3,000.... When it comes to Saddam Hussein's execution, the word of the day, Joshua Holland notes, is "milestone." As in Bush's statement marking Saddam's death: "Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself." By Holland's count, it was the sixteenth "turning point" or "milestone" (along with one chance to "turn the tide" and a "watershed event") in the last three and a half years.

But so long as "milestones" are open for discussion, a far more tragic one was reached today.

Jordan W. Hess was the unlikeliest of soldiers. He could bench-press 300 pounds and then go home and write poetry. He learned the art of glass blowing because it seemed interesting and built a computer with only a magazine as his guide. Most recently, he fell in love with a woman from Brazil and took up digital photography, letting both sweep his heart away.

Specialist Hess, the seventh of eight children, was never keen on premonitions, but on Christmas of 2005, as his tight-knit family gathered on a beach for the weekend, he told each sibling and parent privately that he did not expect to come home from Iraq.

On Nov. 11, Specialist Hess, 26, freshly arrived in Iraq, was conducting a mission as the driver of an Abrams tank when an improvised explosive device, or I.E.D., blew up with brain-rattling force. The blast was so potent it penetrated the 67-ton tank, flinging him against the top and critically injuring his spine. His four crewmates survived. For three weeks, he hung on at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, long enough to utter a few words to his loved ones and absorb all their kindness.

On Dec. 4, Specialist Hess slipped onto the ever-expanding list of American military fatalities in Iraq, one that has increased by an average of more than three a day since Oct. 1, the highest three-month toll in two years. On Sunday, with the announcement of the death in Baghdad of Specialist Dustin R. Donica, 22, of Spring, Tex., the list reached the grave milestone of at least 3,000 deaths since the March 2003 invasion.

In June, after U.S. fatalities in Iraq reached 2,500, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked if the president had "any response or reaction." Snow responded, "It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks, people want something."

In this case, I think Snow was right; people do "want something." We want a president who understands reality. We want an administration with an effective policy. We want U.S. troops to get out of the middle of a civil war.

In short, we want to avoid number 3,001.

Here's to a far less tragic 2007.

LUGAR: 'THIS COULD GET UGLY'.... Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been surprisingly willing to break with the Bush White House on foreign policy and national security issues, far more than one might expect for a conservative Republican from a reliably "red" state.

Lugar, for example, was one of the first lawmakers to publicly criticize the Bush administration's practice of paying Iraqi news outlets to publish American propaganda. Soon after, Lugar told Newsweek that Bush should be more like Bill Clinton when it comes to being exposed to a variety competing ideas. Lugar has even pushed back against some Donald Rumsfeld's less defensible comments.

But today, responding to the notion of an escalation in Iraq, Lugar went a little further than he usually does.

Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the outgoing chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said President Bush should have congressional support before he announces any plan for escalation in Iraq. "[I]n the past, the administration has been inclined not to disregard Congress but to not take Congress very seriously. I think this time Congress has to be taken seriously."

If Bush ignores Congress, Lugar said he should expect "a lot of hearings, a lot of study, a lot of criticism," and "demands for subpoenas." Fox host Chris Wallace said, "You saying this could get ugly." Lugar replied, "Yes, it could."

Asked directly if he supports sending more troops, Lugar said he didn't know, but recommended a "retreat" in which members of the Foreign Relations Committee studies the president's plan and responds to it, before the plan is implemented.

I hope Lugar isn't holding is breath, waiting for the White House's call. It's not coming.

THE STATE OF FOOTBALL.... Because it's a big weekend for football, and because Kevin routinely does at least one football-related item on weekends, I thought it'd be worth mentioning that ESPN.com ran an interesting feature the other day: "How do the states stack up across all levels of football?"

The idea was to rank the best states for football, based on the opinions of the networks' NFL, college and Scouts Inc. editors. Here are the top five.

1. Texas: No. 4 pro | No. 1 college | No. 1 high school: The Lone Star State has 10 DI teams, six Heismans, six national titles, three AFL titles, five Super Bowl wins and 24 NFL Hall of Famers.

2. California: No. 2 pro | No. 3 college | No. 2 high school: The Golden State has seven DI teams, nine Heismans, eight national titles, one NFL title, one AFL title, eight Super Bowl wins and 15 NFL Hall of Famers.

3. Florida: No. 3 pro | No. 2 college | No. 3 high school: The Sunshine State has seven DI teams, six Heismans, eight national titles, three Super Bowl wins and seven NFL Hall of Famers.

4. Pennsylvania: No. 1 pro | No. 7 college | No. 6 high school: The Keystone State has three DI teams, two Heismans, four national titles, four NFL titles, five Super Bowl wins and 26 NFL Hall of Famers.

