National Review's Jonah Goldberg:

As I've mentioned before, in my spat with Juan Cole way back when, I challenged him to bet me on Iraq's future (the winner would donate $1,000 to a relevant charity like the USO). He sanctimoniously declined, claiming even the suggestion made him sick (even though he made a similar bet before). Well, the deadline for the proposed bet is looming and various leftwing pests are clogging my email box saying if I have any honor I will pay up for a wager Cole refused to accept and denounced me for offering. Well, guess what? The baiting doesn't work. I will give money to war-related charities, as I have done in the past, on my schedule not that of these goads or Cole or anyone else. I will not announce it when I do it, which I have never done in the past because it's not anyone's business (even this post is somewhat sickening in that I'm even responding to these gadflies).

As a matter of intellectual honesty, I'm perfectly willing to admit that, had Cole had the courage to accept the wager, he would have won and I would have made good on it. But, since he didn't, I won't be jumping through hoops for this crowd beyond this post.

Coach Bill Walsh won three Super Bowls with his famous West Coast offense, but in all three of those title games, the 49ers actually ranked worse on offense and better on defense than the opponents they beat in the Super Bowl.

What does this mean for Super Bowl XLI? Berry believes the oddsmakers who installed the Colts as touchdown favorites are putting too much stock in Indianapolis. Berry says that his statistical model and the other mathematical ranking systems he knows of rated the Bears as either equal to or slightly better than the Colts.

“The betting line has Indianapolis by 7,” Berry said. “If you look at any rating system, this game is a statistical tossup.”

Been saying it all week.  Nobody wants to listen.  Too bad for them.  The black and blue division will emerge triumphant.

Dan Savage explains to Mary Cheney what its like to get what you paid for:

In today's New York Times Mary Cheney defends her decision to get her lesbo self knocked the fuck up. Like her father, Mary Cheney believes she shouldn't have to answer for her party's attacks on same-sex parents.

Yes, it's a baby, not a prop. My kid isn't a prop either, but that never stopped right-wingers from attacking me and my boyfriend over our decision to become parents. The fitness of same-sex couples to parent is very much part of the political debate thanks to the GOP and the Christian bigots that make up its lunatic "base." You're a Republican, Mary, you worked on both of your father's campaigns, and you kept your mouth clamped shut while Karl Rove and George Bush ran around the country attacking gay people, gay parents, and our children in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. It's a little late to declare the private choices of gays and lesbians unfit for public debate, Mary.

And so long as your party insists on making the fitness of homosexuals to marry or parent--or, hell, exist--a subject of public debate, Mary, your decision to become a parent is germane and very much fit for public discussion and debate.

Surprise, Surprise.

 "I'm not going to talk at this time to the critics," Grossman says. "I feel we have one more game to win before they don't have anything to say."

Bears.  Bigtime.

"Half of them are JAM. They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night," said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia's Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. "People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."

 

What's the point of us being there?  Our "best friends" there are allied with our current no. 1 enemy.  Our enemies hate our no. 1 enemy.   Why?  All for the sake of internal U.S. politics.  From the beginning this war was about Republican dominance under the leadership of Bush.  They selected a war that they knew would split the Democrats.  Of course all of that has changed and its about saving the political ass of George W. Bush.  One thing it isn't about is the interests of the Republic. 

There was a time when if you suggested that the Iraqis made poor soldiers, impossible to train or motivate and unlikely to "stand up, as we stand down", then you were a racist or not paying attention to all the progress being made.  Now, if a group of Iraqis show an incredible amount of planning, tactical and weapons sophistication in pulling off a daring raid, then they are either Iranians or trained by the Iranians. 

I don't know who pulled off the Karbala raid and I don't rule out Iranian involvement, but reading Thomas Ricks book Fiasco has impressed upon me that you can't entirely discount the Iraqi insurgency which has shown unacknowledged levels of operational and tactical sophistication that has never adequately been explained to the American people by the Pentagon except in the increasing numbers of US dead.  Given the bent of the White House and Pentagon, I'm not surprised they are quick to point to Iran but what happens if we're talking about some rogue interior ministry or Iraqi special ops troops trained by us?  Spoke some English?  American uniforms?  Knew our security procedures and how to exploit them with a little inside help?  I'll wait to see the evidence but it seems that scenario isn't entirely improbable either, is it? 

When the U.S. military reported the deaths of American troops in a sneak attack on joint US-Iraqi compound in Karbala on Monday they meant to say that one American was killed at the base and four were kidnapped, driven over twenty miles away and executed.  Kinda makes the excuses made by the Iraqi security forces at the scene look even fishier, doesn't it?

(h/t: Spread the Word:IraqNAM)

... or at least that's what Dick Cheney thinks.  Dana Milbanks column in the Washington Post today looks at the testimony of Cathie Martin, Cheney's former communications director and finds that the VP loved to go on Meet the Press when the administration was in a tough spot.  Why?  Well, for all his supposed gravitas and journalistic seriousness, it appears Tim Russert has a penchant for giving Cheney a pass, and the White House knows it.  Cheney goes on MTP because he knows that Russert won't ask him any really tough questions and regardless of what he says he know there will be no follow ups or challenges to what he said.  This really isn't news to anybody who watches the show but one wonders if Tim Russert will bristle at the fact the White House essentially thinks of him as some sort of D.C. Larry King ready to throw softball questions at officials undeserving of his help.

The wording of your latest Quick Poll is quite the cop out.  I especially like how you threw "perceived" in before "blunders".

The reason Libby is arguing he was put forth as a sacrificial pawn to protect Rove is so that the defense can impeach the prosecution's witnesses on their alleged motive to lie to protect Rove.  The also need an alternate narrative.  You can't win by just poking holes in the prosecution's case, you have to present a believable theory as to why the facts are as they are.  Unless you are O.J., of course.

Any chance you guys exercise your amazing "bipartisan" powers and get this minimum wage bill through the Senate?  Last I looked a minimum wage increase had far more popular support than any of the divisive and extremely conservative judicial nominees the President put forward last year, so this should be a no-brainer.

Sen. Lieberman is now attacking bipartisanship in the Senate.  For years he's argued the Senate is too "partisan", but now that the plan for escalation in Iraq is creating a growing bipartisan opposition to the war, its suddenly time to step back and not go there.  Hey Joe, make up your mind!

Wow, looks like Scooter's defense is that he was chosen as a "sacrificial lamb" by the White House in order to protect Karl Rove.  Meanwhile it appears Libby learned of Plame's identity from his boss and destroyed notes that detailed Vice President Cheney's deep involvement in the Plame leak and pushback against Joe Wilson.  Big surprise, right?  

This only goes to show Lynn Cheney was half right when she said it didn't reflect well on the judicial system that a man like Scooter Libby was on trial; what she meant to say was it would reflect better if her husband was on trial.

I get the feeling that somewhere out there Dick Cheney is reading this LA Times article about no clear evidence of Iranian advanced weapons technology in the hands of Iraqi insurgents and saying to himself that it clearly bolsters the case for going after the Iranians.  Maybe we'll hear a line about it in the State of Union address or something?

Bush in free fall at 28%.

This summer is going to be long and hot here in Washington, D.C.  I can't wait.