Both the NYTimes story and this story about Tom Delay's high-flying lobbyist supported lifestyle make me wonder about the ground rules for political reporting.  A number of years ago when I lived in Washington DC, I knew a young woman who worked for a Congressional Republican who informed me that it was common knowledge on the Hill that Newt Gingrich was having an affair with a congressional committee aide.  She told me this at a time when Mr. Gingrich had a high-profile role in leading the Republican charge against Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal, thus confirming to me the man had absolutely no shame whatsoever.  Well, Newt was undone by the 98' midterm elections but I couldn't help wondering why something that was common knowledge to anyone who worked on Capitol Hill somehow didn't make it into the news until the reports of Gingrich's second divorce.  You'd think that if the President is being hounded for lying about an adulterous affair by a blowhard who at the same time is known to be having an adulterous affair that you'd have the kind of juicy hypocritical politician story that any reporter could run with, but no.  Somehow off limits, I guess?

My question is why is it that these types of stories only come out after people like Gingrich and Delay finally get in trouble and their power and influence are on the wane?  Tom Delay's a man who has been in Congress for over twenty years much of which he's shown an utter contempt for the institution of Congress and a proclivity for unethical, possibly even criminal, behavior in pursuit of political power-- he is a known entity and a slimy one at that.  Do you think that most Capital Hill reporters were not aware of the lengths Delay went to to shakedown lobbyists and pad his pockets while creating a Republican political machine in DC?  Did they not know about the junkets until the Abramoff scandal?  Was it suddenly common knowledge after he stepped down from his leadership post that Delay is a mean son-of-a bitch who stops at absolutely nothing to maintain Republican dominance in the Congress and isn't beyond using money from his own children's charity to do it?  I know this is like everyone knowing that Richard Nixon had a well-established history of lying, scapegoating and paranoid delusion and wondering why Watergate happened but come on!

Hindsight's bitch but it ain't hindsight if somebody reports this stuff when they know about it instead of waiting for these people to do some real damage. 

For those suggesting that the President's actions have put in place a system that has become a useful tool in the "war on terror" how is it that the last four years have seen amazingly few convictions of terrorist suspects?  

Sorry,forgot about rendition and being able to send "enemy combatants" to Guantanamo without trial.  Man, its hard to keep track of whether we're winning or not when everything's so hush,hush!

If I read this Editor & Publisher story correctly, it suggests that the NY Times might have tabled the NSA story for a much longer period of time if it wasn't for the fact that that information would soon be revealed in a book coming out in January, 2006. 

What the hell is going on here?  Editors at the Times knew about this before the 2004 elections but were afraid of being run out of town like Dan Rather, then hold off afterwards because of some sort of "good faith" concern about national security but then a book is coming out so finally they release it???  Could we have found out about this ten years from now at some sort of Congressional hearing because Bill Keller was too chickenshit to publish it when it was most relevant?  No wonder the Times (especially under the leadership of Bill Keller) gets so much crap for its incompetence. 

President doesn't believe Tom Delay is innocent, he was just expressing confidence in the justice system--same justice system he chose to ignore in the name of national security.

It will be interesting to hear Jack Abramoff's story if he does decide to plead and testify especially after so many of his underlings and associates have already decided to do so.  Most news reports have rightly noted that this could be a big blow to the Republican establishment in D.C. although I'm sure at some point any Democratic lawmaker that happened to stand next to Mr. Abramoff at a Capitol Hill urinal will probably be implicated as well.   

Although the media will ultimately abdicate its watchdog title and opt for a safe but distorted "pox on both houses" type of story, Josh Marshall, who has done an amazing job of covering this over the last year, directs our attention to the fact that every single person indicted in relation to Jack Abramoff's activities has been a Republican, and almost all have strong ties to Tom Delay's political machine.  If you were to look at a chart of those with direct connections to Jack Abramoff's Indian Casino scam it is virtually all Delay or Norquist associates, and that's just the Indian Casino scam.  What is so scary about pointing out the obvious?  