5. Ohio: No. 5 pro | No. 4 college | No. 5 high school: The Buckeye State has eight DI teams, seven Heismans, seven national titles, nine NFL titles and 21 NFL Hall of Famers.

The list struck me as inherently flawed, since everyone knows my birth-state of Florida is obviously the nation's most impressive state for football. Besides, Texas gets credit for AFL titles? And how many of those Lone-Star State national titles came within the last couple of decades?

Let the debate begin....

ROCK OF AGES, AGES OF ROCKS.... An interesting controversy at the Grand Canyon has been percolating for three years now, and the issue, unfortunately, remains unresolved.

First, a little background. In August 2003, the National Park Service approved a creationist text, "Grand Canyon: A Different View," to share bookshelves with legitimate books at park bookstores and museums. In this case, the "different view" meant an unscientific approach, touting a literal reading of scripture to explain the Canyon's formation. The book argues, for example, "[A]ccording to a biblical time scale, [the Canyon] can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old."

The decision to promote the book didn't go over well. Scientists who work at the Grand Canyon were outraged, as was the academic community -- the American Geological Institute and seven geo-science organizations sent letters to the park and agency officials asking that the book be removed. Their objections were rebuffed; the book stayed.

Three years later, the problem appears to be slightly worse.

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is 'no comment.'"

The National Park Service promised a high-level policy review of the issue three years ago. Apparently, that never occurred. What a surprise.

There are a couple of angles to this story. It's absurd, for example, that scientists working for the National Park Service can't answer questions from visitors about the age of the Canyon. A practical "gag rule" to hide accurate information from the public is just indefensible.

As for the book, creationists offer two basic arguments. Neither is particularly persuasive.

First, they argue that it's a diversity-of-thought issue. A spokesperson for the Institute for Creation Research, which publishes the book in question, said three years ago, "As long as all sides are presented, I don't see any problem with it."

I understand that this argument strikes many people as fair. The state-sponsored bookstore should, the theory goes, feature books with real information alongside books with wrong information. It's about having a sense of "balance."

It's also misguided. If the purpose of the bookstore is to offer visitors texts with accurate information that they can rely on, then creating a theological "balance" is an unattainable, and ultimately unnecessary, goal.

Does every possible idea deserve the official imprimatur of the National Park Service? Will the NPS save space for The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's ideas about the origins of the Grand Canyon, or are fundamentalist Christians the only lucky group? (In 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item -- the creationist book.)

Just to be clear, the point isn't to censor the books based on pseudo-science. If a private business, whether it be Amazon.com or a religious bookstore, wants to sell books that offer "alternative" ideas about the age of the Grand Canyon, that's up to them. That said, there's a difference between private enterprise and state sponsorship. National parks should offer the public reliable information, not religious conjecture.

Second, proponents of "Grand Canyon: A Different View" insist that there's a legitimate debate about the actual age of the canyon. That's true. Some scientists believe the Colorado River carved the Canyon 5 million years ago, others say 6 million. Some believe the rock formations are 2 billion years old, others may say 2.5 billion.

But the fact that there's some disagreement among scientists doesn't mean the floor is now open to any and all ideas as equally legitimate explanations. No matter how heated the debate between two scholars who want to argue between the 5 million and 6 million year old models, both believe the idea that the Canyon is 10,000 years old -- or perhaps even younger -- is utterly ridiculous.

I realize the Bush administration's assault on science is well-established at this point -- there's even a great book available on the subject -- but do we really have to wait until 2009 for this nonsense to stop?

BEHOLDEN TO BIG OIL.... If I didn't know better, I might just think the Bush administration is a little too cozy with the oil industry.

The Justice Department is investigating whether the director of a multibillion-dollar oil-trading program at the Interior Department has been paid as a consultant for oil companies hoping for contracts.

The director of the program and three subordinates, all based in Denver, have been transferred to different jobs and have been ordered to cease all contacts with the oil industry until the investigation is completed some time next spring, according to officials involved.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation had not been announced publicly, said investigators were worried that senior government officials had been steering huge oil-trading contracts to favored companies.

This news, of course, comes shortly after we learned that former Interior Secretary Gale Norton has sailed through the revolving door to become a lawyer for Royal Dutch Shell.

Which comes shortly after revelations that officials at Bush's Interior Department tried to hide information that federal incentives for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico isn't cost effective, doesn't produce a lot of oil, and is generally just a massive give-away to oil companies.

Which comes shortly after news the Interior Department has barely bothered to collect royalties from oil companies, which the industry owes the government for drilling on federal property, in recent years.

