Anthony C. Zinni . . . argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it. “The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. . . . I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.” Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

Um, they are not capable of stopping the sectarian violence so that's why we should commit MORE forces to Iraq? Sounds like Rummy talk to me. This is beyond absurd. I would ask General Zinni this question, when do we win? Because 6 months ain't going to do it. 10,000 troops ain't going to do it. Straight talk please. If you don't want us to leave, tell the truth and tell us what it would cost, in blood and treasure.

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff reports to prison Wednesday.

The feds wanted him to stay out longer, because as part of his cooperaton bargain, he is still providing dirt on others.

Abramoff has been meeting almost daily in secret locations around Washington with Justice Department investigators who are examining thousands of e-mails and documents, according to sources close to the investigation.

Abramoff will report to FCI Cumberland, in Maryland, where he will be close enough to prosecutors to continue his cooperation.

As to who he's cooperating against now, ABC reports Karl Rove is on the list.

The sources say Abramoff was about to provide information about Bush administration officials, including Karl Rove, "accepting things of value" from Abramoff.

To be continued....

O.J. Simpson is back in the news. He's written a book, scheduled to be published November 30, entitled "``If I Did It, Here's How It Happened.''

Fox said Tuesday it will air a two-part interview with O.J. Simpson at month's end in which he describes the 1994 murders of his ex-wife and her friend that he says he didn't commit.

....Fox said Simpson's book ``hypothetically describes'' how he would have committed the murders. The special will air at 9 p.m. November 27 and 29 on Fox.

Sen. Arlen Specter today introduced the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Oversight and Resource Enhancement Act of 2006." The ACLU responds:

Now is not the time for Congress to focus on controversial issues. The majority of the appropriations bills have yet to be adopted. If there is to be a new spirit of bipartisan cooperation in Congress, lawmakers must not legislate in haste and without a full understanding of the facts. If the new Specter bill were adopted, it would be reconciled with the horrible Wilson bill, putting the privacy of innocent Americans at great risk. Senators must remember: Americans are not the enemy. This is one issue on which the lame-duck Congress should ‘Just Say No!’"

The LA Times today agreed in an editorial, saying the bill was co-sponsored by Diane Feinstein and would make it easier for the NSA to bypass FISA's requirement of a court order in case of an emergency.

From Sen. Harry Reid's office, here is the 2007 lineup of Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee members:

CHAIR: Leahy Kennedy
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Feingold
Schumer
Durbin
Cardin
Whitehouse

The new members are Ben Cardin of Maryland and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

I can't say I'm thrilled about Whitehouse. He's a former U.S. Attorney (appointed by Clinton) and state Attorney General, in other words, a law and order guy. He's strong on gun control and prosecuting gang members.

John is right. AP's caption describing Speaker-to-be Pelosi's wardrobe is blatantly sexist. They would never have done that to a male politician.

This is a long post and not about something that generally interests our readership here at Talk Left. But it is the evening and I want to post it. So here goes.

At mydd, Jerome Armstrong criticizes Tom Schaller for his thesis (it is mine too) that Democrats can not shape their message determined to do better in the South. Like Schaller, I thiink it is not the right approach for Democrats. Armstrong writes:

Stoller's argument ends with a point that might charitably be called a caveat: Maybe there's something I don't get about how special the South is. And that serves as a segue into talking about Tom Schaller's book, "Whistling Past Dixie". It's a point to which a southerner might reply as "typical yankee shit". It's a rather remarkable book though, using statistics to make the case that Democrats can win a majority without the south. And that's probably true, but it's Schaller's first recomendation on "The Path to a National Democratic Majority", that Democrats define the south in the most denigrate ways, to run against the south for an enduring majority, that is morally and strategically wrong.

This is misstatement from Armstrong. The strategy is NOT to denigrate the South, it is to NOT kowtow to it. It is to paint the GOP as extreme and unacceptable. Not to paint the South as anything. It is to use the power of negative branding against the GOP, NOT against the South. Armstrong misuderstands the difference between national branding and the 50 state strategy of devolution of power to state parties. He really muddles the entire subject. Not his best by a long shot. I'll explain on the flip.

