Glenn Greenwald brings us more on the rumors that Eric Holder will appoint a special prosecutor for the Bush administration, with varying and conflicting reports about the possible scope and scale of the investigation.

Newsweek: Alone among cabinet officers, attorneys general are partisan appointees expected to rise above partisanship. All struggle to find a happy medium between loyalty and independence. Few succeed. At one extreme looms Alberto Gonzales, who allowed the Justice Department to be run like Tammany Hall. At the other is Janet Reno, whose righteousness and folksy eccentricities marginalized her within the Clinton administration. Lean too far one way and you corrupt the office, too far the other way and you render yourself impotent. Mindful of history, Holder is trying to get the balance right. "You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort," Holder says. "But the reality of being A.G. is that I'm also part of the president's team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values."

These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell Newsweek that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

There's some discussion of this claim and what it means at MetaFilter and Greenwald, as well as reports tonight that Cheney ordered the CIA to lie to Congress.

"The (al Qaida-Iraq) links go back," he said. "We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons technology. These are all matters that are there for anybody who wants to look at it."

Drip, drip, drip: revisiting Cheney's Iraq statements in light of recent evidence that torture was used specifically to "prove" a link between Iraq and al Qaeda to bolster the case for the war with Iraq. Previous. More previous.

UPDATE: Elsewhere, at Think Progress, Faiz Shakir finds conservatives on Fox News being completely open about what they hope to achieve with their Nancy Pelosi distraction campaign:

Fox host Neil Cavuto wondered whether “both parties will cease and desist” from investigations:

Is it a potential Mexican standoff? And by that, I mean, Senator, that Democrats feel they have the goods on the prior administration to drag out hearings on what they knew about Iraq and when. Now Republicans have the goods, presumably, on Nancy Pelosi about what she knew about interrogation and when. So to avoid mutual self-destruction, both parties cease and desist.

More on this from Steve Benen.

Following up on an earlier post this morning, there's very good questions starting to come out that point to what exactly the purpose of the Bush administration's torture policies were. Why, as Lawrence Wilkerson writes, did the torture stop in 2004, if it is so successful and necessary to national security? Why were questions about Iraq among the first put to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed when he was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003?

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall has the definitive rejoinder to pro-torture partisans eager to make this story about Nancy Pelosi:

Here's where we are. There are various documents and recollections from around through the news ether. Pelosi's accusers are saying she knew more than she admits. She says that many of these claims are false and the documents perhaps erroneous, and that she's been consistent and true to her opposition to torture. And then she says, and I think there should be a broad-ranging Truth Commission to investigate what happened, who's telling the truth and who isn't. You can see it here at about 3:45 in.

That says it all. She wants it all investigated.

I have no idea what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it. It's possible she has legal culpability for human rights abuses committed under the Bush administration, and possible that even if she is not legally culpable she should be shamed into resigning. There's only one way to find out.

Friday Friday Friday.

* People are once again rediscovering what everybody used to know: the purpose of torture is to extract false confessions, not gather actionable intelligence. In this case, the torture appears to have been directed towards "finding" a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda with regard to 9/11—part of a much larger process of manipulation and outright fabrication that we've long known leads directly through the Office of the Vice President. See also: MyDD and Attackerman. There's no easy way for Obama to deal with the sordid legacy of the Bush administration, but there's no way to sweep it under the rug. I still think a truth and reconciliation commission is the most politically feasible model for this, but if not that, prosecutions; it's got to be one or the other.

* I knew I wouldn't do anything productive this morning until I beat all 35 levels of Minim. And lo, the prophecy was true. (Level 23 was the one that took real thinking.)

* In 2002, rogue NASA interns stole millions of dollars in moon rocks. This is the untold story of how they did it.

* The other environmental apocalypse: The Center for Biological Diversity has sued to EPA to take action over ocean acidification.

Thursday night catchup all-politics edition.

* Cheney Cheney cheney cheney Cheney. Time to begin that long slide into the ashbin of history, Dick.

* Rush, rush. You, too.

* SCOTUS spec.

* Gay marriage passes New York Assembly, facing "uphill battle" in state Senate.

* Gay marriage about to be legal in New Hampshire.

* Taking a first step towards a world without nuclear weapons.

* Redefining "useless": Senate Democrats.

* Not your father's Boy Scouts. I cannot recognize this organization at all. Knot-tying isn't good enough anymore? Via The Spine.

Hooray for Friday, hooray for everything.

* The Daily Show nicely nailed the hypocrisy inherent to the Republican position on the stimulus debate last night.

