Former Senator Gary Hart, writing at Huffington Post today, opines that the October surprise may be that Bush launches a pre-emptive war against Iran before the November elections.

The steps will be these: Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2 bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned at strategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, and commando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps are already being taken.

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

by TChris

Arlen Specter is irked because he wasn't a part of the "compromise" bill authorizing the military trials of detainees. He always likes to be asked before his party deprives people of their civil rights. As long as he's asked, he'll gladly work to implement his president's plans, whether they involve torture or domestic wiretapping. If he's not made to feel that he's an important part of the process, he whines about the Constitution. Thankfully, Specter is whining now.

President Bush is pushing Congress to put the agreement into law before adjourning for the midterm elections, but Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Sunday he "vigorously" disagrees with the habeas corpus provision of the bill. ... "The courts have traditionally been open to make sure that individual rights are protected, and that is fundamental," Specter said on CNN's "Late Edition. "And the Constitution says when you can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in time of rebellion or invasion. And we don't have either. So that has to be changed, in my opinion."

If Democrats need the cover of Republicans to stand up for the Constitution, Specter is their shield, at least for the moment. But why are we reading about Arlen Specter's opposition, rather than the opposition of Democrats?

by TChris

The First Amendment protects both religious and political speech. Preachers are free to encourage their congregations to take sides on the moral issues of the day, but religious organizations risk losing their tax exempt status when they advocate political support for a particular party or candidate. LA Times columnist Steve Lopez asks why the IRS is investigating the All Saints Episcopal Church, where Rev. George Regas imagined a debate between John Kerry, George Bush and Jesus, while the agency ignores the New Revelation Missionary Baptist Church, just two miles away.

[Pastor William Turner Jr.] has proudly boasted to President Bush about converting 80% of his congregation from Democrat to Republican.

If Turner is entitled to preach the church's position on gay marriage and stem cell research, shouldn't Regas be permitted to apply the teachings of Jesus to tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, to a war that slaughters the innocent, and to the torture of prisoners?

by TChris

In translation, "we're fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here" means "we're creating terrorists over there, then supplying them with easy targets." Does this make the country more safe? Not according to the consensus of opinion reported in the National Intelligence Estimate.

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Thanks, Mr. President, for taking a serious problem and making it worse. Much worse.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Mr. David Broder, let me introduce you to your editor, Mr. Fred Hiatt, Iraq Debacle supporter, New McCarthyite, and critic of the "Maverick" John McCain:

[I]t's hard to credit the statement by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday that "there's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved." In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent. If they do, America's standing in the world will continue to suffer, as will the fight against terrorism.

Despite that, Broder writes this:

The independence being demonstrated all over the political spectrum these days -- by Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman and Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, both in tough reelection battles, and by Republican Sens. John McCain and John Warner -- has its roots in American history.

... [T]he forces of the independent center are gaining. The public disgust with the breakdown of Congress as a functioning institution has liberated more House and Senate candidates to challenge the status quo. They may be the same people, but they're not behaving the same way.

David Broder, independently stupid.

Crooks and Liars has Part I (20) minutes of the Clinton interview with Chris Wallace available for you to see. (video here.)

Arianna provides her take here.
Jane at Firedoglake and Matt at MyDD agree with Arianna.

by TChris

The compromise between three Republican senators and the Bush administration over language in legislation governing the interrogation and trial of detainees turned back the worst of the administration's intentions, but that is no reason for the bill to win the support of any Democrat -- or, for that matter, any Republican who cares about justice. When the executive branch acts both as prosecutor and as judge and jury, the only safeguard against a sham proceeding is judicial review. If a court cannot perform the limited function that habeas corpus provides -- assuring that the proceeding comported with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- the executive branch will be given the unreviewable power to imprison the innocent indefinitely.

There are other flaws in the compromise, but its prohibition of judicial review is enough to earn a filibuster. Preserving the role of the judicial branch and the right to due process and habeas corpus should be the default position of Democrats, but there's no reason to expect even a majority of elected Democrats in the Senate or House to fight for the Constitution. Too many Democrats during the Bush years have displayed their unwillingness to stand up for first principles, at risk of being labeled "soft on terror." How sad it is that politicians don't fear being labeled "soft on human rights" or "soft on the Constitution."