I was not that engaged with the House Majority Leader battle. Don't get me wrong, I preferred Murtha, both for the unity he has with Speaker-to-be Pelosi but also for his brave stance on Iraq. But if Hoyer was returned to the position, I would not have cried about it. Hoyer has his problems, but we're a Big Tent party.

But this from Fred Hiatt and the WaPo Editorial Board bothered me immensely:

On the merits, Mr. Hoyer is by far the better choice for the job. He is a moderate and highly capable legislator whose selection would reinforce Ms. Pelosi's announced commitment to govern from the center. Mr. Murtha's candidacy is troubling for several reasons, beginning with his position on the war in Iraq. A former Marine, Mr. Murtha deserves credit for sounding an alarm about the deteriorating situation a year ago. But his descriptions of the stakes there have been consistently unrealistic, and his solutions irresponsible.

If this election is going to be about Iraq and WaPo's idea of centrism, then Murtha MUST win. WaPo has been wrong wrong wrong every step of the way on everything. BTW, when has WaPo ever issued endorsements in House leadership races? Never, that's when. Incredibly poor decision by WaPo.

Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the primary group lodging the Complaint in Germany requesting that war crime charges be filed against Donald Rumsfeld, was on Democracy Now today.
A portion of the transcript (with my emphasis):

AMY GOODMAN: We go first to Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, joining us now from Berlin. Democracy Now! welcomes you, Michael. Can you explain the lawsuit and the major news conference that you held today? The world, for the first time, really, picking up this story.

MICHAEL RATNER: I think that's right, Amy. This is the first time they're really picking it up. The press conference was well attended. This is news all over the world. I mean, one of the things we noticed wbout this lawsuit was the number of groups willing to join. The Center for Constitutional Rights, we have a major group of human rights organizations under the title FIDH, the International Federation of Human Rights, which has 140 branches. We have Theo Van Boven, the former rapporteur for the United Nations on torture has joined the suit, Nobel Prize winners and others. It's really -- it’s taken off. I think people are tired, really tired and angry over what the United States has perpetrated in the name of fighting the so-called war on terror.

Jessalyn McCurdy of the ACLU testified at today's U.S. Sentencing Commission hearing on the crack-powder cocaine penalties:

A recent ACLU report, Cracks in the System: Twenty Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law, supported the USSC's recommendation that Congress reconsider the 100-to-1 disparity. The report....recommends that federal prosecutions focus on high-level traffickers of both crack and powder cocaine, and supports the elimination of mandatory minimums for crack and powder offenses, especially the mandatory minimum for simple possession.

In her testimony, McCurdy emphasized the report's core finding, that there is no scientific or penological justification for the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity ratio. Although Congress' stated intent was to target high-level cocaine traffickers, the result has been just the opposite - in 2002, a USSC report found that only 15 percent of federal cocaine traffickers can be classified as high-level, while over 70 percent of crack defendants have low-level involvement in drug activity, such as street level dealers, couriers, or lookouts.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton, who presides over the Scooter Libby case, testified today at the U.S. Sentencing Commission hearing on crack-powder cocaine penalties.

Judge Walton was a deputy drug czar and top drug policy advisor to President G.H. Bush.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton told the U.S. Sentencing Commission that federal laws requiring dramatically longer sentences for crack cocaine than for cocaine powder were "unconscionable" and contributed to the perception within minority communities that courts are unfair.

"I never thought that the disparity should be as severe as it has become," said Walton, who sits on the bench in Washington, where he previously served as a Superior Court judge, a federal prosecutor and a deputy drug czar.

Larisa at Raw Story reports that Robert Gates, Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, may not be the pro-Baker, anti-Cheney, anti-necon candidate after all.

The argument has been made by many pundits and experts that the removal of Rumsfeld and the nomination of Gates, planning for which numerous sources indicate began roughly one month ago, will have the effect of marginalizing Vice President Dick Cheney, seen by most to be the driving force behind US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Larisa quotes several sources, such as the one below, to posit that Gates and Cheney may be more closely allied than previously thought.