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Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said today that the additional troops being sent to Iraq could begin to be withdrawn by late summer if security conditions improve in Baghdad.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.

Finally, an open thread this week. It's a travel day for me, flying across the country. It will be late tonight before I see an internet connection again.

Hopefully TChris or Big Tent Democrat will have something to say, so feel free to check during the day. Some other stuff:

• Scribe has a new diary on current events in Germany and the culture of fear that he ties into our government's war on terror.

• Is That Legal has a a World-War-II counterexample to Cully Stimson's outrageous argument about the lawyers representing the Guantanamo detainees.

• Talking Dog has an interview with H. Candace Gorman, a Chicago based Civil Rights lawyer now representing two North Africans detained at Guantanamo, including one who the U.S. military itself deemed not an enemy combatant, a ruling overruled by the Pentagon higher-ups

• For all things Libby, check out Firedoglake.

• On a romantic note, check out Farrfeed's beautiful anniversary post.

The DEA busted 11 medical marijuana clubs in Los Angeles yesterday, without telling local authorities of their plan until 30 minutes beforehand.

City spokeswoman Helen Goss said West Hollywood has a "long-standing commitment" to the use of medical marijuana for people suffering from illnesses like HIV and AIDS, and city officials said they were taken by surprise, learning of the raid as it was going on.

California voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which made marijuana available by prescription for medicinal uses.

The feds refuse to recognize the state law, and say the clubs made so much money there had to be a front for "high-tech drug dealing."

This is pot we're talking about, that goes to those whom it medically helps. For some of these patients, being without it is a form of torture.

Don't the feds have better things to do with their time?

The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in a Texas death penalty case. How predictable is this?

Although several justices, most notably Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, clearly agreed with [the petitioner], Mr. Steiker encountered stiff resistance from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. The chief justice said the Texas court had handled the case in an appropriate and even “desirable” way.

The issue was whether Texas complied with a prior ruling from the Supreme Court directing the jury to take mitigating circumstances into account in deciding between a life or death sentence.

James Waller was convicted in 1982 of raping a 12 year old boy. He spent almost half his life in prison before his parole in 1993.

A court decision yesterday declared him innocent, based on DNA evidence.

Waller is the 12th exoneration in Dallas.

“Nowhere else in the nation have so many individual wrongful convictions been proven in one county in such a short span,” said Barry C. Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, the legal clinic that championed Mr. Waller’s case. In fact, Mr. Scheck said, those 12 such instances are more than have occurred anywhere else except the entire states of New York and Illinois since the nation’s first DNA exoneration, in 1989.

Fred Grimm at the Miami Herald has a column on detained "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla.

In describing his trip to the jail dentist, Grimm writes:

Padilla's dental visit -- photos of the exercise are in the federal court files -- reach beyond the legal questions. It has the look of gratuitous cruelty.

The treatment of an American citizen in pretrial detention seemed to be taken from the imaginings of Kafka. It appeared to be sensory deprivation just for the hell of it.

Grimm recaps Padilla's treatment:

The accused was held in extreme isolation for 1,307 days. Held in a nine-by-seven-foot cell. The only window blacked out. He was the lone prisoner on the two-tier cellblock. He was given food through a slot in the door. He slept on a steel mattress. No reading material. No calendar. No clock. Nothing to connect him to the outside world.

Today was another day of jury selection. To get the full flavor, you need to read Pach at Firedoglake who lived-blogged the whole thing. His updates are in the comments here and here.

His reporting makes you feel like you are in the courtroom, witnessing the questioning and hearing the jurors speak.

Recaps are one thing, but it's great to get the play by play.

He'll be live-blogging tomorrow too.

Murray Waas has a new article on Scooter Libby up at HuffPo. He recounts yesterday's N.Y Times profile and an earlier WAPO profile, and asks,

How could it be that Libby--- seemingly such a stickler for the rules-- outed Valerie Plame, as prosecutors claim in their case against him?

There is always, or course, the possibility that Libby will be found innocent of any and all of the charges. He should be entitled, as should any of us, to a presumption of innocence.

As Murray notes, people don't become loose cannons overnight. He gives two possibilities:

The Justice Department today disclosed that the NSA warrantless surveillance will be discontinued in its present form and in the future operate under the FISA court.

The Justice Department announced today that the National Security Agency's controversial warrantless surveillance program has been placed under the authority of a secret surveillance court, marking an abrupt change in approach by the Bush administration after more than a year of heated debate.