Man, this was pretty predictable.  You mean purely domestic calls were also intercepted by the NSA?  I know that's hard to believe because the President, Vice-President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, assorted US Senators, as well as various pundits and commentators have all said that no such thing could ever happen, and moreover we were assured that there are definite limits being imposed on this secret surveillance program....even though we don't know by whom. 

I guess we're gonna need some new NSA shift supervisors or something to deal with the so-called technical glitches.  Of course that would never be a problem if the American people had been kept in the dark about this as the President intended.

I guess I'd expect this from the former Attorney General of the State of Texas.

I'm sure Mr.Bush had to go out of his way to lie like this to protect the American people.  After all, no American would get upset if you told him or her that the President gave the go-ahead to a secretive government agency like the NSA to possibly listen in on their phone calls or read their e-mails.  Stuff like that doesn't ever happen, right?

(via Atrios)

Update (12/20/05):  Hey, let's check out some video of one such event.

 "An open debate would say to the enemy, `Here is what we're going to do.' And this is an enemy which adjusts."

Some basic thoughts:

• I assume that an organization like Al-Qaeda has shown that it is sophisticated enough to know that we will try to monitor their activities and we have a lot of amazing technology that allows us to do just that.  Frankly they will also continue to try to find new ways to evade our surveillance whether they are aware of the extent of our capabilities or not.  They will adjust regardless of what we do because they want to survive and continue to hurt us.
• I suggest that the PATRIOT act was passed after a certain amount of open democratic debate but somehow that debate or the fact that anyone can currently purchase a copy of the act didn't explain to our enemies, "Here is what we're going to do."  As evidence that it did not signal our intentions to our enemies the Executive Branch and the Republican Congressional leadership are pushing hard to get its many provisions renewed.  Presumably if recent disclosures are true, the President wasted a lot of time asking Congress to write and pass the PATRIOT act because he already had the power to make it so through secret executive order.
• To my knowledge the US Congress has yet to have extensive open floor debates over specific methods for gathering intelligence for if I'm not mistaken most such discussion happens behind closed doors within the intelligence committees, usually in consultation with the Executive Branch.  However, I do know that Congress gets a little riled up when it finds out after the fact the President single-handedly ordered a secret program of domestic surveillance and calls for investigations and hearings naturally occur when that happens!  The "Keep Congress Out of the Loop" or "Democracy be Damned" national security crowd never seems to learn this and tend to pay for their arrogance regardless of the merits of what they propose.
• The law is pretty clear and the FISA courts almost never turned down an eavesdropping warrant so we actually need something more than well-worn platitudes that begin with "9/11" or "I did what I did to protect the American people". 

Enter the President.  Why would anyone entrust their government to a man so disinterested in or ignorant of the basic operations of democratic governance?  A man whose grasp of the situation is so simple that he is absolutely unaware he has basically admitted to criminal impeachable activity.  A man who is arrogant enough to basically not only say that he alone knows what's right for the American people, but that criticism of his inherent magnificence is clearly an attack on the will of the American people and thus illegitimate and dangerous. 

How did we get to this point and what do the next few years hold?  Seriously!

Kevin Drum offers the suggestion that since just about everyone involved in this fiasco has mentioned some sort of technical or technological imperative in defense of their actions that maybe the NSA has some sort of new data-mining capability that goes beyond our notion of wiretapping.  As Kevin notes, however, the key question is this:

"What kind of program is so intrusive that even Republicans, even with 9/11 still freshly in mind, wouldn't have supported it?"

Better yet, another question might be:

"Since the Bush Administration can count on Congressional Republicans to neither criticize nor investigate its actions, what threshold of illegality does that same Administration have to pass for Congressional Republicans to actually do something about it?"

Okay which one is right?  Bounce or no bounce?

How about a list of recent approval polls?  See any particular patterns that give a definitive answer?  Could we call this inconclusive at this point?