If administration officials aren't careful, the public might get the impression that they're beholden to Big Oil. Wouldn't that be shocking?

MILITARY TIMES POLL.... A couple of days ago, the AP reported on dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, which patrols the streets of eastern Baghdad, and learned that most of those seeing the conflict up close are discouraged, dejected, and ready to leave. As informative as the piece was, it was difficult to extrapolate from it and understand how most U.S. troops feel.

Fortunately, a poll for the Military Times newspapers, which questioned 6,000 randomly selected active-duty members, gives us a much better sense. In case the myth that military personnel still widely support the president's policy hadn't been debunked enough, these results should do the trick.

Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.

And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all. [...]

Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today's military is stretched too thin to be effective.

As for the escalation, only 38% of those surveyed believe more troops should be sent to Iraq, while 39% think there should be the same number or less than there are now. (The rest said they didn't know.)

On a related note, Greg Sargent mentioned that Defense Secretary Robert Gates "recently held a photo-op sit-down with some of the troops in Iraq. By sheer coincidence, all of the assembled troops said they support an increase in troops to Iraq."

Nevertheless, given the results, it's safe to say civilians aren't the only ones Bush is losing.

EVEN IN DEATH.... Even the way in which Saddam was executed played into the sectarian conflict that's tearing Iraq apart.

The tribunal...had a unique sense of timing when choosing the day for Saddam's hanging. It was a slap in the face to Sunni Arabs. This weekend marks Eid al-Adha, the Holy Day of Sacrifice, on which Muslims commemorate the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son for God. Shiites celebrate it Sunday. Sunnis celebrate it Saturday -- and Iraqi law forbids executing the condemned on a major holiday. Hanging Saddam on Saturday was perceived by Sunni Arabs as the act of a Shiite government that had accepted the Shiite ritual calendar.

The timing also allowed Saddam, in his farewell address to Iraq, to pose as a "sacrifice" for his nation, an explicit reference to Eid al-Adha. The tribunal had given the old secular nationalist the chance to use religious language to play on the sympathies of the whole Iraqi public.

The spiral continues.

SADDAM EXECUTION HOURS AWAY.... There were competing reports throughout the day about when, exactly, Saddam Hussein would be executed, but it now appears that the former dictator will be hanged before dawn on Saturday in Iraq, before 6 a.m. (10 p.m. Friday ET).

The official witnesses to Saddam Hussein's impending execution gathered Friday in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone in final preparation for his hanging, as state television broadcast footage of his regime's atrocities.

With U.S. forces on high alert for a surge in violence, the Iraqi government readied all the necessary documents, including a "red card" -- an execution order introduced during Saddam's dictatorship.

Wait, they're using the same execution for Saddam that Saddam used? As Shakes put it, "Always good to show how things have changed by using the same accoutrements of death while executing their architect."

There was also this:

Al-Nueimi said U.S. authorities were maintaining physical custody of Saddam to prevent him from being humiliated before his execution. He said the Americans also want to prevent the mutilation of his corpse, as has happened to other deposed Iraqi leaders. "The Americans want him to be hanged respectfully," al-Nueimi said. If Saddam is humiliated publicly or his corpse ill-treated "that could cause an uprising and the Americans would be blamed," he said.

Yes, the battle for hearts and minds continues.

As for what to make of all of this, no one will miss the Butcher of Baghdad, and no tears will be shed for his death. That said, I think Josh Marshall's analysis is the most accurate and poignant I've seen: "Hanging Saddam is easy. It's a job, for once, that these folks can actually see through to completion. So this execution, ironically and pathetically, becomes a stand-in for the failures, incompetence and general betrayal of country on every other front that President Bush has brought us.... This is the best we can do. Hang Saddam Hussein because there's nothing else this president can get right."

A SIDE OF RICE.... With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice having two years under her belt, now's a good time to step back and consider her overall job performance. David Millikin makes the case that Rice has "few diplomatic successes to show for her efforts and fewer signs she plans to change course to improve the record."

The AEI's Joshua Muravchik, hardly a Rice critic, acknowledged, "I don't know that there have been concrete advances" under Rice's diplomacy, though he nevertheless gave her "high grades" for faithfully implementing Bush's policy agenda.

I'm curious, though, if Rice's setbacks and shortcomings her fault, or those of her boss. Millikin quoted Aaron Miller, who advised six secretaries of state before joining the Woodrow Wilson Center, saying, "Great secretaries of state have compelling views of the world and/or are effective negotiators -- Secretary Rice has so far demonstrated neither."

That certainly seems true, and I'm loath to defend Rice (I'm generally stunned by mendacity and misplaced priorities), but it often seems that the Bush administration is so dysfunctional, Rice has to fail. Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't even return her phone calls, for crying out loud.

