And Tony and Dubbya will still say it was all worth it

Yes, Saddam was very bad man . . . shall we ask the dead if they agree?

Late update: sorry - 79,000 dead is laughably low. Just hilarious.

Could not agree more . . .

I am so glad Karl Rove doesn't want the Iraq war to be left down deep in the memory hole: like Josh, I welcome Karl's urge for re-examination. I suspect my motivations are somewhat different from Karl's, however.

Once again, Paul nails it:

The truth, however, is that the only problem Republicans ever had with George W. Bush was his low approval rating. They always loved his policies and his governing style — and they want them back. In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda . . .

This includes - obviously - rehabilitating Bush's legacy on the Iraq war:

Finally, on the war: For most Americans, the whole debate about the war is old if painful news — but not for those obsessed with refurbishing the Bush image. Karl Rove now claims that his biggest mistake was letting Democrats get away with the “shameful” claim that the Bush administration hyped the case for invading Iraq. Let the whitewashing begin!

Meanwhile, here in the UK, the subject just won't die the death Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell (and probably the co-conspiring Conservatives) wish it would. From today's Observer:

. . . Carne Ross, the UK's Iraq expert at the UN between 1997 and 2002, writes that the inquiry is being prevented by "deep state" forces from establishing the government's true motivation for invading Iraq.

Ross, who appeared before the inquiry this month, says he was not provided with key documents relevant to his testimony and was warned by officials not to refer to an internal Foreign Office memo that contradicted the government's public case for war.

Will the truth ever out? The drum beats on:

Despite the official's concern, the paper was used to brief the cabinet. Ross writes: "This paper was pure overstated propaganda, filled with almost ludicrous statements like 'one teaspoon of anthrax can kill a million people'."

He [Carne Ross] expressed incredulity that the Foreign Office wanted references to the briefing removed from his testimony, as it related to a public document. "It is very worrying that the government machine is still trying to withhold key documents, and silence those of us with detailed knowledge of the policy history. I have been told too... that members of the [inquiry] panel have been refused documents they have specifically requested."

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, said: "The Chilcot inquiry will not be credible if relevant documents that do not now threaten national security are kept from the inquiry and the public."

Ross said he had wanted to use his appearance to highlight how ministers failed to consider alternatives to military action. "I had asked for specific records relating to the UK's failure to deal with the so-called Syrian pipeline, through which Iraq illegally exported oil, sustaining the Saddam [Hussein] regime. I was told that specific documents, such as the records of prime minister [Tony] Blair's visit to Syria, could not be found. This is simply not plausible." He also asked for joint intelligence committee assessments on Iraq, some of which he helped prepare and all of which he had seen. "Only three were provided – 40 minutes before I was due before the Chilcot panel."

The claims come at the end of a week in which the former head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, cast grave doubts on the case for invading Iraq and the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, described the invasion as "illegal".

The government may have withheld key documents whose release would pose no national security risk? Quel surprise!

The more I read . . .

. . . the more I like. Even as a Supreme Court newbie, Kagan showed remarkable sophistication and prescience . . .

Drill, baby, drill!

It's all about progress . . .

Fair-reading

Souter speaks . . . finally.

"Time to exchange the winter dirt for some fresh summer dirt in that sandbag she calls a mind"

- taken from a comment on another blog. Pretty infantile, I know, but not as infantile as when the rock star of the Right blames the "greenies" for the BP disaster.

I'm afraid Frank has missed the point

I like Frank Rich - the way he steps back to afford a view of the bigger picture - but this article, as good as it is, fails to call the Obama administration on its more fundamental failure: it's manifest betrayal of the principles it was put in power to advance. For moderates and progressives, Obama's policy initiatives (or lack thereof) have been extremely disappointing - far more a continuation of the previous administration's ruinous course. Instead of throwing down a clear marker signalling a break with the egregious past, Obama only nibbled at the edges of such things as civil rights and torture, especially in his wilful failure to hold perpetrators accountable, and outright embraced certain other Bush-era policies, like offshore drilling - despite the manifest corruption of the Minerals Dept.

In introductory courses on administrative law, budding young lawyer-wannabes learn all about "capture theory", which posits that for a variety of obvious reasons regulatory agencies quickly become "captured" by the industries they regulate. Lack of effective oversight of such agencies becomes, axiomatically, fatal. Obama went to a pretty good law school, and yet we seem to need to experience - catastrophically - this axiom put into practice.

This - thus far - is the signal failure of the Obama presidency and, unlike Bush, he knew better.

Ted Hearts Bison

On balance I think people should lighten up and let Ted continue with this - I think it's pretty cool and should be encouraged. The idea that bison should be confined to the Park and kept entirely off limits as if they are museum relics once they cross the park boundary is ridiculous. Ted is paving the way to acceptance by a paranoid ranching community that just needs to get over the fact that their industry is contracting.

Me like what me see . . .

While some aspects of her oeuvre are not great (e.g., I worry that her rejection of judicial activism won't extend to the masturbatory rantings by nutcases like Scalia since it's become conventional wisdom that conservatives by definition can't be judicial activists, which is completely ridiculous), this is pretty good stuff:

During Ms. Kagan’s confirmation for solicitor general, she was asked whether the president has the authority to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court.

She cited a three-part analysis established by the Supreme Court in a 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer, which struck down president Harry S. Truman’s authority to seize the nation’s steel mills in the name of national security. (The Justice Department cited the same analysis in 2006 in justifying President George W. Bush’s power to order the National Security Agency surveillance program, as did Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.) The analysis notes that “when the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress,” presidential “power is at its lowest ebb” and these circumstances should be rare.

Obama picks a uniter, not a divider

Interesting track record at Harvard - Obama's tacking to the middle. Not sure she'll be able to do much to forge a consensus among the Supremes when one is a raving lunatic and another may as well be in a coma.