First the Pentagon admits they've been monitoring anti-war groups.  Then it comes out the President illegally authorized secret wiretaps using an agency that is not suppose to do domestic spying.  Now it comes out that the FBI was tasked with watching Greenpeace, PETA, Catholic Workers and some unknown vegan group?   Why???  What's next?  Who's next?

Question for the Attorney General:  Alright, who are these "certain members of Congress" you talked to and if they told you your plan would never be approved by Congress, why did you go ahead and continue with it anyway?

I read through the transcript kinda quickly but did General Hayden say that in effect an NSA shift supervisor has more power over this surveillance policy than any member of Congress or the courts?  And they think that that's legal and above board?  Man, if I hear him say "efficiency" one more time I think I'm gonna break something.

I'm at the point at which I'm not sure why anyone asks Mr. Cheney anything and expects anything less than a load of horseshit.  In an Administration that prides itself on its deceit and secrecy, this man stands head and shoulders above everyone in the level of mendacity he's willing to stoop to. 

Tonight he's at it again trying out the Administrations new line of defense: 9/11 wouldn't have happened if only the President had been secretly wiretapping the phones of American citizens before September 2001.  Besides the fact that this Administration already had the power to order wiretaps with the rubberstamp approval of the FISA court before 9/11, me thinks that the Vice-President had a number of other opportunities to do something that he, the President and everyone else in the Administration casually ignored.  For example, if the FBI and CIA are concerned about all manner of terrorist chatter over the summer of 2001 what's the first thing you do?  That's right, take the entire month of August off on vacation at the ranch.  Clinton administration officials give you briefing books and other plans emphasizing the need for going after Al-Qaeda, well why not just ignore them wholesale and say you'll convene a task-force on terrorism that never meets.  Get a PDB report with the title, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" why interrupt your vacation or look into the matter further.  Better yet, don't mention that any of these things happened in the months leading up to that terrible day because its so hard to rally the country when they know just how incompetent you are. 

Okay, I don't expect the Vice-President to mention any of this and I'll be absolutely shocked if anyone on Nightline asks about it but their use of September 11th to justify just about anything they do is at this point absolutely criminal.

John Aravois over at AmericaBlog offers an interesting take on the Bush wiretapping fiasco and suggests the intentional avoidance of FISA regulations may have happened because American journalists were possible targets. 

Here's Chris Allbritton, an American journalist in Iraq who wants to know if he's on the list...

Mark Kleiman asks a couple good questions.

Its quite amazing to watch Administration officials flop around on the question of where the President derived the authority to secretly authorize wiretaps on American citizens.  On Sunday it was Condi's turn and she proved that indeed she isn't a lawyer.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Attorney General will be able to clear things up seeing as several people have already noted that he either lied or obfuscated at his confirmation hearings when asked directly if the President could ignore statutes and authorize violations of the criminal law. 

Trust me, l'etat c'est moi!

President has yet to consult dictionary on meaning of the word "credibility".

Support for staying in Iraq dwindling.

Bush beats the bejesus out of a dead horse.

Kudos to northwoods1 over at Daily Kos for pointing out that among the many charges listed in count two of the articles of impeachment drawn up for Richard Nixon was illegally wiretapping the phones of American citizens without obtaining a court order.  I could be wrong but seems like we were fighting a war when that whole Watergate mess happened and lo and behold claims of protecting national security were thrown about in the name of covering up all manner of domestic abuses by the Nixon administration.  Maybe tonight we'll hear George Bush say, "When the President does it, that means its not illegal.", too.

Man, I'm screwed if Mao's "On Guerilla Warfare" is also on the list....

The US has so much respect for the sovereignty of Iraq that Vice President Cheney came to visit and no one bothered to tell the country's president about it.  Seems US officials can naturally come and go in that country without any formal visas or making it known to the elected leaders of the Iraqi government.  I'm sure we'll do a better job of recognizing Iraqi sovereignty after all the votes are counted and a new government is formed, right?

I was originally kinda amused by this exchange between Bob Barr and Dana Rohrabacher on CNN but the more of the transcript I read the angrier I got.  I think the thing that riled me the most was Mr. Rohrabacher's constant refrain of "this president" as in this controversy is not about the office of the President and the powers held therein, but about the "majesty" of one George W. Bush.  Frankly, I couldn't think of a more unconservative notion then to trust so much in the goodwill and benevolence of one human being, especially when we're talking about American democracy and governing the country.  Our government was founded on the notion that no one man should have the kind of powers our President essentially assumes he is entitled to but for Rohrabacher and others of his ilk they couldn't be happier because they never really gave a shit about the Constitution or democracy to begin with.  They're the people who used to sit back and admire how efficiently the Soviet Union was able to pursue its interest by squashing all dissent and used to say as much when people questioned the likes of Nixon or Reagan.  They're the people who like to foment fears of war and terrorism because it justifies their disregard for what they perceive as the weakness of democracy; respect for the laws that check the powers of our elected leaders. 

On the other hand, Mr. Rohrabacher is quite the partisan Republican.   I suspect that if a President Clinton had secretly done what Mr. Bush did he would be beating his chest with his copy of the Constitution arguing the President dangerously violated the rights of American and raising questions about whether or not enemies of the White House were being targeted by these illegal wiretaps.  Good question, really.  If Mr. Rohrabacher had any principles he wouldn't be taking the President at his word he would be asking to see the list of those targeted.  He wouldn't be singing the President's praises, he'd be looking into why the President needs to secretly bypass all current legal regulations on domestic surveillance when as Josh Marshall points out the Attorney General can currently order immediate wiretaps and get FISA court approval as many as three days later.  That fact alone suggests maybe this Administration didn't want to go to the FISA court because they didn't want any scrutiny of wiretaps targeting more than just terrorist suspects.  I'm sorry, but in the America I grew up in it was never enough for the President to say "trust me I have your best interests at heart", but then again principled conservatives like Mr. Rohrabacher who should stand up and check such arrogance obviously could care less.

If you've ever wondered why the President is so self-assured when it comes to flaunting the Constitution and all manner of international treaties he swore to uphold in his oath of office then you need look no further than this man: John Yoo, constitutional revisionist and in-demand conservative legal hack.  Take a long look at Prof. Yoo's greatest hits and it doesnt' take much to figure out why he continues to be the most influential legal mind in White House circles.

Ever wonder what its like to be the guy or gal who writes the newspaper headlines?  Well I have, and as a salute to their efforts I thought I'd look at their work and offer my own headlines.  Here goes...

President flip-flops on Torture Ban.

White House and House Republican gamesmanship on Patriot Act fails horribly. 

After forgetting to put together a plan for rebuilding, President opts to throw money at New Orleans.

Bush takes a page out of the East German secret police playbook.

President once again admits the obvious.

Man, this is fun!

Another weird turn in the Abramoff case comes to us courtesy of Businessweek via Laura Rozen and Jim Romensko.  It appears Doug Bandow, a fellow at the CATO institute, who also has a syndicated column, took money from Abramoff to write columns favorable to his many clients.  Yes, evidently the practice is more widespread than acknowledged in the world of conservative think tanks.  

Odder still was Bandow choosing to resign instead of sticking by his libertarian principles and arguing for the sanctity of the freedom of contract in the manufacture and sale of his intellectual property.  What kinda wimps are the Cato people employing?

Kudos to Paul Waldman over at the Gadflyer for bringing us this poem from John Dingell which was read on the House floor last night:

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed `bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.
Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ..... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.
We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.
This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.
At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a made-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.
'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,
a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, happy holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas!

 

The "war" is joined indeed...have a Happy Holidays!  Whoops!

 

Update (12/16/05):  Crooks and Liars has the video.  Enjoy!

Did anyone notice this?  Think Progress is reporting that the President has once again announced that Condi Rice will be in charge of the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq.  They also note that this is the third time in as many years that the President has entrusted Ms. Rice with that mission and so far she's been a no show every time.  If only the man knew a few other qualified people he could trust?

For those hoping that Tom Delay's legal and ethical problems will just go away I can only say that you'll be waiting an awfully long time.  With the extent of Mr. Delay's good friend Jack Abramoff's legal liabilities becoming clearer and clearer, it appears that Ronnie Earle's case might be the least of Tom's worries.  Today Atrios gives us this Austin-American Statesman article about an Abramoff run charity that collected a lot of money and then neglected to give it to the groups listed on its financial statements.  Whoops!   Seems at the same time the charity was taking in this money, Mr. Delay was seeking to use said charity to raise several hundred thousands of dollars for some unknown purpose...anyone remember those stories from the summer leading up to the Republican National Convention?  Josh Marshall's political slush fund theory is looking pretty good these days.

A lot of hand-wringing has been going on about Joe Lieberman's amazing knack for self-promotion while undercutting his own Party's political message.  This was on display a week ago when he suggested Democrats had to get with the Bush program and not undercut the Presidents "credibility" while we're at war.  Someone forgot to tell Joe that the President ran out of credibility on the subject quite some time ago without the help of the Democrats but you get what I'm saying.  Now I'm not going to jump up and down, declare Lieberman a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) and advocate pushing him out of the Party as some bloggers have done, but I do think that Mr. Lieberman has garnered a great deal of praise and attention as a statesman and man of principle that is wholly undeserved. 

That reputation for high-mindedness was developed at a time when the media put a premium on that ill-defined concept known as "bipartisanship".  Washington's being poisoned by "partisan" attacks the story went and more needed to be done to get the parties to work together despite themselves.  Enter Joe Lieberman.  Lieberman, who up to that point had only distinguished himself by being devoutly religious and railing against offensive rap lyrics, clothed himself in the flag of "bipartisanship" and woe to anyone who didn't subscribe to his same high sense of virtue.  In fact, Lieberman got so caught up in this vaguely defined term "bipartisanship" that his standard response to any question was, "My party needs to drop its partisan attacks today and we need to work with Republicans.  Tomorrow we will look at the problem and people will be held accountable."  This lead someone to describe him as the "man for whom tomorrow never comes" as in it sounded good and the pundits love holding up Democrats who attack there own party as realists and honest statemen but Joe was always a no-show on the follow through.  Before you knew it the man was his party's Vice-Presidential nominee and proceeded to show why he lacked the charisma, gravitas or political support to win at the national level.  Better to stick to the Sunday morning talk-shows where you always have an open invitation, especially if you'll attack members of your own party.

Which brings me to Marshall Wittman's defense of Lieberman.  Wittman wants the story to be that liberals in the Democratic party are pushing someone with a more principled view on Iraq (ie. Bipartisan Joe) out and sending the message to like-minded Democrats and Independents around the country that they are not welcome...but me thinks he overreaches.  No one has quite explained to me why leaders of the Party need to agree with Joe Lieberman's view on anything yet alone that everything is going well in Iraq and the President knows what he's doing.  Was Harry Reid being dishonest when he said that few Americans yet alone Democrats believe that the President knows what he'd doing in Iraq?  For some reason when your dealing with a centrist DLC Democrat (Harry Reid is one too if I'm not mistaken?) the issue is always about how the liberals are persecuting us and destroying the Democratic Party yet the only one who benefits is Mr. Lieberman who gets to forego any sort of real scrutiny of his ideas and garner positive publicity in the process. 

Well let's look at the Lieberman plan for Iraq.  Lieberman calls for a Bipartisan War Cabinet...huh?  That is his big new strategy informed by his sterling foreign policy and political credentials... a "war cabinet"?    Better yet does he even realize that this follows another pattern of being an enabler of bad policies and politics?  After all Gore didn't pick him for his political or legislative abilities, but because he had criticized Bill Clinton and Al was looking to distance himself from the impeachment saga.  Now when more answers should be coming from the Bush administration about their lack of a strategy for Iraq, Mr. Lieberman says Democrats should be members of his executive cabinet so they too can share in the blame for Mr. Bush's ongoing disaster of a non-strategy.  Worse yet he does it at a time when the Bush people are desperate for someone dumb enough to give them the semblance of bipartisan support.  Christ, give me a break!  Who is this guy and why do people take him seriously?  

By a 65%-19% margin, Americans age 65 and above disapprove of the performance of Congress; those under 65 are also negative but less lopsidedly, 58%-27%. Moreover, senior citizens say by 47%-37% that they want Democrats rather than Republicans to win control of Capitol Hill. Those under 65 prefer a Democratic victory by a narrower 45%-39% margin.

Over the summer I read a wonderful book about the fall of South Vietnam titled "Decent Interval" by Frank Snepp, a CIA analyst stationed at the US embassy in Saigon.  Snepp weaves an amazing tale of heroism, self-delusion and cynical political maneuvering that is as engrossing as it is disheartening.  One of the more disturbing aspects of the book for me was the extent to which the United States actually controlled and directed what happened in the South Vietnamese government, even up to the last helicopters leaving the embassy compound.  From President Thieu to the military to the local field police Snepp consults with to the ordinary Vietnamese employed by the US government, everyone is so conditioned to waiting for the Americans to provide direction, or step in to save the day, that it is clear Snepp really isn't talking about a sovereign nation anymore but some sort of American protectorate or colony hopelessly incapable of pulling itself together or standing on it's own. 

Now I don't blame the Vietnamese for this mindset, after all it was the result of more than fifteen years of American high-handed meddling in South Vietnamese domestic politics and endless broken promises but I can't help but be alarmed when I see the same patterns in Iraq. 

Question: At a time when we are trying to portray to the world that through elections the Iraqi people are taking their future into their own hands and that democracy will create a stronger,more peaceful and united Iraq, how is it that the US ambassador can get up and just declare that the US military will oversee and inspect Iraqi-run prisons? 

Now, this isn't the best example because I don't condone torture or sectarian violence, but if Iraq is to be a viable sovereign country, at what point do we step back and let them be sovereign?  At what point is our US ambassador to Iraq just another foreign representative and not some quasi-imperial viceroy?  At what point do the Iraqis take over and make their own decision, good or bad, and have to deal with the consequences?  If the answer is that things are way too complicated or we don't want Iranian influence or we don't trust this group or that then what does it say about the enterprise as a whole?  We've spent a lot of time, money and blood with the oft stated purpose that we want the Iraqis to be free and running their own affairs but no one has bothered to ask if we're actually serious about this or just making it up as we go. 

I think history tells us the kind of quasi-colonial puppet-government that underlies Snepp's tale is pragmatic for a time but ultimately untenable and self-defeating...regardless of where you stand on the war I think you'll also agree that it really isn't fair to the people of Iraq or their hopes for the future, either.

As rebuilding New Orleans falls farther and farther off the screen, Daniel Gross puts things in perspective and reminds us of an earlier rebuilding effort undertaken by the federal government known as the Marshall Plan.  Frankly it would strain credulity to suggest this administration could come up with anything resembling a viable plan but take a look at the numbers and wonder at the magic of inflation and the paltriness of our current efforts.  Man, I love that "the devastation is so big..." line.

More from the Boy in the Bubble:

One House Republican, who asked not to be identified for fear of offending the White House, recalls a summertime meeting with congressmen in the Roosevelt Room at which Bush enthusiastically talked up his Social Security reform plan. But the plan was already dead—as everyone except the president had acknowledged. Bush seemed to have no idea. "I got the sense that his staff was not telling him the bad news," says the lawmaker. "This was not a case of him thinking positive. He just didn't have any idea of the political realities there. It was like he wasn't briefed at all."  (Bush was not clueless, says an aide, but pushing his historic mission.)