This recent anecdote highlights the problem nicely.

Consider a story in the latest Time magazine, recounting the efforts -- before the [Iraq Study Group] was approved by Congress -- of three supporters to enlist Condoleezza Rice to win the administration's approval for the panel. Here is how Time reports it:

"As the trio departed, a Rice aide asked one of her suitors not to inform anyone at the Pentagon that chairmen had been chosen and the study group was moving forward. If Rumsfeld was alerted to the study group's potential impact, the aide said, he would quickly tell Cheney, who could, with a few words, scuttle the whole thing. Rice got through to Bush the next day, arguing that the thing was going to happen anyway, so he might as well get on board. To his credit, the President agreed."

The article treats this exchange in a matter-of-fact way, but, what it suggests is completely horrifying. Rice apparently believed that Bush would simply follow the advice of whoever he spoke with. Therefore the one factor determining whether Bush would support the commission was whether Cheney or Rice managed to get to him first.

Sure, Rice hasn't had any successes to speak of, but given her superiors, should this come as a surprise to anyone?

BUCKING RUBINOMICS.... Last week, Paul Krugman offered the incoming Democratic majority some advice: do not place deficit reduction at the top of the priority list.

As Krugman explained, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin helped convince the party in the 1990s that deficit reduction was key to fiscal and budgetary policy. At the time, in the midst of what Krugman accurately describes as "an era of peace, prosperity and favorable demographics," the approach was sound and successful. But we're facing different challenges now, and "Rubinomics" may not fit the circumstances. After encouraging Dems not to make the deficit worse, Krugman suggested, [G]iven a choice between cutting the deficit and spending more on good things like health care reform, they should choose the spending."

To be sure, this is a fairly controversial prescription, even (especially) among most Dems, but it's worth noting that the approach has at least one high-profile ally: John Edwards.

Ezra Klein, on the road covering the brand new Edwards presidential campaign, transcribed an important exchange Edwards had during a Q&A in Iowa. A voter noted that the deficit is often overlooked and asked the former senator what his approach to the issue would be. After noting Bush's deplorable record on the issue, Edwards acknowledged "a tension between our desire to eliminate the deficit and create a stronger economic foundation and eliminate some of the debt our children will inherit." Edwards then took a side.

"I think that, if we're honest, you cannot it, it's just common sense in the math, have universal health care, and invest in energy, and make a serious effort to eliminate poverty, to strengthen the middle class, and do some of the work that I think America needs to be leading on around the world, and at the same time, eliminate the deficit. Those things are incompatible. And anybody who claims -- politicians who say 'I'm going to give you a big tax cut, and give you health care, put more money into education, and oh by the way, we're going to balance the budget in the process,' it's just make-believe, it isn't the truth.

"So I think there's gonna be hard judgments that have to be made -- my commitment is to have universal health care, to do things that have to be done about this energy situation and global warming, because I think they're enormous threats, not only to the people of America but to the future of the world, for America to lead on some of these big moral issues that face the world, and I think America has to do something about poverty, I just do. Those are higher priorities to me than the elimination of the deficit. I don't want to make the deficit worse and I would like to reduce the deficit, but in the short-term, if we don't take a step to deal with these other issues, it in my judgment, undermines the ability of America to remain strong in the 21st century."

Ezra described this as "a genuinely important admission, and one that very, very few Democrats are willing to make." I think that's absolutely true, particularly after the voter probably asked the question with a far different answer in mind.

First, Edwards deserves credit for an honest, informative answer. Second, and perhaps more importantly, watch for this issue to be a key policy debate during the primaries.

CONGRESS TO REVISIT THE MCA.... When the Military Commissions Act, which among other things suspended habeas corpus for detainees in U.S. custody, went to the Senate floor in September, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) noted, "Surely as we are standing here, if this bill is passed and habeas corpus is stricken, we'll be back on this floor again" after the courts reject the legislation.

We may not have to wait that long. Earlier this month, we saw the first inkling that the MCA might be revisited in 2007, but it now appears almost certain that the law will be re-examined by the new Democratic Senate.

Senate Democrats plan to revisit one of the most contentious matters of 2006: deciding what legal rights must be protected for detainees held in the war on terrorism.

In September, Congress passed a bill that gave President Bush wide latitude in interrogating and detaining captured combatants. The legislation prompted more than three months of debate -- exposing Republican fissures and prompting angry rebukes by Democrats of the administration's interrogation policies.

