Only in America, folks. Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib during the height of the prisoner abuse, is in line for a promotion by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Talk about adding insult to injury.

Such a move, which has been urged by senior U.S. Army officers and civilian officials now that an Army inquiry has cleared Sanchez of wrongdoing, seems to reflect a growing confidence that the military has put the abuse scandal behind it. It is one of two changes being considered that would involve new posts for senior generals who had previously been ruled out for nominations to the commands because of the U.S. Senate's outrage over Abu Ghraib, the officials say.

What kind of message would this send to the Arab world....that not only don't we hold senior Administration officials accountable for what happens on their watch, but we reward them with promotions? [link via Huffington Post.]

The AP reports that the July issue of GQ magazine (subscription only) features an interview by Lisa De Paulo with three U.S. soldiers who guarded Saddam after his 2003 capture. They say he's friendly - and a hygiene nut.

Thrust unexpectedly into the role of prison guards for Saddam Hussein, a group of young American soldiers found the deposed Iraqi leader to be a friendly, talkative "clean freak" who loved Raisin Bran for breakfast, did his own laundry and insisted he was still president of Iraq, says a report published on Monday.

Saddam liked Ronald Reagan, thought Clinton was okay, and initially disliked the Bushes:

"The Bush father, son, no good," one of the soldiers, Cpl. Jonathan "Paco" Reese, 22, of Millville, Pa., quotes Saddam as saying. But his fellow GI, Specialist Sean O'Shea, then 19, says Saddam later softened that view. "Towards the end he was saying that he doesn't hold any hard feelings and he just wanted to talk to Bush, to make friends with him," O'Shea, of Minooka, Pa., told the magazine.

A third soldier, Spc. Jesse Dawson, quoted Saddam as saying of Bush, "'He knows I have nothing, no mass weapons. He knows he'll never find them.'"

The soldier's are not breaking rules with the interview. Their agreement with the Government pertains to logistics of Saddam's detention but not their interaction with him.

With all the calls for an exit strategy from Iraq, maybe this bill introduced in Congress on Thursday could gather momentum. From Democracy Rising:

A Bi-partisan group of Members of Congress - two Republicans and two Democrats - introduced the Homeward Bound Act on June 16, 2005 to begin the process of putting in place an exit strategy from Iraq. The resolution calls for bringing the troops home no later than October 1, 2006. Below are statements from the website of three of the original co-sponsors. Two other Members immediately joined as sponsors Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Martin Meehan (D-MA).

A bi-partisan group of legislators have introduced a bill seeking an exit plan for Bush's increasingly unpopular war:

A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a resolution that would require Bush to submit a plan for troop withdrawal by the end of the year and to begin the pullout by October 2006. "After 2 1/2 years, it's right to take a fresh look. We have a right to ask, 'What are the goals?' " said Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, one of the Republican sponsors of the measure.

"It's time to get serious about an exit strategy," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, a Democratic sponsor. Other sponsors of the resolution include Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) and Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Petaluma).

It's time to get out of this war with no end.

David Corn, at the Nation:

All of this contradicts what Bush told Americans before the invasion of Iraq. He and his aides claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, that Hussein was producing and stockpiling biological and chemical weapons, that Baghdad was in cahoots with al Qaeda, and that the intelligence obtained by the United States and other governments (presumably including the Brits) left "no doubt" that Iraq posed a direct WMD threat to the United States.

The British memos are further evidence that Bush overstated the main reasons for the war. They also show that his key line of defense is bunk. When confronted with questions about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush and his allies have consistently pointed to bad intelligence. But the previously released Downing Street memos and the new ones indicate that the Brits--who had access to the prewar intelligence--saw that the WMD case (based on that intelligence) was, as Jack Straw observed, weak. One might ask, why did they have such a different take than the one Bush shared with the public?

[hat tip Atrios.]

The U.S. today announced it has captured al-Zarqawi's top aide in Mosul.

This guy must have an unlimited supply of top aides. As noted by What Really Happened, this is the 5th one captured since May.

Update: 2:30 pm (ET) It's starting. Watch online on C-Span 3 here. First witness will be former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Update: Raw Story has the latest statement from Rep. Conyers and the news that 122 Democrats have now signed on to his request that President Bush explain his actions.

***********
Original Post:

The hearing on the Downing Street Memo is today at 2:30 pm. C-Span 3 is providing live coverage. You can listen live at Radio Left or Pacifica. The Los Angeles Times has published these links to the British Iraq Memos (pdf):

• Legal Background
• Options Paper
• Ricketts Memo
• Straw Memo
• Meyer Memo
• Manning Memo

Don't forget to check updates on After Downing Street and Downing Street Memo.

The Iraq tribunal that will be trying Saddam Hussein has released a video of him being interrogated.

The incident Mr. Hussein was questioned about involved the 1982 killings of up to 160 men took place in Dujail, a predominantly Shiite village north of Baghdad, where Mr. Hussein had survived an assassination attempt that year.

These killings form the basis of one of the charges against him. You can watch the video here.

New York Times Sunday Magazine

• Joseph Lelyveld: Interrogating Ourselves. I found it difficult reading and disappointing in its lack of a firm stand against torture and accountability. He seems to be saying (and I didn't read the entire 13 page article) that the American people didn't demand a full investigation because they weren't willing to take a firm stand against torture-lite - and either is he. Plenty of us have called for a full investigation into torture lite. Congress just isn't listening. It's so much more convenient to buy into the "few bad apples" meme.

Time Magazine's Series on Guantanamo

• Inside the Interrogation of Detainee 063
• Extracts from an Interrogation Log
• Guantanamo Photos

The Sunday Times On Line

• Ministers Told of Need for Excuse for Gulf War
• July 22 Office Briefing Paper

Bloggers on the Sunday Times OnLine Article:

• Juan Cole
• Jack Balkin
• Billmon
• The Heretik has questions for Scott McClellan
• Blah 3

Both the Washington Post and the Times Online have updates on the July, 2002 briefing paper (of which the Downing Street Memo was a part.) The Times Online report has these new details:

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal. The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

In May, the Times Online outlined the briefing memo here. (our post on this is here.) The full text of the paper is here.

Crooks and Liars has lots of Dowing Street Memo coverage today.

Last weekend, I e-mailed my Senators about concerns over the Downing Street Memo, using a form from After Downing Street.org. I haven't heard back from Sen. Ken Salazar, but here is the response I received from Senator Wayne Allard:

Dear Jeralyn:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about our country's leadership. I appreciate you taking the time to write.

I do believe that President Bush has truthfully stated the reasons to go to war in Iraq. In doing so we have maintained a coalition with many other countries throughout the world, including Britain. I do feel that the President has done a good job at trying to rebuild Iraq. It will not be an easy or quickly resolved task, but we will do our best to help Iraq to become a stable and productive country.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website.

Eric Boehlert asks what took so long in bringing the Downing Street Memo to the media's attention?

Why did it take more than a month for the U.S. press to report on the serious revelations in the Downing Street memo?

[link via Atrios.]

Update:

Freeway Blogger