* Scandal at 1600: it turns out the practice of disrespecting the Oval Office by not wearing a jacket inside it—heroically revealed by former chief of staff Andrew Card just this week—goes back decades.

* They've remixed the audiobook versions of Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. The real scandal is that it took this long for someone to think to do it.

* Remixing the inaugural poem.

* Syllabus for another class on The Wire.

* West Antarctic ice sheet collapse even more catastrophic for U.S. coasts. Icemelt Could Shift Earth's Rotation, Moving Water Northward. Antarctic warming is robust. Everything is fine.

* And will Vermont towns finally get their chance to arrest Cheney? Oh, please yes.

Monday!

* Almost as if they all receive their talking points from a single, central location, the entire right-wing spin machine has spontaneously decided to start talking about how the New Deal didn't actually work. Uh, sure.

* The first link doesn't make the absurdity clear, but Karl Rove is Twittering.

* Also in alternate-universe news: George Bush: Greatest President.

To prove his point, Barnes points to Bush's "ten great achievements":

1. Bush stood up to "global warming hysteria," and helped undermine the agenda of "alarmists."
2. He endorsed "enhanced interrogation," "secret prisons," and "wireless eavesdropping."
3. He seized unprecedented executive authority, and ignored congressional attempts at oversight.
4. He offered "unswerving support for Israel."
5. He signed the No Child Left Behind initiative.
6. He delivered his second inaugural address.
7. He signed the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
8. He pushed the Supreme Court even further to the right.
9. He improved U.S. relations with Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
10. He created a "fragile but functioning democracy" in Iraq.

You'll note Barnes is padding his list just a bit—delivering a second inaugural address is sort of light for a "top ten accomplishments" list, as is "improved relations with Australia."

* Also via Washington Monthly, Jon Swift has your retort.

* Not capturing Osama bin Laden isn't on Barnes's list, but Cheney tells us that doesn't matter.

Today on CNN’s Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer asked Vice President Cheney, “How frustrating is this to you personally, knowing he’s [bin Laden] still at large?” Cheney hesitated, then simply replied that he would “obviously…like to solve that problem.” He added that it’s more “important” to “keep…this country safe,” indicating that bin Laden is inconsequential.

* North Carolina in the news! The Brunswick school district wants to teach creationism to kids. In 2008.

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

There's your evidence.

* Eight reasons why we are in a depression.

* Half of world’s population could face climate-driven food crisis by 2100.

* After ten days of not sleeping, Randy Gardner was able to hold a press conference and beat a journalist at pinball. Note: this happened forty-four years ago, but I just found out about it yesterday.

A South Texas grand jury has returned multi-count indictments against Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County’s federal detention centers.

Krugman: Last night wasn’t just a victory for tolerance; it wasn’t just a mandate for progressive change; it was also, I hope, the end of the monster years.

'Whatever happened to Sarah Palin?' Look for stories with that headline over the next few years—with polling like this Sarah Palin will likely never be a serious candidate for national office ever again. And that's good news for all of us, in Real and Fake America alike.

The New Yorker has an interesting first-crack in the "Whatever happened to Sarah Palin?" genre this week, actually, with a post-mortem on how McCain ever came to make such a damaging choice.

With just days to go before the Convention, the choices were slim. Karl Rove favored McCain’s former rival Mitt Romney, but enough animus lingered from the primaries that McCain rejected the pairing. “I told Romney not to wait by the phone, because ‘he doesn’t like you,’ ” Keene, who favored the choice, said. “With John McCain, all politics is personal.” Other possible choices—such as former Representative Rob Portman, of Ohio, or Governor Tim Pawlenty, of Minnesota—seemed too conventional. They did not transmit McCain’s core message that he was a “maverick.” Finally, McCain’s top aides, including Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis, converged on Palin. Ed Rogers, the chairman of B.G.R., a well-connected, largely Republican lobbying firm, said, “Her criteria kept popping out. She was a governor—that’s good. The shorter the Washington résumé the better. A female is better still. And then there was her story.” He admitted, “There was concern that she was a novice.” In addition to Schmidt and Davis, Charles R. Black, Jr., the lobbyist and political operative who is McCain’s chief campaign adviser, reportedly favored Palin. Keene said, “I’m told that Charlie Black told McCain, ‘If you pick anyone else, you’re going to lose. But if you pick Palin you may win.’ ” (Black did not return calls for comment.) Meanwhile, McCain’s longtime friend said, “Kristol was out there shaking the pom-poms.”