A group of Senate Democrats and one Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, want to resurrect the bill to fix a provision they say threatens the nation's credibility on human rights issues.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) office said this week that Reid "would support attempts to revisit some of the most extreme elements of the bill" including language stripping detainees of habeas corpus rights.

Good. I don't doubt the White House will issue all manner of veto threats, but I'd like to see just how many lawmakers are willing to undo what they did.

LIEBERMAN MAKES HIS CASE.... Sen. Joe Lieberman just returned from a 10-day visit to the Middle East, but it appears the senator didn't learn much. He's still very much the neo-con.

...While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

The entire argument -- more troops in Iraq, more confrontation with Iran -- is so detached from reality that one almost suspects the Bush White House helped Lieberman draft his op-ed in advance of publication. It is strikingly painful to read.

There's a lot of quality analysis of Lieberman's piece out there, but I'm partial to Steve Clemons' take. For example, Lieberman noted, "The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security." Clemons responds:

What Lieberman doesn't understand is that his realization of the "security problem" is not new. Our forces have been struggling for a number of years now and not solving this problem. Our troops are considered by many in Iraq to be just another militia among many -- or to even be the primary cause of the insurgency for others. Senator Lieberman fails to deal with either of these impulses behind the violence.

And he seems to be advocating just starting from scratch. Just get the security problem fixed. With what Senator Lieberman? ... Senator Lieberman, let their be no doubt that the outcome you fear was totally predictable -- and was triggered by you and the other enablers of this war. Where is your humility and your own ownership of the consequences of what you have unleashed?

It's an agonizing reminder that those who helped orchestrate and execute this fiasco are not only proud of their work, they're intent on making it worse.

REDEFINING FAILURE.... Frances Fragos Townsend, assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, was on CNN yesterday discussing the war in Iraq, Saddam's pending execution, and the Middle East, but CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry had the temerity to ask about the terrorist behind 9/11.

Officials from this White House are known for some bizarre comments, but Townsend's response has to go in the Hall of Fame. (via)

HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.

A "success that hasn't occurred yet"? By that logic, practically nothing could ever be characterized as failure. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Bush gang hasn't thought of this sooner.

"Budget deficits are just surpluses that haven't occurred yet."

"Global warming is just global cooling that hasn't occurred yet."

"Stagnant wages are just raises that haven't occurred yet."

"The civil war in Iraq is just peace that hasn't occurred yet."

It'd be amusing if it weren't so sad.

KERRY PIC REVISITED.... I don't want to belabor the point, but the TPM Muckraker report on the "lonely Kerry" photo that I linked to yesterday needs some follow-up.

Justin Rood's original report noted concerns about the picture that raised questions about its authenticity. Last night, Rood spoke with CPT Benjamin G. Runkle, former Bush speechwriter and staff assistant to Defense undersecretary Douglas Feith, who originally published the picture and vouched for its authenticity.

The photo is authentic, he said. "Although I did not personally take the pictures, I saw the person who did immediately after they took them and asked for a copy." [...]

To cement the photo's authenticity, Runkle attached a photo taken in the same hall with someone holding a copy of the most recent edition of the Stars and Stripes military newspaper.

Moreover, as several helpful emailers noted, Michelle Malkin did some digging and found fairly compelling evidence that the photo in question was, in fact, taken during Kerry's visit to Iraq earlier this month. Barring any additional revelations, it would appear that the mystery is solved.

There is, however, the broader point to consider. The original "lonely Kerry" picture was supposed to be evidence of U.S. troops shunning the senator. He'd been ostracized, the story went, in retaliation for his "botched joke." If the troops respected Kerry, he wouldn't have been sitting by himself at the breakfast shown in the photo.

With the new evidence in mind, we apparently can accept the original photo as legitimate, but the narrative still seems unreliable. Malkin herself posted a picture of Kerry sitting at a mess-hall table, talking with troops who were sitting with him. Kerry wasn't being intentionally isolated as some kind of symbolic slight; he appears to be engaged in conversation.

So, how then do we explain the original photo of Kerry with some empty chairs around him? I haven't the foggiest idea. Maybe he got to the table early and the troops filled in afterwards. Maybe some troops had to leave shortly before the picture was taken. Without any real context, it's very hard to say with any certainty.

But ultimately, it doesn't really matter. This flap was about alleged proof that Kerry's flubbed joke from November caused lingering resentment between the senator and the men and women in uniform. Given the picture Malkin found of Kerry surrounded by troops, that part of the story appears to be untrue.

SADDAM NOT LONG FOR THIS WORLD.... There are some competing reports that differ on details, but MSNBC reports that Saddam Hussein will be executed sometime over the next couple of days, possibly as early as today.