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

From the extreme Right Wing Republican site Red State:

Democrats have been increasingly distracted by an effort to discredit our President. In the process of carrying out this parochial assault, they have egregiously demeaned our great Republic. This has largely been ensconced in and driven by domestic political motivation but found a complimentary partner in the global socialist agenda.

. . .To make a bad situation worse, a New York neighborhood mostly inhabited by Democrats [that's Harlem to you and me, in case you weren't keeping up with the race baiting Republicans] hosts the "after party" for Chavez and cheers his anti American remarks.

. . . Appropriately, this specious attempt to advance parochial politics, disguised in the name of debate and Constitutional liberties has come full circle and roosted on their doorstep. It is an action that is un-American since it demeans our values, underestimates our intelligence and obscures or primary goal in a time of war, to keep our citizens safe.

Memo to wingnuts, "socialism" is passe as a boogeyman. It's "Islamofascism" we're aligned with now. You need a few lessons in the New McCarthyism.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Talking about race is always difficult. Talking about race issues in the Democratic Party is paradoxically more difficult as we Democrats have a hard time facing up to the problems in our midst. We're not racists we think. We fight racism. And we do. But we have race issues all the same. How to talk about them? How to do it constructively? The Clinton lunch contretemps gave us examples of good and bad ways to do it. Today, Matt Stoller discusses the Maryland Senate race and I'm not sure if I agree with Matt's approach:

I'm watching Maryland politics with tremendous interest. On the heels of Al Wynn's stolen election, I see Michael Steele attempting to run a campaign entirely based on African-American resentment of Democratic fecklessness and institutional racism. Gregory Kane at BlackAmericaWeb sums up this attitude.

Update: Chirac says the rumor is not confirmed. Time Magazine cites Saudi reports here. CNN provides update here. [hat tip Raw Story.]

*******
Via TL reader Scribe:

A French newspaper is reporting bin Laden died of typhus. The French report is said to be based on information from French intelligence services. This seems a bit tricky, and you'll see why, below. This story bears watching. Here's my translation of the text off the MDR/ARD website:

Media Report: Bin Laden has died from typhus

A French newspaper has made public new rumors about the terror chief Osama Bin Laden. According to information from intelligence agency sources, the al Qaida head has died from typhus. The newspaper "L'Est Republicain" refers to documents from the French foreign secret services, in which they have analyzed/evaluated information out of Saudi Arabia. The French government wants to make clear it is not confirming the report. The [French] Defense Ministry announced instead an investigation into how the newspaper got its hands on the report.

last updated: 23 Sept. 2006, 1:36 PM their time (7:36 AM ET)
Source: MDR Info

Following the Judges ruling on classified information Thursday in I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's criminal case, on Friday his lawyers filed a pleading entitled PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM Concerning Admissibility of Documents on Consolidated CIPA Section 5 Notice (pdf). In it, Team Libby says:

• Libby will testify in his defense at his trial
• Libby will introduce a powerpoint presentation at his trial
• Libby will seek to introduce his notes made during pertinent times
• Libby will seek to introduce classified documents, including documents pertaining to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger, which he asserts fall under four exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The AP reports on Libby's motion here.

It's probably no surprise that Libby will testify, but just a few weeks ago, when Fitz filed his opposition to Libby's motion to introduce a memory expert at trial (pdf version here), Fitz wrote (page 17, footnote 11):

Notably, defendant has not committed to testifying on his own behalf, and declines to identify which events or conversations he will claim he got right and which he innocently got wrong.

Updated Transcript here.

**********
Fox News' Chris Wallace thought he could pull a fast one of Bill Clinton during an interview that was supposed to be about Clinton's Global Initiative, which today announced the creation of a $1 billion renewable energy fund. Two questions into the interview, Wallace asked Clinton about his not having caught Osama bin Laden during his Presidency. Wallace got creamed.

Crooks and Liars has the transcript. You Tube has the video. Jane at Firedoglake weighs in. Here's the transcript: