One looks in vain in this article for precisely which parts are credible.

The most damning bit of their evidence is that Pakistan officials must have known of the coming Mumbai massacre:

India confronted Pakistan on Monday with a detailed dossier that it said showed that "elements from Pakistan" were behind the November terrorist assault on Mumbai and said it was inconceivable that no one in the Pakistani government knew of the plans.

India's moves added pressure to the already tense relationship between the nuclear-armed rivals over the assault, in which some 170 people died.

The evidence handed to Islamabad included the lengthy confession extracted during the interrogation of Ajmal Kasab, the only gunman caught during the attack. McClatchy reported Dec. 6 that Kasab had come from Faridkot, a village in Pakistan's Punjab province.

Also in the dossier were telephone intercepts between the assailants and their alleged handlers in Pakistan, data retrieved from recovered GPS and satellite phones and details of "recovered weapons and equipment," India's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

...

Shiv Shankar Menon, India's foreign secretary, the top bureaucrat in the Foreign Ministry, said it "beggars the imagination" that no one within the Pakistani state knew about the preparations for the attack, an accusation that appeared directed at the Pakistani army and its intelligence agencies.

Note that that, however, isn't positive evidence per se, but circumstantial evidence. The first-cited article does not mention that belief specifically, but the outgoing US ambassador seems full of implication:

He sought to counter the perception that Americans, critically dependent on Pakistan for the success of their fight against Taliban, will not lean hard on Pakistan. "Americans have different ways of skinning a cat," he said in a remark that could be seen as a reference to the American efforts to open parallel logistic routes to Afghanistan through Russia and Central Asia as well as the belief that they continue to have leverage on important state actors in Pakistan.

If the evidence is "credible," the implications from that evidence are credible as well.

Thanks to Guarav.

Posted by: Ace at 07:37 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

Yes, by all means, let us get to the bottom of who was responsible for this unconstitutional, illegal, barbaric regime of "torture."

The briefings [about aggressive interrogation techniques of high-level Al Qaeda, including, specifically, waterboarding] were first available to the Chairmen and ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees. From 2003 through 2006, that gang of four included Democrats Bob Graham and John D. Rockefeller in the Senate and Jane Harman in the House, as well as Republicans Porter Goss, Peter Hoekstra, Richard Shelby and Pat Roberts. Senior staffers were sometimes present. After September 2006, when President Bush publicly acknowledged the program, the interrogation briefings were opened to the full committees.

If Congress wanted to kill this program, all it had to do was withhold funding. And if Democrats thought it was illegal or really found the CIA's activities so heinous, one of them could have made a whistle-blowing floor statement under the protection of the Constitution's speech and debate clause. They'd have broken their secrecy oaths and jeopardized national security, sure. But if they believed that Bush policies were truly criminal, didn't they have a moral obligation to do so? In any case, the inevitable media rapture over their anti-Bush defiance would have more than compensated.

Ms. Harman did send a one-page classified letter in February 2003 listing her equivocal objections to the interrogation program. She made her letter public in January 2008 after the CIA revealed that it had destroyed some interrogation videotapes. After lauding the CIA's efforts "in the current threat environment," she noted that "what was described raises profound policy questions and I am concerned about whether these have been as rigorously examined as the legal questions." Ms. Harman also vaguely wondered whether "these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States," but she did not condemn them as either torture or illegal.

This wasn't the only time a politician filed an inconsequential expression of anti-antiterror protest. Mr. Rockefeller famously wrote a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney objecting to warrantless wiretapping, but then stuck it (literally) in a drawer. Like Ms. Harman, only after the program was exposed did he reveal his missive to show he'd been opposed all along, though he'd done nothing about it.

According to Mr. Goss, some Members at the time even wondered if our terror fighters were harsh enough as they tried to extract potentially live-saving information. Mr. Goss, who later served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006, told the Washington Post in 2007 that, "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

The article is about Democrats' likely push for "Truth Commissions" to get to the bottom of the "Torture Regime." As is common, Congress will be looking to scapegoat others for its own decisions.

More at Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.

Posted by: Ace at 07:29 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

Just across the wires. Looks like Burris will have something else to chisel onto his monument.

Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat.

After being rejected Tuesday when he tried to join the class of incoming senators, Burris is expected to meet with the Senate's top two Democrats -- Majority Leader Harry Reid and assistant leader Dick Durbin -- on Wednesday in the hopes of securing their support.

The likelihood that Burris, a Democrat, will become the Senate's only black member after Obama's resignation from the seat, increased Tuesday when a key chairwoman got behind him, cracking what had been united public front by Senate Democrats against an appointee of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Senate officials in both parties, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly for Senate members, have said there is a growing expectation in the Capitol that the saga will end with Burris being seated.

Update - Harry Reid's spokesman is denying the reports. Not surprising, considering how weak and stupid he'll look (again) if Senate Democrats seat Burris over Reid's objections.

Posted by: Slublog at 06:40 AM | Comments (74)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Any Humpday Headlines?

Also, don't forget to FLY, MONKEYS!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:37 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

No more love from Hugo.

It's a cold winter a-comin, up there where you all have that cold winter shit.*

Back when the fatty-fat-crude from Venezuela was a buck fitty a barrel, El Puerco (pardon my ninth grade C- Spanish) was willing to play politics and stuff with the largess.

I guess he's not about the love just now.

It takes a lotta well flares to feed a socialist paradise.

* it's not you. it's me.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:05 PM | Comments (102)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

You may want to fix yourself a drink before I go through them. At the moment these are placeholders on Harry Reid's wishlist. Keep in mind that incoming Congresses usually pinch off a few bills that don't necessarily go anywhere. Also, the Democrats are going to have to bear down and set the details on these and that may give us some opportunity to tug things towards the center.

S.1 -- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This is the stimulus package. Democrats are halfheartedly trying to reach out to Republicans on this one. Bully for them, but I'm with Ace about trading one-time tax relief for long-term intervention.

S.2 -- Middle Class Opportunity Act of 2009. This is where several tax reforms relating to education, the alternative minimum tax, and child tax credits will go. Rumor is that card check could make another appearance as well as last year's failed Ledbetter Law.

S.3 -- Homeowner Protection and Wall Street Accountability Act of 2009. This would more accurately be titled the "No More Mortgages for Anyone Act." This is the Democratic plan to put a moratorium on foreclosures and rewrite existing loan contracts. The predictable result of this meddling is much higher interest rates, even if it doesn't cause a few lending institutions to collapse.

S.4 -- Comprehensive Health Reform Act of 2009. Still a big blank. It could be Obama's plan, which creates a new federal health insurance bureaucracy, penalizes small businesses, places mandates on parents, and forces private health insurers to accept all comers. Don't forget the paperless health system! Or it could be something more like Hillary Clinton's mandatory, universal care. I'm on pins and needles over here!

S.5 -- Cleaner, Greener, and Smarter Act of 2009. Harry Reid had the same bill in 2007. That one didn't go anywhere, but maybe the newer, snappier name will make a difference.

S.6. -- Restoring AmericaÂ’s Power Act of 2009. This one is almost certainly just a pro forma attempt to sound like they've got a clue when it comes to foreign policy. They're not going to step on Obama's toes right off the bat, which means this one's already a dead letter.

S.7 -- Education Opportunity Act of 2009. Same here. Despite the screeching of the teacher's unions, there is no Democratic consensus on education. About the only thing they can agree on is that saying they are "For Education" is good politics. Consequently, they have one like this every time.

S.8 -- Returning Government to the American People Act. Blame Bush: The Law! The idea is to review and possibly legislate away Bush-era regulatory reforms. Regulations from the EPA (but especially the EPA) to the VA and everything in between could face review.

S.9 -- Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009. This is the Artist formerly known as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." He got a better agent.

S.10 -- Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. This is Democratic lip service for the things they've already thrown out the window: pay-as-you-go and deficit reduction.

I'm surprised that abortion didn't make the list. For comparison, here is Harry Reid's wishlist from the 110th Congress:

• S. 1 -- Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. [Passed and signed into law in September 2007.]
• S.2 -- Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. [An alternative minimum wage hike passed in 2008.]
• S.3 -- Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 [Bo-oring!]
• S.4 -- Improving America's Security Act of 2007. [The 9/11 Commission recommendations, signed into law in August 2007.]
• S.5 -- Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. [Vetoed.]
• S.6 -- National Energy and Environmental Security Act of 2007. [Big ol' ZERO.]
• S.7 -- College Opportunity Act of 2007. [Referred to a committee; promptly forgotten.]
• S.8 -- Rebuilding America's Military Act of 2007. [Referred to a committee; subsequently ignored by Dems.]
• S.9 -- Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. [You know how that one ended; everyone can reach over their shoulder and scratch another notch onto their bedpost.]
• S.10 -- Restoring Fiscal Discipline Act of 2007. [These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.]