In subtle ways, Bush does not encourage truth-telling or at least a full exploration of all that could go wrong. A former senior member of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad occasionally observed Bush on videoconferences with his top advisers. "The president would ask the generals, 'Do you have what you need to complete the mission?' as opposed to saying, 'Tell me, General, what do you need to win?' which would have opened up a whole new set of conversations," says this official, who did not want to be identified discussing high-level meetings. The official says that the way Bush phrased his questions, as well as his obvious lack of interest in long, detailed discussions, had a chilling effect. "It just prevented the discussion from heading in a direction that would open up a possibility that we need more troops," says the official.

This is our President.

Congressmen from his own party have been in open rebellion. At their annual leadership retreat at a luxury resort overlooking the Chesapeake Bay two weeks ago, senior congressmen tore into White House aides Card and Counselor Dan Bartlett. The normally mild-mannered Speaker Dennis Hastert, who usually likes to operate behind closed doors, announced to the group, which included staffers as well as members, that the White House had "blown it" when it came to handling congressional relations. There was still incredulity over the Murtha outburst demanding a troop withdrawal from Iraq. "They should have seen that coming like a freight train," said a top Republican. "In any White House the cardinal rule is no surprises," said Duberstein. "I was somewhat surprised, I admit," Card told NEWSWEEK. At the retreat, the Hill Republicans told the White House to do a better job of selling economic progress. The next day the White House put Bush into the Rose Garden to spin good news on the economy.

The election can't come quick enough.

The story of Capitol Manor.  A must read.

"Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's pre-war assertion that the United States would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators.

"'I think we are welcomed' he said. 'But it was not a peaceful welcome.'"

March 20, 2003.  The U.S. opens its war against Saddam Hussein.  That was one thousand days ago.  In those thousand days, 2347 coalition troops have been killed.  That's 2.3 every single day.   15,995 troops have been wounded in action.  That's 16 per day.  Total U.S. casualities are 18,141.  That's 18 per day.  President Bush indicated yesterday that 30,000 Iraqis have been killed.  That's 30 every single day or 10 9/11's in two plus years, all for a country less than 10% our size.  To relate what's going on in Iraq to our own situation, if this was our country, it would be 100 9/11's and 300 people killed a day.  Three hundred thousand U.S. citizens would be dead.  The United States has paid $204.4 billion dollars fighting the war, even while promoting tax cuts at home.  The World Bank estimates the cost of reconstruction alone to be 35 billion dollars.     82% of Iraqi's are "strongly opposed" to our presence.

Iran is operating a "fifth column inside the U.S.-backed Iraqi government, running death squads and operating a network of secret prisons."   According to U.S. General George Casey, the Iranians are "putting millions of dollars into the south to influence the elections ... it's funded primarily through their charity organizations and also Badr and some of these political parties."  The leader of the Badr Brigade doesn't deny it:  "We are funded by some (Persian) Gulf countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran. We don't hide it."   Can we do anything about it?  Apparently, no:  "Col. Joseph DiSalvo, who commands a brigade of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division in eastern Baghdad, where there's a heavy Shiite militia presence, said it would be all but impossible for the American military to defeat the militias."

That's just the government folks--don't forget the insurgents:

It is extremely difficult to attack and defeat because it does not have unitary or cohesive structure or a rigid hierarchy within the larger movements. The larger movements seem to have leadership, planning, financing, and arming cadres kept carefully separate from most operational cells in the field. Accordingly, defeating a given cell, regional operation, or even small organization does not defeat the insurgency, although it can weaken it.

The insurgency has effectively found a form of low-technology "swarm" tactics that is superior to what the high-technology Coalition and Iraqi forces have been able to find as a counter. It can move slowly, in cycles, and episodically, and concentrate on highly vulnerable targets at the time of its choosing.

The ability to "swarm" against vulnerable civil and military targets at the time of the insurgent's choosing, and focus on political and media effects, sharply reduces the need to fight battles -- particularly if the odds are against the insurgents.

Needless to say, this war has not been worth the cost to anyone.  Except perhaps Halliburton, whose stock traded at $9 in mid-2002.  It is currently quoted at $66.96.

Oh, and Osama bin Laden is still at large.