Yes, hard to believe.  U.S. immigration agents grab a Syrian-born Canadian citizen labeled a "terrorist suspect" and send him to Syria, by way of Jordan, all because we have guarantees that the Syrian government will not torture him and yet imagine our surprise when, yep, they tortured him.  

You say this doesn't make a lot of sense because why else would we send a terrorist suspect to a country known for its use of torture and lack of respect for basic human rights? 

Good question, yet this is basically what the Attorney General (ie. highest law enforcement official in the land) said in a news conference the other day and he has used this line repeatedly since the beginning of the year when the Maher Arar case first surfaced.  A number of articles regarding the case noted that U.S. officials were concerned about sending Arar to Syria due to the issue of torture, but evidently it never occurred to them to turn him over to Canadian authorities... he is a naturalized Canadian citizen after all. 

No, they didn't turn him over to Canadian authorities probably because they thought Canadian respect for due process of law would meant Arar would eventually be released.  As it turns out he should have been released but what does the whole affair really say about us?  Seriously, what the hell are we doing and will we even recognize what we've become when its all over?  Anyone else see the strange disconnect of one week bashing Syria for its support of Hezbollah, the next dropping off our latest batch of suspected terrorists to be "interrogated"?

I'm reminded of something one of my D.C. friends said a few years ago.  Upon graduating from Georgetown law, she took a job with the FTC at the beginning of the President's first term and knowing her politics I asked if she had any concerns that the new administration's anti-regulation rhetoric would make her job particularly difficult.  She replied that as a rule, Republicans are real big on enforcing the laws on the books but are resistant to legislating or creating new laws and regulations to solve any given problem.  Funny how that passed for conventional wisdom only five years ago.....

If we attack Iran, the Iran-allied government of Iraq will be in dire straits.  First, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Iranian-backed party which in large part, runs Iraq, will be torn.  The U.S. provides its security, but Iran is its main financial backer and arms its militia. 

While it hesitates, al Sadr will move in.  He will take a strong anti-American position, and gain the adherence of most Iraqi Shia.  Then he will attack using his Mahdi Army.  We'll be attacked by both sides and no one will want us there.  Even worse, the Iranians could just simply allow their Revolutionary Guard to walk over the border in civilian clothes to wreak all sorts of havoc.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Amen, Mary Landrieu.  Amen!  I wish she'd spoken this forcefully about rebuilding New Orleans.

(via Atrios)

If you wonder why a few posts ago I said it sounded too good to be true that a man with Dick Armitage's 40 year history of working his way up the ladder at the Pentagon and State Department could "accidentally" leak something well check out Bob Novaks account of their conversation.....

While I suspect Lugar might try one more vote, I hope Steve is right and John Bolton's tenure at the United Nations will soon be over.  As both the Undersecretary for Arms control and Non-proliferation and UN ambassador Mr. Bolton leaves with few accomplishments save an extraordinary number of scuttled international treaties, increased conflict and proliferation of nuclear technology and still no indications that he understands the job description of a diplomat.  Oh well, somebody call AEI and tell them to get his office ready.

Mr. President, please don't.  We don't need another 9/11 anniversary speech, you remind us of that horrible event pretty much on a daily basis.  In fact, you've used it to justify your every action to the point in my opinion that you've pretty much stripped the horror of that day of any sense of meaning beyond use as a well-worn political crutch. 

Try staying home as well.  Have a quiet contemplative ceremony at the National Cathedral or the White House; something with no political speeches and more respect for the fallen for a change.  FDR didn't go to Hawaii every Dec. 7th to give a speech at Pearl Harbor, nor did Lincoln make an annual jaunt to the South Carolina coast and memorialize the taking of Ft. Sumter... both men were far more preoccupied with actually winning wars over cheap public relations.  They recognized what you do not: it was not the events that started those wars themselves that were the defining moment of their times, but where we would be when the fighting ended.  I don't hear that from you, nor do I expect I ever will.  

Good news from Iraq is all in how you look at it.  A few weeks ago the U.S. military announced a major decline in violent deaths in Baghdad coinciding with joint US-Iraqi troop deployments to many of the cities most troubled neighborhoods.  That assertion was challenged just the other day when the Iraqi government and Baghdad morgue suddenly increased the official death toll for August from 550 to 1,536 which is in line with the trend from previous months.  When asked about the discrepancy, a US military spokesman admitted the figure only included deaths confirmed to be the result of sectarian-violence.  550 bodies killed execution style make the cut while another 1,000 people killed by un-sectarian violence like car-bombings don't?  Better yet, how low do our standards of progress have to go so that 550 tortured bullet-riddled corpses dumped in the street in one month is an improvement?

For a group that prides itself on message discipline is this really the best the White House political and communications shops can do?  Letting the President go out and say that if we leave Iraq then Al-Qaeda comes in and sets up an Islamic caliphate on the day the White House announces a new anti-terrorism strategy that says Al-Qaeda's all washed up and we're not going to worry about them?  Then again why let Ken Mehlman go on Meet the Press and reject the suggestion that White House policy in Iraq is "stay the course" and then let the President, administration officials and Republican politicians say just that in speech after speech.  In fact the President made the same rhetorical stance as recently as last week?  Yep, that was two weeks after the Mehlman "adapt and win" meme failed to take off.