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, sentenced to death for his role in 148 killings in 1982, will have his sentence carried out by Sunday, NBC News reported Thursday. According to a U.S. military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity, Saddam will be hanged before the start of the Eid religious holiday, which begins at sundown Saturday.

The hanging could take place as early as Friday, NBC's Richard Engel reported.

The U.S. military received a formal request from the Iraqi government to transfer Saddam to Iraqi authorities, NBC reported on Thursday, which is one of the final steps required before his execution. His sentence, handed down last month, ordered that he be hanged within 30 days.

Saddam's chief lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, asked that the former dictator receive the protections afforded a "prisoner of war," but the appeals appear to have been rejected. CNN noted that under Iraqi law, Saddam's defense lawyers and family would be notified before the death sentence is carried out, and "there has apparently been no such notification." That said, the MSNBC report added that Saddam met with two of his half-brothers on Thursday, and al-Dulaimi has apparently been notified that Saddam is not long for this world.

And then, of course, there's the question of whether the execution will be televised. Reuters has an interesting piece on the subject, noting that the networks are torn but will likely err on the side of good taste. Iraqi National Security adviser Mouffak al Rubaie told CBS News that officials will "video everything," and networks began making editorial decisions yesterday. ABC and CBS said they wouldn't air the full execution; NBC said it would not air anything graphic but might use some footage; while CNN and Fox News had not yet come to any conclusions.

According to the Reuters report, the airing of an execution is "unprecedented" in the history of U.S. television.

Whether the networks broadcast footage or not, one has to assume the video will appear online fairly quickly.

GORDON SMITH THINKS AHEAD.... The New York Times had an interesting profile today of Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who, after years of relative silence on the president's policy on Iraq, decided earlier this month that he'd seen enough and denounced the entire endeavor. At one point, the quiet backbencher went so far as to say Bush's Iraq policy was not only "absurd," but "may even be criminal."

The remarks, the Times said, "made Washington take notice, transforming him into one of the most talked-about Republicans heading into the new Congress." Indeed, the article noted that Smith's remarks became a "tipping point" for some congressional Republicans, and that in the aftermath of his speech, "Smith said he heard from several other Republican senators who he said agreed with his views." And what of the timing of Smith's concerns?

He said he had decided not to speak out before the midterm elections, both out of political loyalty and a fear that his words would be drowned out by partisan attacks.

"Then we were back in Washington for the lame-duck session," he said, "and I woke up one morning and turned on the news and another 10 soldiers had been killed. And I went from steaming to boiled. And then I went to the floor."

Mr. Smith faces re-election in 2008, and some Democrats in Oregon have suggested that his break with the White House was timed to aid his coming campaign, an accusation he adamantly denies.

I obviously have no way of knowing whether the shift in the political winds spurred Smith to action or not, but I can't help but notice that there are a handful of Republican senators, all of whom have been at least somewhat supportive of the president's policy over the last several years, who are now expressing fairly strong criticisms.

Just in the last few weeks, Sens. Smith, John Cornyn (R-Texas), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), and John Sununu (R-N.H.) made the transition from public support of the White House's approach, to public criticism of existing Bush policy.

And all of them, coincidentally, are Senate Republicans who are up for re-election in 2008. Too cynical?

'I DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD HELP AT THIS POINT'.... When it comes to an escalation in Iraq, the public is opposed, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are reportedly against it, Defense Secretary Robert Gates apparently has some concerns, and many of the troops themselves don't seem too keen on the idea either.

Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.

President Bush is considering increasing the number of troops in Iraq and embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi units. White House advisers have indicated Bush will announce his new plan for the war before his State of the Union address Jan. 23.

In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.

Spc. Don Roberts told the AP, "I don't know what could help at this point..... What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."

Sgt. Josh Keim, who is on his second tour in Iraq, said, "Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it. It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."

Sgt. Justin Thompson added that a troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni." Thompson, whose 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June, added, "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it."

Now, these are comments from one battalion, not a poll with a random sample, so it's difficult to say with any certainty that "the troops are against escalation plans."

That said, two quick points. One, kudos to the AP for going straight to the source and getting so many soldiers' perspective. Two, how, exactly, do supporters of the war dismiss the opinions of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, patrolling the streets of Baghdad? Cut-and-runners? Defeatocrats? Surrender monkeys?

IS THE KERRY PIC LEGIT?.... Several of the right's major blogs were all aflutter yesterday over a picture of John Kerry, in Iraq a couple of weeks ago, apparently sitting alone at a mess hall. The picture, as the story went, proves that Kerry's "botched joke" has caused lingering resentment among men and women in uniform. If the troops respected Kerry, he wouldn't have been sitting by himself at the breakfast shown in the photo.

