we used to be protected by oceans

* nyt:

"Mr. Bush spent 90 minutes with (Baker's) commission members in a closed session at the White House two weeks ago “essentially arguing why we should embrace what amounts to a ‘stay the course’ strategy,” said one commission official who was present."

I suppose it's not surprising that Bush argued his 'case' in front of the ISG - but still... can you imagine him actually thinking anything, let alone making a case? Can you imagine the look of contempt on Baker's face while he had to sit there for 90 minutes listening to 'we used to be protected by oceans'?

* amy:

"And in Colorado, a homeowners association is threatening to fine a resident for putting up a Christmas wreath with a peace sign on her house because it could be considered divisive. The owner of the wreath – Lisa Jensen – has vowed to keep the wreath up until after Christmas even though it will result in a fine of about one thousand dollars."

* glenn:

'So Harman has a history of defending the administration's illegal intelligence activities. She was among the most gullible and/or deceitful when it came to disseminating the administration's most extreme (and most inaccurate) intelligence claims to "justify" the invasion of Iraq. She supports the administration's efforts to criminally investigate, if not prosecute, journalists who reveal illegal intelligence activities on the part of the President (including illegal activities about which Harman knew but said nothing).

Given her position as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Harman was repeatedly used by the administration -- with her consent -- as a potent instrument to shield itself from scrutiny, by creating the "Responsible Democrat" (Harman, Lieberman) v. "Irresponsible Democrat" dichotomy and then arguing that they enjoyed bipartisan support from the Good, Sensible Democrats like Harman. That's why, just like Joe Lieberman, Harman's most vociferous defenders are the most extreme Bush followers and neoconservatives. It is their agenda whom she promotes (which is why they defend her).

In light of that history, why would anyone think that Nancy Pelosi should choose Jane Harman to be the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, a key position for exercising desperately-needed oversight over the administration's last two years of intelligence mischief and, as importantly, for investigating and exposing the administration's past misconduct? She instinctively supports, or at least acquieses to, the administration's excesses, and would be among the worst choices Pelosi could make."