In 2004, Tom Friedman was interviewed by Charlie Rose. He famously said "The Iraq War was the United States saying "suck on this." Friedman said the Iraq Debacle was "unquestionably" the right thing to do.

Today he writes:

I have never bought the argument that Iraq was the bad war, Afghanistan the good war and Pakistan the necessary war. Folks, they’re all one war with different fronts.

This is, of course, nonsense. All one war? Sheesh. Moreover it is nonsense Friedman cannot even sustain through this very column:

The conservative faithful cling to the belief that racism doesn't exist in our society -- or, if it does, it is racism directed against beleaguered whites. Some conservatives, fearing the repercussions of a full-frontal assault upon Sonia Sotomayor, have shied away from bellicose charges that Judge Sotomayor is a racist, although RNC Chairman Michael Steele recently fanned those flames by saying: "God help you if you’re a white male coming before her bench." (Steele's evidence that white males have not fared well before Judge Sotomayor during her 17 years on the bench is nonexistent, but ignorance of the facts has never stopped Steele or his conservative cohorts from expressing an opinion.)

The right wing Judicial Confirmation Network raised the divisive issue of racism less directly by griping about a memo Sotomayor and two other board members of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund signed in 1981 that said "capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society." These are fighting words to the conservative mind, which not only denies the reality of racism but believes capital punishment is fair, just and necessary (except, perhaps, for the likes of Scott Roeder, who will not face the death penalty for his alleged murder of Dr. George Tiller). The Network's counsel relied upon the 1981 memo when she warned the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor is "a hard-left liberal judicial activist."

[more ...]

As promised, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut vetoed a bill that would have abolished the state's death penalty. While Rell privately agrees that capital punishment is not a deterrent, her veto message stressed the need to send a "clear message to those who may contemplate such cold, calculated crimes." Tough on crime posturing again triumphs over sound policy.

Is anyone else troubled by the notion that an arsonist has been sentenced to death because firefighters died trying to protect property from the fire he set?

Raymond Lee Oyler set a number of fires (perhaps as many as 25) in and around Riverside County, California in the summer and fall of 2006. On October 26, he started a fire at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains that spread rapidly up the hillsides. Five firefighters from a U.S. Forest Service firefighting crew were engulfed in and killed by "a wall of flames" while trying to save an unoccupied house in a canyon.

Oyler's five murder convictions may be reasonable on the theory that he should have anticipated his actions could cause deaths. But death is not an inevitable consequence of arson, and the prosecution admitted that Oyler did not start the fires with the intent to kill firefighters (or anyone else). A compulsion to set fires isn't the moral equivalent of a compulsion to kill. Oyler's death sentence is unwarranted.

It's a night fever night fever . . .

Not liking 1970s Travolta? An alternative on the flip.

Seeking an unprecedented jockey triple crown (on different horses), Calvin Borel will be back on Mine That Bird, the Kentucky Derby winner, as the connections to Preakness winning filly Rachel Alexandra decided to not run her in the Belmont.

Andrew Beyer's take - he likes Dunkirk, arguing that Mine That Bird's come from behind/Silky Sullivan style is not favored by the Belmont Park track. We shall see.

UPDATE - Summer Bird wins. Mine That Bird and Borel finish third.

An interesting paradox is presented by this story:

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial. . . . American military justice law, which is the model for the military commission rules, bars members of the armed services who are facing capital charges from pleading guilty. Partly to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty.

So by placing people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a military commission system, the Bush Administration (and now by extension, the Obama Administration) has inadvertently forced the issue of torture into the equation. Of course, in civil courts, KSM and others like him could plead guilty (in spite of the torture committed upon them) and the issue of torture would not require the airing military commissions would require. As an ACLU spokesman puts it:

Enjoy the weekend. This is an Open Thread.

Here is the President's weekly address:

I must say this seems a surprising development to me:

I [Orin Kerr] have accepted a position as Special Counsel for Supreme Court Nominations for Senator John Cornyn for the duration of the Sotomayor nomination.

Kerr's blogging on Sotomayor has been, how can I put this - sane, reasonable and intelligent. And generally speaking, Prof. Kerr is one the brightest and most reasonable minds on the Right. Something does not add up here.

Speaking for me only

The eagle flies on a Friday - or so BB King sang, but I'm feeling Kind of Blue:

But So what? It's your turn. This is an Open Thread.

Post Script - I would write something about the National Review cover of Sotomayor as . . . well I really do not know what the hell it is supposed to be representing, but it is so stupidly incoherent that I do not know what to say other than what everybody already knows - Rich Lowry is an idiot.

As regular readers know, I am a strong advocate of Jack Balkin's theories of constitutional interpretation. Here he writes on the related idea of judicial activism. Well worth the read. See also Heather Gerken's response. I think Gerken's piece gets to it a bit better frankly. Both worth reading.

Here's a video:

This is an Open Thread.

Jane explains why:

Leadership needs 18 votes out of the 51 Democrats who originally voted against the supplemental in order to pass this bill. Since 35 of the 51 are members of the original Out of Iraq caucus, and several freshmen (including Alan Grayson, Eric Massa and Donna Edwards) ran as strong anti-war candidates, I don't think that challenge will be easily surmounted. In addition, 33 members subsequently signed on to a letter expressing concern after the Senate added the IMF funding -- and 12 of those originally voted "yea" on the supplemental. Add to that the Democrats who will bristle at being forced to sign on to Lieberman's civil liberties nightmare and I think opponents of the war have a very good chance of defeating the supplemental, or forcing conditions on its passage.

Jane has a neat action tool for letting the Congress know how you feel. Use it.

Speaking for me only