"Maliki Suggests Bush Pushed To Extend U.S. Presence In Iraq To Help McCain"

According to Maliki:

Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period between the end of 2010 and the end of 2011 was for withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq, but they asked for a change [in date] due to political circumstances related to the [U.S] domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawal but the end of 2011 as a final date.

If what Maliki claims is true, would that not be more than solid grounds to impeach and swiftly remove the POTUS?

How to Celebrate Constitution Day

Joel S. Hirschhorn

Today, September 17 is Constitution Day, but very, very few Americans know this or will celebrate it. If you think of yourself as a politically engaged, civic-minded and patriotic American, then I urge you to celebrate today by expanding your mind about a critically important but never-used part of our Constitution.

Hat tip to Megan McArdle .

Microsoft is unveiling IE8, Internet Explorer 8, which has privacy feature for browsing than will hurt Google's main business: targeted search ads.

From the Financial Times :

Microsoft has unveiled its Internet Explorer 8 browser equipped with a privacy feature that could threaten the advertising model of web search rivals such as Google.

To: Philip K. Paulson (1947-2006)
Re: Latest decision: Cross can stay

Yeah, you're dead, and as Atheists we believe that it means the end, oblivion, nothingness. But, you know how we all are all the same, reluctant to give up connections with those we are fond of.

Someone once described courage as not never being afraid, but going on in spite of the fear. As a nation and as elected officials we seem to be running dangerously low on courage. Oh we have the tough talk down, we have the posturing, but do we really have true courage? Since 9/11 when at least 2,985 people died from the terrorists attacks I think that what has been lost in all the hype is some perspective. While this was surely a tragedy, the population of the United States in the year 2001 was somewhere around 290 million people. Based on those numbers the terrorist attacks killed less than .02% of the population, yet since the attack we have responded by invading sovereign nations, torturing our fellow human beings, and gutting our Constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court recently heard a challenge to the DC handgun ban in a case that has the potential to definitively clarify the Second Amendment , which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There has been a long-standing debate between gun rights activists and gun control advocates as to whether this describes an individual right or whether it applies only in the context of a regulated militia. The ruling is not expected until June, but based on questioning before the Court, it appears likely that a majority of Justices will rule that the DC ban is unconstitutional.

Often we hear from the President that his first duty is to protect and defend our country from those who would harm us. We hear from not only the President and other Republicans, but even Chris Dodd that civil liberties must be given up in face of increased security to help prevent any further terrorist attacks. But is this really so? Let’s check the oath of office for the President of the United States:

Most people who regularly post here know my basic political temperament. At the core, I'm essentially a progressive/socialist with a few odd libertarian and federalist streaks. What puts me solidly in the libertarian camp on federal issues is my strict constructionist/originalist view of the Constitution. For instance, I really like the idea of social security, Medicare, the welfare state, etc., but in my view the Constitution authorizes no branch of government to create these programs. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

Ron Paul's third NH TV ad is up and ready.

I've heard a lot of grandiose and/or vague claims in campaign ads. And usually the vaguer the ad, the more emotional and grandiose the message.

Here, Paul's message is simple, clear and unique:

Promoted by Brendan.

It's about torture-whether our country should become so debased as to resort to medieval methods to exact information; or, as the right would say, whether we should retain the ability to force the truth out of someone who is about to cause grave damage to our people. There are two diametrically opposed perspectives, the TV series now about to start its seventh season, 24; and the new film released last week, "Rendition." I watched the 2004-5 season of "24" with rapt attention, and I just came back from seeing "Rendition."

This Video would be a great way to spend about 45 minutes this weekend. Great stuff. It's an Interview with Thomas Woods about his new book, 33 Questions about American History .

The video is embedded below the fold.

Once through discussing the book, the later parts of the interview go through recent American History and weave together an fascinating take on our current climate.

It's a not libertarian rant but rather a look at history through an un-typical lens of analysis that looks many captivating topics that Dems, Repubs and Independents alike will enjoy (I think).

Congratulations to Autarkh who posted a diary entitled How to Make Impeachment Viable? Bipartisanship yesterday on Dailykos, and I see is front paged here. He managed to say what I attempting with a wit and style than I can't manage. Our messages are almost identical, even though my approach, having worked on the diary for several days now, is different.

One reason it took so long for me to post on Dailykos, where it was originally posted, is the rancor expressed on that site tends to lead concepts like "bipartisanship" to be dismissed, or even considered appeasement by many. So, I continued to try to find more historical evidence to make my point so that it could be heard by the readers there. Actually it was received respectfully, based on the comments. The following was the diary as it appeared there with only a very few edits:

Senator Specter Fights for Constitution

Joel S. Hirschhorn

On the Friday before July 4 Republican Senator Arlen Specter showed his respect for the U.S. Constitution and his anger about President Bush’s repeated pissing on it by introducing the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007. What happens to this crucial bill will test both congressional integrity and courage.

Specter had the honesty to call President Bush's abuse of signing statements an "unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority." "The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," said Specter.

I crossposted it on DailyKos .

It's not terribly applicable here as I doubt many would disagree with me (I think). But because I just posted it there, I wanted to be fair and bring it here.

This is in a way a supplemental to Hamas is not the Answer. by Lucius Vorenus. I'd like to address the absurd notion that Democracy itself is an Absolute Good, that it can do no wrong and must be respected in all instances regardless of the outcome.

