I am now convinced that the House Dem Leadership has no clue how to end the Iraq Debacle. What convinced me is this:

[In] [a] meeting in Pelosi's office Thursday . . . Pelosi's political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). . . 's pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

Now why in the hell is that true? Why must the Dem leadership introduce such a no restrictions bill? Why would they "have no choice?" Sez who?

Anyone have something to say? Here's some space. All topics welcome.

Newcomers: links must be in html format or they skew the site (use the buttons in the comment box.)

A few months ago I wrote a post about a news article saying Google was looking to hire. In my fantasy world, I considered how much fun it would be to relocate to San Francisco and never have to write another brief. Then I checked the job offers at Google, and concluded there was not a single one I was even remotely qualified for.

Now the New York Times reports on Google's latest perk: Shuttles to work. Turns out, this is becoming Google's biggest draw as an employer. Forget the Grateful Dead chef, the real perk is the free ride to work.

So who is qualified for these jobs? I love what I do but there are some days I can't help but wonder what it would be like to have a job that had set start and stop times - where when you leave for the day, you're done until the next one. Law is never like that. You get home and still work. You go to sleep worrying about if someone is going to get off or get five years or twenty years. It never stops.

Alas, there is still nothing I can find in Google's job database that I am qualified for. What a shame. I'd so be there in a minute. At least I would on a day like today when I spent 8 hours writing and submitting a brief the outcome of which will either get my client five or twenty years. It's midnight on a Friday night and I'm still worrying.

It's 5:00 in Denver and I haven't left the computer since 7:30 am. I'm taking a break to replenish my groceries and libations. With all the Scooter Libby excitement today, I'll never sleep tonight without a little Grand Marnier.

I know there's other news, so here's a place to discuss it.

Joe Klein sez:

A left-wing extremist exhibits many, but not necessarily all, of the following attributes:

--believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

--doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

--believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives. . .

For the record, I fail, as I do not believe any of that. Go ahead, take the Left Wing Extremist test.

It's a beautiful sunny day here in Denver and I need a break from the computer. If you are stuck inside due to weather, or just feel like being online, here's a space to chat.

In a diatribe against Glenn Greenwald, Patterico seemingly agrees with at least half of what Greenwald says:

To the contrary, Greenwald insists, anonymous comments by hateful leftists prove nothing about the left generally. Nothing! . . . These comments are staggeringly hypocritical, viewed in the light of Greenwald’s extensive history of spotlighting anonymous comments at conservative blogs to reach broad-brush conclusions about the entire conservative movement.

Well, I don't know about that, but presumably Patterico agrees with one of the two alleged sentiments expressed by Glenn. Either the anonymous comments about Cheney mean NOTHING, or the anonymous comments on Right Wing blogs mean SOMETHING.

So which is it Patterico, do anonymous comments mean something? Or nothing?

I tend to the nothing school myself.

See also Atrios and Alicublog.

And the next chapter of the Walter Reed scandal, the number of mice in Walter Reed is a "national security secret":

Soldiers say their sergeant major gathered troops at 6 p.m. Monday to tell them they must follow their chain of command when asking for help with their medical evaluation paperwork, or when they spot mold, mice or other problems in their quarters.

And yes, the classification line is a joke from me. I know this is not classifying the info. It is just putting a de facto gag order on our soldiers:

Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media. “Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Say hello to the Eyewitness ID Reform Blog

I have corresponded with one of the authors, a Public Defender, and the blog is the real deal.

They will be blogging tomorrow through Saturday from the "Off the Witness Stand Conference" at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

The conference is named for Dr. Munsterberg's collection of essays, "On the Witness Stand," which urged the courts to open their doors to a plethora of social science findings that cast serious doubt on assumptions commonly relied on in criminal proceedings.

Speakers include: Janet Reno, Steven Penrod, Gary Wells, James Doyle, Saul Kassin and Tim O'Toole.

TPM Central interviews Tom Andrews on Iraq and the Dems:

The antiwar leader, Tom Andrews, the head of Win Without War . . . is warning that Congressional Dems are at risk of badly botching the public relations battle over Iraq and is urging Congressional Dems to move more aggressively to confront the Republicans in the political showdown over ending the war.

. . . "Democrats have to fight," Andrews tells us. "Where are the voices in Congress reflecting the majority view of the American people?"

. . . "The Republicans should be on their heels," Andrews says. "They have put the troops in these conditions -- and they're the ones on the offensive! There should be a relentless attack" from Dems, Andrews continues. "Dems in Congress should be talking relentlessly about the lack of equipment, the lack of training, the multiple deployments, every day. There should be a relentless demand for accountability."

While I think Andrews has to face the fact that defunding is the way to do it, I'm am with his sentiment.

I really enjoy Atrios' "Wanker of the Day" series. But today he really misses the mark though, naming Richard Cohen Wanker of the Day, thanks to some overblown reporting by Media Matters.

Today Cohen wrote a terrific column on Al Gore. It seems impossible to me that Cohen could be the Wanker of the Day for that column. If that is the worst of the day, then our work is done as bloggers and we can all go back to our previous quiet lives.

It's Tuesday open thread day. If you have something you'd like to discuss, here's a place for you.