The picture, and the accompanying narrative about how the troops avoided Kerry, made the rounds by way of far-right radio-host Scott Hennen, who claims the "priceless story" was sent by "a friend of mine serving in Iraq." (If Hennen's name sounds familiar, it's because he has an interesting history with the White House.)

The problem, however, is that the "priceless story" may not be true. Justin Rood explains.

At Hennen's site, commenter "Anthony" noted that the picture's embedded data, just a right-click away, shows the picture was taken on January 9, 2006 -- several months before Kerry botched his joke....

News accounts at the time put Kerry in England around that time -- which might explain the giant Union Jack hanging on the far wall.

At PowerLine, another problem surfaced: As commenter "Angus" noted, the flag hanging to the right of the Union Jack belongs to Portugal, which withdrew its mighty 120-man coalition force from Iraq nearly two years ago.

Between Cliff May's email yesterday, and the questionable pic of Kerry today, conservatives aren't having any luck at all lately, are they?

LET THE SMEARING BEGIN.... I wondered this morning whether Gerald Ford's embargoed criticism of the Bush White House and the war in Iraq might affect the right's praise of the former president this week. As it turns out, the blowback didn't take long.

Consider Bill Bennett's fairly aggressive attack on Ford this morning. (via John Cole)

Since "decency" seems to be the watchword of the day and the consensus modifier for Jerry Ford (a view with which I generally concur), may I nevertheless be permitted to ask this: just how decent, how courageous, is what Jerry Ford did with Bob Woodward? He slams Bush & Cheney to Woodward in 2004, but asks Woodward not to print the interview until he's dead. If he felt so strongly about his words having a derogatory affect, how about telling Woodward not to run the interview until after Bush & Cheney are out of office?

The effect of what Ford did is to protect himself, ensuring he can't be asked by others about his critiques, ensuring that there can be no dialogue. The way Ford does it with Woodward, he doesn't have to defend himself...he simply drops it into Bob Woodward's tape recorder and let's the bomb go off when fully out of range, himself. This is not courage, this is not decent.

I guess it's fair to say the hagiography period is over for some of Ford's former allies on the right?

For what it's worth, I think John's right about Ford's motivations: "[T]he reason Ford did not speak out is because all of the aforementioned blowhards would have savaged him for not keeping his opinions to himself, as former President's are 'supposed to do'. I think we can all agree that had Ford come out against the war, these same knuckleheads would have called him Jimmy Carter Ford or the like."

EDWARDS '08.... I'm officially neutral on the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but I don't mind admitting that I like John Edwards -- who officially threw his hat into the ring this morning -- and consider him a strong top-tier candidate.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards this morning declared his candidacy for president in 2008, sounding a populist call for citizen action to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, combat poverty and global warming and help restore America's moral leadership in the world.

Using a neighborhood devastated by Hurricane Katrina as his backdrop, Edwards said New Orleans symbolizes not only the theme of two Americas -- haves and have-nots -- that was the underpinning of his 2004 presidential campaign but also the power of ordinary citizens to take responsibility for their own futures.

By all indications, the Edwards '08 campaign will have a very different style from Edwards '04. The first campaign was slow to embrace technology; the new campaign included a YouTube video announcement. The first one sought support from the DC establishment; the new one vows to be a "grassroots, ground-up campaign where we ask people to take action."

Edwards also laid out a policy agenda that will be the basis for his campaign: "Provide moral leadership in the world," "strengthen our middle class and end poverty," "guarantee universal health care for every American," "lead the fight against global warming," and "get America and other countries off our addiction to oil."

He'll have some high hurdles to clear -- most notably, he's starting off with practically no money in his campaign coffers -- but given his base of support, aggressive outreach over the last two years, his mea culpa over the 2002 vote for the war Iraq, and strong qualities as a campaigner, it's safe to assume Edwards is going to be a major player in this contest.

What do readers think? A voice for the future or yesterday's news? I'm all ears.

A CONTRAST IN LEADERSHIP STYLES.... I've been a little surprised by the analyses drawing parallels between Ford's presidency and that of George W. Bush. Other than taking office under dubious circumstances, they don't seem particularly similar.

And yet, plenty of news items have been published like this one, from Newsweek's Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey, noting the "striking parallels between two administrations," and considering Ford's "surprising influence" on Bush. Both Ford and Bush, the argument goes, approached their leadership roles in similar ways.

To be sure, Bush has surrounded himself with a throng of Ford-era staffers. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scowcroft, Baker, O'Neill, Greenspan, Hadley ... the names all sound rather familiar. The Washington Post's Peter Baker noted today, "When George W. Bush arrived at the Oval Office ... it felt as if he were shooting a remake of the Ford White House."