McCain had met Palin once, but their conversation—at a reception during a meeting of the National Governors Association, six months earlier—had lasted only fifteen minutes. “It wasn’t a real conversation,” said the longtime friend, who called the choice of Palin “the fucking most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” Aides arranged a phone call between McCain and Palin, and scrutinized her answers to some seventy items on a questionnaire that she had filled out. But McCain didn’t talk with Palin in person again until the morning of Thursday, August 28th. Palin was flown down to his retreat in Sedona, Arizona, and they spoke for an hour or two. By the time he announced her as his choice, the next day, he had spent less than three hours in her company.

Meanwhile, Palin is back in the news today with a revealing flub demonstrating that she either (still) has no idea what the vice president does or has a vision of expanded powers for the VP that rivals even Cheney's.

Other ways to restore confidence: 'To Raise Confidence in the Market, Bush & Cheney Should Announce They Will Resign As of November 14, 2008.' You had me at "resign."

YouTube got footage of Bruce stumping for Barack singing "The Rising" at the big Obama rally in Philadelphia today. (Alternate angles.) He also sang "This Land Is Your Land." (Thanks, Neil!)

Sunday morning politics linkdump. Sorry for all these linkdumps, by the way—it was a busy week. Next week should see a return to a little bit more sustained commentary (including the exciting return of debate liveblogging!).

* There have been some interesting debates about poll biases lately. Ron Fournier (grumble) at the AP covers a study that argues Obama would be further ahead were it not for racial animus, by as many as six points. FiveThirtyEight throws cold water on this, as well as looking closely at the possibility of a "cellphone effect" in the polls. If Obama does 2.8% better in polls that include cellphones, that suggests a shifting map like the one below, turning Virginia light-blue and strengthening small Dem leads in Ohio and Colorado.



* A study from political scientist Alan Abramowitz argues that Obama will win, when all is said and done, with 54% of the popular vote. That he's naively comparing historical models with this year's unprecedentedly diverse tickets in both camps shows how seriously we should take this analysis.

* A new PPP poll shows North Carolina tied. Other recent polls show South Carolina within six, West Virginia within four, and MontanVoteRonPaula within two.

* There's evidence of a "Palin effect" in Florida driving undecided voters to Obama.

* The Spine tries to get a handle on Obama's early-voting advantage, beginning as early as this Friday in Virginia. The second link has some stats of interest for Dukies and Durham residents:

In addition, more early-voting centers are being located at colleges and universities, a change that significantly affects student turnout. Students at the University of North Carolina and N.C. State were able to vote on campus throughout the two weeks leading up to North Carolina's primary contest in April. At Duke University, however, students had to make their way to voting sites in the city of Durham. While turnout for Durham County was 52% in the Democratic primary, only 11% of eligible Duke students voted. This fall, however, Duke will have its own early-voting center, open for business starting Oct. 16.

* The McCain camp has successfully demanded the VP debate rules be changed to protect Sarah Palin.

*Judge orders Cheney not to destroy his VP records.

* SNL mocked McCain this week. He also preemptively mocked himself with an article in Contingencies arguing (for reals) that "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation." Straight out of the Dept. of Bad Timing. Obama's already taken aim at this.

* Will Obama raise my taxes? A helpful widget.

* And American Stranger has a long post on ideology that seems to take as one starting point my post on Slavoj Žižek, Obama Supporter. Essentially Ryan takes aim at the various binds the Left finds itself in with regard to political action, and I largely agree with what he says—though I certainly hope I wasn't in mind as his example of sell-out "liberal 'pragmatism' a la The New Republic." My point, both in the earlier post and now in this one, is simply that the U.S. President has a tremendous ability to make life better or worse for real people with real lives, all over the world, many of whom (believe it or not!) do not have cushy long-term contracts with elite universities. Naderite "Oh, they're all the same!" negativity only makes sense to people who are inoculated by class and privilege from the consequences of that power.

The mere recognition that the perfect not be the enemy of the good doesn't quite throw my lot in with TNR, I don't think, and certainly not so long as we also keep in mind that the good not be the enemy of the better. Our discomfort with pragmatic compromises—and we should be discomforted by them, every time and in every case—isn't by itself a reason not to be pragmatic.

The surrealism of Mark Bryan. Fantastic. Via Posthuman Blues.

Slate has a helpful Venn diagram tracing the network of major Bush administration illegality, and surprisingly it's Alberto Gonzales and not Dick Cheney who emerges as the Worst of a Very Bad Bunch.



Meanwhile, via MeFi, Salon asks whether or not Congress might pursue a Church-Committee-style truth commission in the wake of the criminality of the last eight years.