No matter.  Pundits will probably tell you this rhetorical disconnect, ala Mehlman, means Republicans are trying to energize they're base while hoping to pick up independents by seeming to address their concerns.  I would suggest this is probably true but in reality they've created an unworkable policy, bound themselves to it, wrapped "Mom, apple pie and the flag" around it, flogged it unmercifully for years and really don't know what to do having shunned any sort of honest bipartisan debate or oversight of the matter.  Yet again, the White House has painted themselves into a corner and are unwilling to address a major foreign policy failure as anything more than a public relations problem:  No new strategy, no new policies just a President who seems to think that if he says the same thing he said two years ago, only in a more agitated manner, then obviously people will trust his judgement.  Well, at least Ed Henry seems to buy it?

Has anyone taken a look at the President's Summer Reading List?  Wow, 27 books!  Very ambitious.  At a little over two books per week I suppose its possible he got through all of them but I think Roger Ailes has a point when he says we'll probably have withdrawn from Iraq before that happens.  Sounds good on paper though.

Here's how the Iraq war's supporters logically lay out their case:

However, another Republican, Marty Woll, 56, a retired accountant from Los Angeles, said he saw a clear link between the war and attempts to combat terrorism. “Iraq was obviously not the precipitating location for the 9/11 attacks, but if you look at the Middle East as a whole, you see it has been spawning the most violent and the most desperate of the attacks,’’ Mr. Woll said. “Saddam Hussein killed almost a million of his own people. That magnitude indicated that someone had to do something about it.”

I guess you can't argue with emotion, which has been the only thing fueling this war since day one.  I'll never forget my former roommate, a GOP operative and Congressional staffer, who said that he couldn't wait to finally go after someone. 

Matt Yglasias cuts to the quick in revealing exactly how Bush's Iraq misadventure lacks any sort of clarity.

The Wages of confusion. Bush today:

If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable — and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies — Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al Qaeda terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I and everyone else have been complaining awhile about Bush's habit of conflating various groups. We see here, though, that this isn't just some matter of intellectual fastidiousness. The idea here is that absent the US military, we would be handing Iraq over to some nefarious -- and, admittedly, it would be quite nefarious -- coalition of Baathists, Iranians, and al-Qaedists, presumably joined by Dr. Evil and the Cobra Commander. Back in the real world, though, these groups are fighting each other. What's more, the "armed groups with ties to Iran" include the political parties that comprise the Iraqi government. So what is it our troops are accomplishing amidst this frothy mix of bad actors?

There's no strategy here.  None.  Iraq, from the beginning has been about politics, not policy.  The aim of the adventure is to preserve Bush and his political helpers.  Literally, it is party before country.

Not good for the GOP.  Laffey now leads Chafee 51% to 34%.  Laffey has no chance of winning in Rhode Island.  +1 for our side.

Its starting to set in.  The GOP is facing facts--they are on the verge of getting the floor wiped with their own rear ends.  Novak:

Today we begin a new, seat-by-seat look at this year's competitive House races, based solely on how each would turn out if the election were held today. As promised, we take a look this week at Democrat-held seats in the U.S. House and Democrats' chances of a takeover, and compare them to the Republican-held seats they will be targeting.

Democrat-Held House Seats In Play
Likely Democratic Retention	Tossup		Likely Republican Takeover
	Leans Dem	Leans GOP
IL-17 (Open)	GA-8 (Marshall)	IL-8 (Bean)
LA-3 (Melancon)	GA-12 (Barrow)
OH-13 (Open)	IA-3 (Open)
TX-25 (Doggett)	OH-6 (Open)
	PA-12 (Murtha)
	SC-5 (Spratt)
	TX-17 (Edwards)
	VT-AL (Open)
	WV-1 (Mollohan)

The first word that comes to mind with this chart is "pitiful." Most striking is the small space it takes up on the page and the emptiness of the category to the right -- "Likely Republican Takeover" -- and the near emptiness of "Leans GOP." There is not one easy takeover target for the Republicans this year. Republicans have failed to expand the playing field on the Democrats' side.

He's not the only one who sees a bad November for the Republicans.  Check out this panicked and feeble attempt to boost morale by Hannity:

If you believe that these are consequential, transformative times, if you believe our borders need to be secure, if you believe that we need to cut taxes to keep the economy humming, if you think it's an absolute mistake and a disaster to pull out of Iraq too early, if you think we're gonna retreat in the war on terrorism, if you think we're gonna be less safe, less secure with a party that has a pre-9-11 mentality, then this is the time not to give up. This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker. I mean, look. I want to talk to you Republicans out there, both candidates and voters. Here's some unsolicited advice: Ignore the polls, ignore the media, ignore the pundits. It's 70 days to go. The end is not here yet. We still can turn this thing around. Your future is in your hands, and it's up to you to go grab it. And don't believe people that say, "You can't do it." It's time to confront the left. It's time to strengthen your spine, take your campaign to these people, take your campaign against the media, bypass them if you need to. Now, if you want to win this election, all of you out there, and you don't want to whine that Nancy Pelosi's your speaker in 71 days, well, are you registered to vote?

Its panic time for the GOP.  Donate to the candidate of your choice.