What in the world is the Guardian smoking?

It's so over for Gordon, I don't care what drugs are making the Guardian suggest it isn't.

I, too, recently believed that the Lib-Dems HAD to find a way to make a coalition work with Labour if they wanted any prayer of electoral reform that approximates proportional representation (and basic notions of fairness), but the gap is too wide, and they are going to be screwed by the Tories, plain and simple. The Lib-Dems just don't have the numbers to make it work the way they want. It's going to be a mess here in the UK for the foreseeable future.

This parliament will not "hang" well (cue the porn jokes), anyway you look at it.

True to my investment prowess, the prospect of continued aimless dithering in the UK while Greece burns compelled me to cash out of my money market fund in the U.S. and invest in the markets. Timing is everything! Oh well: Warren Buffet I ain't.

These are starting to resurface

It was the taxi-driver's story that made me sick . . . let's see if Obama's Justice Department continues its campaign to keep justice out of the play-book.

Late update:

Here's a film worth seeing about what happened to that poor taxi-driver, and the inevitable cover-up which followed.

Murdoch unleashes the hounds . . .

The Tory press is going after Clegg, big time.

Why might this be so? From a reliable source:

. . . the Murdoch press to seek favour from a new government policy in reward for electioneering support that will result in a government that is willing to implement policies to diminish the competition poised by both the BBC and the internet. At the beginning of October the Murdoch press accelerated its objective of winning favour amongst the tory party leadership by the Sun publically declaring its backing for the Conservative party some 6 months ahead of the next General Election.

This has been subsequently been followed by favourable policy proposals out of the Conservative party in the commercial interests of News International such as reported in the Independent in response to Peter Mandelson's allegations of the Tory leaders being suspected of having done a deal with Murdoch.

"Examples of the apparent tie-in between what News International's boss, James Murdoch, wants, and what David Cameron is ready to promise include the recent decision by the Conservatives to abandon the idea of "top slicing" the BBC licence fee. It had been proposed that part of the money paid to the BBC would be siphoned off to help regional television companies meet the threat from the internet. But this would also have helped them compete more effectively against Sky News, which is part of the Murdoch media empire.

When the policy was abandoned in September, Jeremy Hunt, the shadow Culture Secretary, said that it was because enacting it might make the commercial television companies "focus not on attracting viewers but on attracting subsidies". There was no gain for the BBC in the climb down, because David Cameron had already said that the Tories will freeze the licence fee. What it will mean is that the BBC's income will be capped, without the regional television companies seeing any government help, which will strengthen the market position of Britain's only satellite television company, Sky. "This was done for News International," a Tory insider said yesterday. "Murdoch wants Sky to go head to head with the BBC. He doesn't want the independent companies strengthened.”

In April 2008, James Murdoch complained bitterly about the media regulator Ofcom in his first major speech after taking over as chief executive of News Corporation in Europe and Asia. The following year, David Cameron announced that a Conservative government would cut Ofcom down to size."

Why is it important that we prevent Jimmy-boy from turning his beautiful dream into reality? This is why.

The right war for the right reasons . . .

. . . all done according the manual. Riiiight. On a related note, I'm enjoying Tom Bingham's book, The Rule of Law. As many commentators have noted, the most compelling part of Bingham's book is his chapter on the Iraq war:

"It is not at all clear to me what, if any, legal justification of its action the US government relied on . . . If I am right and the invasion of Iraq . . . was unauthorised by the security council, there was a serious violation of international law and the rule of law . . . It is, as has been said, 'the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante.' "

Some interesting statements here from Tom about the Chilcot inquiry.

She clerked for Thomas . . .

. . . and a member of the Federalist society to boot! Quel surprise.

Two years out of law school and writing memos about the president's limitless power, unconstrained by quaint relics like the constitution.

Outstanding!

I've just decided I won't be retaining Kirkland any time soon.

"Sure"

Why not?

The problems with Yoo's patently ridiculous comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

1) Previous to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949, there was no treaty against targeting civilians. So, at the time, it would not have been unlawful for the president to order the "massacre of a civilian village". It would have been wrong, but not unlawful.

2) The means of production of weapons is - sadly - a legitimate target in time of war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military staging areas and major industrial centers producing munitions. The only reason targeting them is questioned is because people are squeamish about the use of nuclear weapons. If they had been fire-bombed it would have been just another epic tragedy, no more or less noteworthy than any other firebombing perpetrated by McNamara or Churchill.

The real issue is this: Yoo and his boss told the president he is not bound by U.S. law.

A little more color on the torture memo . . .

Margolis overruled OPR, the bastard.

Late update:

If I have lost my job, and am short on funds, context dictates that I am justified in knocking off the liquor store down the street. I'm sure the authorities will understand. You see, this would be an unprecedented situation never experienced by me before - one which threatens my very survival.

Anything is justified, by Mr. Margolis' reckoning.

National Monuments?

Not sure this is a good idea. Not sure I want to see bus tours to Cedar Mesa . . .

Not sure I want wheel-chair ramps here . . .

So much for Justice . . .

These boys got off light, given the extent to which they betrayed their fundamental obligations as lawyers:

The report said “situations of great stress, danger and fear do not relieve department attorneys of their duty to provide thorough, objective, and candid legal advice, even if that advice is not what the clients want to hear.”

Sadly, the Obama White House's timidity in the face of so enormous a betrayal of our most basic concepts of justice does not come as a surprise.

And of course, this was the tip of the iceberg - the three detainees involved happened to be bona fide al qaeda. There were also innocents who were caught up in this travesty, who were subsequently released.

Another sad day for lawyers who give a shit about the constitution.

Next up . . .

. . . more good times ahead.

Gotta love our sophisticated risk management models.