Democracy (or government by the people, the many, etc) is an absolutely essential tool for the people to keep their government accountable. Without any adjectives it can be used for both Good and Evil (in the loose and non-religious definition of those words). Here in US we are much more partial to the Liberal Democracy which is practically synonymous to the Constitutional Republic.

Promoted by Brendan -- could the political rancor of today actually spawn armed conflict in the future? Are the fault lines across American society deepening to the point of potential civil war? I don't think so, but it's worth examining what lines in the sand we draw as conservatives or liberals.

This diary is an outgrowth of this comment , so some related commentary may be found there. That comment was, in turn, a reply to this open thread topic from Ender:

Is there any doubt that some liberals are overreacting whining babies? Top recommended diary on dkos - Is there any doubt now that it is a coup attempt? . You look at it, and all you can do is shake your head. Is there any doubt that the person who wrote that is a lunatic a bit off? At least we don't get much of that craziness here :)

The text of my original comment is reproduced here as a matter of convenience:

I have been saying for years that I think this country may actually be heading into a civil war some time in the (relatively) near future. I haven't ever put a time frame to it but I wouldn't be surprised if it occurred in my son's lifetime.

By now I'm sure everyone is familiar with the basic melodrama that unfolded in former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony on Tuesday, regarding then-counsel Alberto Gonzales trying to bully a signature out of a hospitalized John Ashcroft in a late-night surprise visit. If not, you really need to watch the whole thing: it's like the climax of a political thriller, including a mad dash to arrive at the scene, an armed FBI detail, and possibly the lamest cover-up I've ever heard (they were just visiting in the middle of the night to wish the AG a speedy recovery! and those weren't documents in their hands - they were flowers, duh.)

Likely as not you've read it (because we have a high level of wonkery here), but most of America has not. For the moment, the media are testing the waters with these fun spy-vs-spy details for two reasons: they're busy with dueling Falwell obits, and they make better print than the giant can of legal-issue worms that have just burst open. Which is a pity, because the devil - the really grotesque, jaw-dropping devil - is in the details; so it's fortunate that we have a few legal-interest bloggers to devote the time necessary to putting this all together.

And boy, is it ugly.

Promoted by Brendan for your weekend discussion. More info on Supreme Court rulings here , and on recent efforts to ban flag burning here . What does patriotism entail today?

I read the diary about flag-burning with much interest and was also reminded of an incident that took place in Randolph, MA, a town roughly 20 miles south of Boston. It began roughly 2 months before Ronald Reagan was re-elected to his second term as president, and the debate that took place over it continued well into the spring of that particular school year.

A young high school senior who'd just turned 17 had stayed home from school starting on her birthday due to fears of physical harm for refusing to salute the flag during morning homeroom period.  When the high school senior brought in some information about constitutional rights vs. saluting the flag, her homeroom teacher then told her to "snap to it" and salute the flag like everybody else, which the girl refused to do, stating that "I like America, but I don't have to salute the flag in order to prove it."

There is an interesting diary on dkos recommended list titled Frank Rich’s Warning Today – What if He’s Right? that poses a question with wide repercussions. A little excerpt:

But Rich points out that today, as in 2001, warnings are surfacing from the intelligence community that Al Qaeda is growing ever more resurgent in Afghanistan and western Pakistan with little response from Bushco. Preoccupied with trying to rescue their disastrous Iraq adventure, and with rattling sabers at Iran, they may be ignoring once again a threat that is real and growing.

The White House doesn’t want to hear it now, either. That’s why terrorism experts are trying to get its attention by going public, and not just through The Times. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the C.I.A. bin Laden unit, told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann last week that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, having regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan, "are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States" (the real United States, that is, not the fictional stand-in where this same scenario can be found on "24").

Keep reading...

Runaway American Brainwashing

Joel S. Hirschhorn

You may not want to know this. Americans have been successfully brainwashed to fear exactly what their revered Constitution gives them the right to have. Those smart Framers of the Constitution decided that we needed exactly what the establishment, pro-status quo elitists who run our plutocracy do NOT want us to have. There is even a well funded semi-secret group organized to prevent what we the people have a right to.

Has the brainwashing worked? You bet it has. In the absence of public furor, for over 200 years Congress has not done what Article V of the Constitution says it “shall” do. Congress has never issued a call for an Article V convention of state delegates to consider constitutional amendments, in response to two-thirds of state legislatures asking for one. That numeric requirement – the only specified requirement in Article V – has been satisfied, with 50 states submitting over 500 requests. Such a convention operating under authority of the Constitution would be a fourth, impermanent branch of the federal system, not beholding to the three permanent branches. Such independence has been cartooned into a frightening monster.

I've mentioned a number of times in comments online that the true measure of George W. Bush's failure/success as a president can't be decided until after he's long gone, but that it would likely stand or fall on future generations' views of Executive power. If we inherit a country whose President is consistently more independent of Congress, Bush's administration will be considered a key step in that development, for better or (more likely) worse.

I may have exaggerated that point in the past, since the Iraq-Katrina-Corruption trinity may be too much for any President to bounce back from, no matter how many generations hence. Then again, Nixon's numbers are already up, since conservatives have tried to focus on the positives, particularly Nixon's active engagement with China. I don't see a similar silver lining in the Bush presidency, but given his behavior in the past few weeks, I think my prediction of executive power being the defining element may turn out too true for my own comfort.