Your guess is as good as mine for how much influence Republicans will have on legislation in the 111th Congress. Norm Coleman's seat is still (barely) in contention and even if Al Franken becomes a senator, Democrats are still one short of a filibuster-proof majority. Of course, that makes slippery Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter the most important Republicans in the Senate. On second thought, I think I'll have another drink.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:43 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 703 words, total size 5 kb.

Fresh off being blown off by Team Obama over the naming of Leon Panneta to head the CIA, Diane Feinstein cuts Harry Reid off at the knees.

Can't you just feel the love?

A key Democrat broke with her Senate colleagues Tuesday to support Roland Burris in his controversial bid to assume Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee that soon could take up Burris' case, said Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has the right to appoint a senator despite the allegations of corruption against him.

"Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes," Feinstein said, urging the Senate to settle the matter. "If you don't seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America. ... Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician."

The comments flew in the face of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's assertion that Burris should not be seated in part because the move would be tainted by the Blagojevich scandal. Feinstein's stance is the latest sign of intra-party tensions over the matter.

Burris is set to meet with Reid tomorrow. I think he'll enjoy throwing this in his face.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:43 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

Quick...name the current Surgeon General (no fair using Google or any search engine). Yeah, me neither.

Well, it looks like the celebrity president is about to have a cable celebrity as Surgeon General.

The Obama transition team approached Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, about becoming U.S. surgeon general, according to sources inside the transition and at CNN.

...The transition team is impressed with the combination of Gupta's past government experience, as a White House fellow in 1997 and a special adviser to then-first lady Hillary Clinton, along with his medical career as a neurosurgeon and his communication skills, the transition source said.

Gupta is a member of the staff and faculty of the Department of Neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. He regularly performs surgery at Emory University Hospital and at Grady Memorial Hospital, where he serves as associate chief of neurosurgery.

I have to say I could not care less about who become Surgeon General but Gupta seems to have a lot in his favor. He's likely to want to go back on TV, so I doubt he'll be as stupid as Joycelyn Elders. He's also cuffed Michael Moore around over Moore's film Sicko. Most importantly, while in Iraq doing a story for CNN he operated on and saved the life of a Marine. That makes him okay with me.

Posted by: DrewM at 03:20 PM | Comments (737)
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Citing the gross inconsistencies in how Coleman and Franken ballots were treated, with Franken always getting the double-benefit of the double-standard, Coleman's suing.

I had worried he'd give in like a good little Republican. So far he's not going out like a punk.

Coleman, whose term expired Saturday, led Franken by 215 votes in the Nov. 4 count but that advantage flipped during a prolonged recount. Coleman's lawyers say recount inconsistencies and election irregularities should be reviewed by a special three-judge panel.

In going to court, Coleman has three big challenges: raising money to pay escalating legal bills, proving the election was flawed and managing the public's desire to have the race over.

And while Coleman is filing the lawsuit, Franken will also have a chance to try to scrounge up additional votes. Both sides will have options they didn't have during the recount, such as accessing voter rolls, inspecting machines and introducing testimony from election workers.

Coleman's filing includes some of the points his lawyers have been making for weeks. It centers mainly around claims that hundreds of rejected absentee ballots from Republican-leaning areas should have been part of the recount, that some ballots in Democratic territory were counted twice and that election officials were wrong to use machine tallies for a Minneapolis precinct where ballots went missing.

But there are new angles, too.

The lawsuit alleges that the Canvassing Board made mistakes when determining voter intent on challenged ballots, that ineligible voters cast ballots and that some absentee ballots were erroneously opened early, raising chain-of-custody concerns.

The lawsuit doesn't spell out how many votes Coleman hopes to gain.

A race that was a couple of years in the making—Franken announced his campaign in February 2007—is now two months past Election Day.

Posted by: Ace at 01:22 PM | Comments (99)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Terrible news... Not only is a likely-winner out of the race, but it seems to indicate Jeb's own beliefs about the political environment the next, oh, 4-8 years.

Democrats retired in droves, or failed to run in droves, during the Republican "Realignment" from 2000-2004. This would seem to be the same phenomenon. It's just no fun putting yourself through all that crap to play for a losing team.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 12:19 PM | Comments (75)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.