I'm sure Kitt is an optimist compared to me, but have you ever considered it might be more a matter of his understanding of this phenomenon and less so a positive outlook?

No, it didn't. Kitt and Glenn and others have a lot of faith that hard steady work will fix the system. I agree with that, and try to have faith, even though sometimes I would advocate slightly more aggressive tactics, but that isn't important. What is, quite frankly, is that when I look at how much damage is out there and what needs to be done to fix it, my faith in such things begins to fail, it seems like it's too broke to fix. So I find them to be infinitely more optimistic than I, and am grateful for it.

Just say Rockefeller today with Chuck Hagel on Face the Nation. According to both of them, neither one wants an independent appointed counsel. to investigate this further, but would rather want this to be dealt with by Congress instead. Joe Biden, OTOH, I believe was interviewed with George Stephanopolis at the same time and very much wants an investigation by an independent counsel.

Seems rather telling, don't you think?

I'm not making this point in service of some broader aim.

It's safe to assume that if there were a "broader aim", it would be the good of the country - trite as that sounds.

As Obama keeps saying, to paraphrase, [this mess] "has been festering through Republican and Democratic Administrations, for decades" - he is right, the Bush team's incompetence is what is bringing it to the fore, for all of us to watch in amazement and repulsion.

As to what needs to be done, paying attention, and picking the right leaders is a start. Making sure all crimes are properly prosecuted soonest is also a priority. Reforming the institutions is next. And so on. It's not as if we don't know what needs to be done, or even how to go about doing it, but the awareness and determination of the American people are required. And that is a matter of collective effort.

The mess didn't happen overnight, it will take a while to clean up.

(formerly "Dounia", heads-up)

Good stuff.

Please expand on last week's remarks by Sen. Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on the Protect America Act, which he slammed mightily.

Harper's ran a piece on him in which he talked about the president's rather ... shall I call it loopy? - use of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).

OLC, apparently, issues all White House opinions, and all of them govern the Department of Justice, and thus, as Jim White (a lotta whites) pointed out to me, legal dunce that I am - all of us.

There's more to flesh out on Whitehouse if you please, as well as the use of the signing statements, which neutralize any laws Congress chooses to pass.

What are the options if the Democratic leadership in Congress is complicit on the torture issue, and all the rest?

Are we well along Impeachment Road?

Or, since some MC's are complicit in the CIA torture issues, are we beyond that; is it something different?

Who might go to the Supreme Court?

Is that possible or feasible?

He grandstanded about it for three days, taking the reins on the issue. Then he promptly signed onto the Military Commissions Act which gave Bush infinite power to torture, to decide what constitutes torture, and to suspend the centuries-old fundamental law of habeas corpus.

All hail the moderate maverick McCain!

What McCain did was absurd, but how many Democrats have been as outspoken against torture and waterboarding as he has? And how many of them did more than he did to stop the Bush program?

It has been obvious from Day 1 that Democratic "leaders" have supported torture and other outrages quite openly, what's the big surprise now?

The vote for the Military Commissions Act was not secret.

Liberal bloggers merely tried to hold on to their partisan bias as long as they possibly could, just like Democratic legislators.

I guess it's better to jump on the bandwagon late than never, even if it exposes their own hypocrisy.

Glenn is absolutely correct about certain Democratic leadership’s complicity in Bush/Cheney’s torture program, and it is incumbent on those involved to come clean.

However, about the only thing we can count on this soulless administration to do well is political manipulation through distortion, and which apparently is currently succeeding apace with the Democrats. This is looking more and more like part of a larger political strategy to pry what they would undoubtedly call the “left-wing,” generally those who oppose torture and our continued occupation of Iraq, away from the Democratic Party.

Bush/Cheney see the Republicans’ electoral fortunes going down the tubes in 2008 and, while they may present themselves as ideologues not caring about their own party’s upcoming political fortunes, they do care. They care because even extremists realize one cannot wield the power if one doesn’t hold the offices. They also care because they have feeling some desperation at this point of what may come to light post-January 2009 if Democrats hold all offices.

Administration and Republican strategists know that their 30% is locked in to their party no matter what - gosh, who could have better examples than the culture warriors we see here practically every day; but they also realize that the Democrats generally do not possess a similar lockstep segment, at least none anywhere near the political significance of the Republicans, and appear to be looking to create wedge issues within the Democratic Party. I would argue that torture is rapidly becoming one of these.

Two other major events of the week lend this more plausibility.

We need to recall that just a few days before the CIA leak came the NIE report, which was likely forced on the administration by an intelligence community that wasn’t too thrilled about prospectively being made the scapegoat for another war. This report revealed the administration in potentially a very damaging light, to put it mildly, as it revealed Bush/Cheny warmongering tactics and mendacity that mirrored Iraq. The Democrats were beginning to have a field day with it, and the senseless rhetoric and ever-changing explanations coming from Bush/Cheney were only making things worse, not only here politically, but even abroad.

Releasing the CIA information where they ultimately could bring certain Democrat leaders in on some degree of co-culpability for approval of torture techniques where they could not do this with the NIE is a redirection that makes political sense, with the added benefit of creating a Democratic Party wedge issue.

As always, it is helpful when one has a traditional media and one’s own message machine to properly disseminate the information as needed. Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars makes an excellent point when pointing out the care with which the Washington Post ensured all the Democrats in attendance at the meeting were listed, but the paper was not quite as thorough regarding the attending Republicans, which - imagine that! - brings into question the sourcing of the article.

The other event that supports the Bush/Cheney strategy of dividing and conquering the Democrats is the budget issue. Once again, they made the Democratic leadership look positively weak by Bush/Cheney still threatening to veto after Reid/Pelosi caved in on Iraq. Bush/Cheney, since they could care less about domestic welfare other than for their cronies, simply wants to make Democratic leadership look insincere on Iraq and peel off support from the anti-Iraq occupation base. Same as with coming clean on torture, if Democratic leadership doesn’t take real legislative stands on Iraq that might involve political risk, Bush/Cheney likely will succeed in this endeavor. This includes the Democratic candidates for President.

Anger at individual Democrats is obviously appropriate. However, before damning the Democrats as a party, we need to be mindful of the political manipulation obviously at play, of the selectivity and the sequence with which such information is being disseminated, and especially who is sourcing it.