That question was answered in the seven-page memo. "The rise of the 'surveillance state' driven by new technologies and the demands of counter-terrorism did not begin with this Administration," the author wrote. Even though he acknowledged in interviews with Salon that the scope of abuse under George W. Bush would likely be an order of magnitude greater than under preceding presidents, he recommended in the memo that any new investigation follow the precedent of the Church Committee and investigate the origins of Bush's programs, going as far back as the Reagan administration.

The proposal has emerged in a political climate reminiscent of the Watergate era. The Church Committee was formed in 1975 in the wake of media reports about illegal spying against American antiwar activists and civil rights leaders, CIA assassination squads, and other dubious activities under Nixon and his predecessors. Chaired by Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, the committee interviewed more than 800 officials and held 21 public hearings. As a result of its work, Congress in 1978 passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which required warrants and court supervision for domestic wiretaps, and created intelligence oversight committees in the House and Senate.

...Some see a brighter prospect in Barack Obama, should he be elected. The plus with Obama, says the former Church Committee staffer, is that as a proponent of open government, he could order the executive branch to be more cooperative with Congress, rolling back the obsessive secrecy and stonewalling of the Bush White House. That could open the door to greater congressional scrutiny and oversight of the intelligence community, since the legislative branch lacked any real teeth under Bush. (Obama's spokesman on national security, Ben Rhodes, did not reply to telephone calls and e-mails seeking comment.)

But even that may be a lofty hope. "It may be the last thing a new president would want to do," said a participant in the ongoing discussions. Unfortunately, he said, "some people see the Church Committee ideas as a substitute for prosecutions that should already have happened."

According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, "There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived 'enemies of the state' almost instantaneously." He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.

Meanwhile, in George Bush's America, bad things continue to happen. More at MetaFilter and ThinkProgress.

The prize for understated gallows humor goes to the very first comment at the article itself:

I find it very difficult to believe that Dick Cheney would be part of anything that was not in our best interest.

Posted by: escoBam on May 20, 2008 12:22 AM

Monday morning links:

* Buffy's Jane Espenson has the secret to selling sci-fi. (Thanks, Shankar)

Dorothy Gale, Buffy Summers, Harry Potter, Charlie Bucket, Luke Skywalker, even Peter Parker, they all fit a very specific pattern. They're living a life, sometimes a fine one, often a troubled one, but certainly one governed by ordinary rules, when suddenly the curtain is pulled back and a whole new world, or a new set of rules of this world, is revealed. And what's more - and this is the important part - in that new world, they are something special. They are The Chosen One.

* Newsweek exposes the global warming denial machine.

* The New York Times looks back on how the "good war" in Afghanistan went bad. Via Matt Yglesias, who says:

Just about the only place in the United States where you saw substantial opposition to the Afghanistan War back in the day was on college campuses. That, conveniently enough, is exactly where I was at the time, so I got to participate in a lot of arguments on this subject. One thing I'm fairly sure absolutely nobody ever pitched to me was "well, don't you see that if we invade Afghanistan we're just going to wind up failing to achieve any of our key strategic objectives because the administration will divert crucial resources and attention to invade Iraq instead?"

I think he's wrong about this. The people *I* got into arguments with, though they didn't mention Iraq specifically, did say that the Bush administration would half-ass the job—which they surely would have, even if they hadn't been planning to attack Iraq all along. Yet another thing my sensibly moderate self was wrong about.

In any event, the proper thing to conclude from the example of Afghanistan and Iraq is that military interventionism doesn't work, period, not that it would have worked if only, if only, if only. This is the lesson that the bulk of the Democratic party establishment still has yet to learn.

* Cheney, 1994:

Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

* Giant LEGO man found in Dutch sea. What's most amazing is the inscrutable message on his shirt: NO REAL THAN YOU ARE. If only we could understand the LEGO man, we could understand the world.

Impeach Cheney: 'The vice president has run utterly amok and must be stopped.' By Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general to Ronald Reagan.

A day without posts is like a day without sunshine. I've been busy getting things in order before all hell breaks loose next month, and, besides, nothing I've seen on the Internet today has moved me in any way. (Have we reached Peak Internet? Stay tuned...)

So here, in lieu of anything else, is a little clip from Monday's Daily Show I can't stop thinking about. He is neither man nor beast, yet has elements of the twain. He is at once everything and nothing, substance without form, shape without motion, time without reason. He is the Highlander, and with that, I take my leave.

So long, see you tomorrow.



Want? Can chaos want? Can despair sleep? Can laughter play cards?