But the similarities seem to end there, particularly with regards to leadership styles. Consider this LA Times piece about how Ford approached controversial policy discussions.

In seeking answers to problems, Ford -- a veteran of more than two decades of debate in the House of Representatives -- relished the give-and-take of open and sometimes heated debate. He would force the strong egos that surrounded him to make their case in person during lengthy White House sessions, where he would constantly question the most minute details. [...]

Said L. William Seidman, a top Ford economic advisor, "I worked for three or four presidents, and I think more than any other president, [Ford] was determined that all views be presented to him before he made a decision."

It's a helpful contrast. According to Bush aides, "Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty." I'm also reminded of a Time interview with a "youngish" White House aide, described as a Bush favorite, who said, "The first time I told him he was wrong, he started yelling at me. Then I showed him where he was wrong, and he said, 'All right. I understand. Good job.' He patted me on the shoulder. I went and had dry heaves in the bathroom."

Ford and Bush had similar leadership styles? I don't see it.

ETHNIC CLEANSING 'SAD BUT TRANQUILIZING'?.... When it comes to the war in Iraq, George Will has not always been entirely unreasonable. He's denounced neocons, and in a surprisingly hard-hitting 2004 column, described the war as "untenable," compared it to Vietnam, and said the war could "unmake" Bush's presidency.

With this in mind, I was a little startled to see this Crooks & Liars clip of Will from Sunday's "This Week" on ABC. Will said:

"Baghdad is the problem and while we debate what to do about Baghdad, the Shiites are changing the facts on the ground in Baghdad through incremental, not at all stealthy, rather rapid ethnic cleansing so we may get a monochrome Baghdad out of this, which would be sad but perhaps tranquilizing."

The whole transcript is not available online, but to offer some context, the roundtable discussion was addressing the likelihood of an escalation, with as many as 30,000 additional troops in Iraq. Melinda Henneberger, from the Huffington Post, had just commented on the potential problems with the strategy, including her take that "this is only going to escalate the problem in Baghdad." It prompted Will to make his "sad but perhaps tranquilizing" remark.

I've been trying to come up with some explanation for what in the world Will was talking about here, but I'm afraid I'm at a bit of a loss. Watching the video, it certainly sounded as if Will was characterizing ethnic cleansing in Baghdad as having an upside.

One could argue, I suppose, that there will be "tranquility" when one side of a conflict finishes annihilating their rivals. A widespread massacre, once complete, can do wonders for producing a degree of serenity. But in what moral universe does that make it preferable?

Will might find it helpful to clarify these remarks sometime soon.

FORD: BUSH 'MADE A BIG MISTAKE'.... Late on Tuesday, after the Ford family announced the passing of the former president, President Bush released a statement praising Gerald Ford for his "quiet integrity, common sense, and kind instincts."

As it turns out, Bush was more right than he realized -- Ford's common sense and instincts served him well.

Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.

In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

It's a shame the former president felt it was necessary to keep his opinions on the war quiet until after he died, though in fairness, I suspect the debate over Iraq would have unfolded exactly the same way, whether Ford had gone public with his denunciations or not.

That said, will Ford's criticisms of the Bush gang's handling of the conflict change the way the former president will be honored? Based on his comments to Bob Woodward, Ford's concerns were very much in line with those of many congressional Democrats, most of whom were dismissed by the right as weak on national security and dangerously ignorant on foreign policy. As it turns out, Ford agreed with Democrats that the U.S. should only go to war when a conflict is "directly related to our own national security" -- and Iraq didn't fit the bill.

I'm curious; will this temper the GOP's praise of the former president?

A LITTLE OUT OF DATE.... National Review's Cliff May published this comment today from an unnamed Marine in Iraq.

[M]orale among our guys is very high. They not only believe that they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, is that there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria.

In other words, here's a Marine who, coincidentally, is repeating the exact talking points approved by the White House and supporters of the war. Sure, the Marine's reported perspective seems completely at odds with everything we know about the crisis -- indeed, it even conflicts with some of the president's own concessions last week -- but the National Review was fortunate enough to hear from a soldier willing to tell the magazine what Cliff May wanted to hear.

Except, there's a catch. The nearly identical text from May's NR post was part of a widely disseminated email from over a year ago. Worse, there were slight deviations in the original text in 2005, which made it difficult to confirm its authenticity.

As Justin Rood put it, "Despite a civil war and mounting body counts on all sides, the National Review folks can still find good news coming out of Iraq. Too bad it's over a year old and of questionable provenance."

Oops.