorney General as:

a. George Bush is to the office of the POTUS
b. Donald Rumsfeld is to the office of the Secretary of Defense
c. Harriet Meirs is to the Supreme Court
d. All of the above.