It doesn't appear to be online yet,* but Seymour Hersh has a piece in the latest New Yorker on Pentagon contingency planning for a military strike against Iran. From Reuters:

Despite the Bush administration's insistence it has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The special planning group was established within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue.

The panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon consultant, who were not identified.

The consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said that U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives, according to the article.

In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said: "The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous.

In addition, Hersh reports that Israel has provided the U.S. with intelligence, the validity of which is still being debated, that Iran has developed an intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads that could reach Europe, according to Reuters.

Update: Meanwhile, The Sunday Times reports:

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

*Late Update: Hersh's piece is now posted.

That really is pretty stunning. Quinnipiac's new poll has Giuliani at 40% in the race for the GOP nomination. McCain clocks in at a relatively feeble 18%. And Romney, with 7%, is beat out by Gingrich at 10%.

I'm really not convinced Giuliani can win the GOP nod as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate. But numbers trump opinions.

Peter Carlson has a little fun with a 139-count, 267-page indictment in a Pennsylvania public corruption case:

Normally, The Washington Post does not cover the legal woes of Pennsylvania state senators, but this indictment is simply too good to pass up. It's a deliciously entertaining document that should be read by every political-science student in America. It's a bizarre account of the adventures of a millionaire pol whose over-the-top greed makes recently convicted ex-congressmen Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney seem like penny-ante pikers. If this indictment is accurate, Vincent J. Fumo is a man driven by a compulsion to get somebody else to pay for everything his heart desires, including the aforementioned tiki torches, gourmet paint, vacuum cleaners and bobblehead dolls.

Unfortunately, the Post doesn't link to the must-read indictment.

Update: You can read the indictment here. (Thanks to TPM Reader TC for the link).

A couple of pieces out today examine K Street's role in a post-Abramoff Democratic Congress. More here and here.

Sixteen million Americans live in "severe poverty," defined as individuals making less than $5,080 annually and families of four making less than $9,903. Yeah, 16,000,000.

We all know intuitively that Dick Cheney is delusional when he says that the British partial withdrawal in southern Iraq is a sign of success in stabilizing the region; but, for a more concrete sense of how badly the British have failed and how cowardly Tony Blair has become, you can't do better than Patrick Cockburn's piece yesterday in The Independent.

From the conservative Daily Telegraph:

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.

I suppose the Iraqis themselves--a sovereign country, we are reminded by the Bush Administration when it's convenient--would be militarily helpless to stop Israeli overflights, but one can imagine that the backlash against U.S. troops by Iraqi Shiites would be swift and fierce. We might find ourselves longing for the days when we were merely caught in a civil war.

Update: Then again, the Israelis may need help just to find Iran.

Late update: Reuters reports that Israel is denying the report in the Telegraph. More here.

As Paul noted yesterday, another U.S. attorney has resigned, this one in Michigan. The Washington Post today confirms that "Margaret Chiara, the 63-year-old U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., . . . was among a larger group of prosecutors who were first asked to resign Dec. 7."

That brings to eight the number of U.S. attorneys pushed out in the post-mid-term-election purge. DOJ has said the total was less than 10, but has declined to be specific. Were there others we still don't know about?

NRA crazies and their corporate sponsors cannibalize one of their brethren--'cause who wouldn't want the right to vaporize prairie dogs with military-style assault rifles.

A reporter calls Veep Cheney on his Brits in Iraq malarkey and the Vice President ducks and hides. From the presser down under ...

QUESTION: Mr. Vice President, you've said that the British draw-down from Iraq reflects their success there and not domestic considerations. Did the United States ask for them to redeploy those troops inside Iraq to take some strain off the U.S. forces involved in the Baghdad Security Plan and in al Anbar province? And if not, why not?

...

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, the Brits have been great allies in the efforts -- mutual efforts in Iraq. They have been there from the very beginning, as have our Australian friends. They have to make decisions with respect to their forces based upon what they think makes sense. Prime Minister Blair did consult with President Bush in terms of moving forward, and the comments I made reflected their communications with us, the fact that they believe the situation has improved in Basra and southern Iraq, which has been their prime area of operation.

They're going to continue to have a major presence there. They're also I believe beefing up their operations in Afghanistan at the same time, so we're very comfortable with their decision.

I think that's called ducking the question, right? Maybe we can get some follow up on that one.

President Carter gets into the act too ...

As Cheney crosses the region underscoring the Bush administration's commitment to the war in Iraq and rallying key American allies - Australia and Japan - he confronts a growing chorus of criticism at home.

Former President Jimmy Carter, in an interview to be aired Sunday morning by ABC News, sharply criticizes Cheney's record on the war.

"If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low," Carter says of Cheney in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that will be shown on ABC News' This Week.

"He hasn't been right on hardly anything, in his prediction of what was going to happen . . . He's just been almost completely wrong on just about everything he's said."

Maybe a little more ridicule and lampooning since Dick Cheney is such a joke. But this ain't bad.

(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader JL for the tip.)

It feels good to get back to blogging.

Apropos of the post below, TPM Reader PP sends this in ...

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

Yes.

TPM Reader DB on Cheney ...

Why doesn't a prominent Democrat come out and basically repeat your post on Cheney? Why can't a Democrat on a Sunday morning talk show scream, "Cheney is a moron! He has no idea what the hell he is doing. He is an outright disaster. He should resign effective immediately and the country will be a lot better off." There really is no downside to this (of course the press may disapprove of the lack of civility but they'll get over it) if whoever says it stands by it and all the other Dems back them up. Cheney is incredibly unpopular, his policies suck and he is so far removed from reality he is a parody. The only reason he remains afloat is because he is a bully. Well it is about time someone called the bully's bluff.

So true.

Maybe not precisely those words that DB advises. But pretty damn close. In the sometimes hothouse world of blogging we go off on tears and lose sight of the fact that not everyone believes what we see as obvious. But Dick Cheney's an exceptional case. He stands on his own unique ground of ridiculousness. And because of that he's not simply a bully but a glass bully. Outside of the very hard right wing of American politics, pretty much everyone now sees that Dick Cheney is a screw-up and a moron of historic proportions. If you know more of the ins and outs of the administration's history you know that the hugest blunders were Cheney policies and the policies which weren't totally stupid were ones he fought tooth and nail. The best place to see the change even among DC establishment journalists, who used to revere him (Broder probably still does, but I think he's emeritus now) are in the set piece interviews. Each one is now followed by a Kabuki journo debrief in which half-smiling/half-awkward-looking reporters pick apart which statements seem incorrect, which are outright lies and which seem to come from a guy who's simply lost his mind.

He's the crazy uncle of American politics at this point.

You don't even have to be snide. Treat him like the joke that he is and a look of recognition and agreement will come over most people's faces.

TPM Reader LJ carts out the TPM hermeneutic to size up the contenders ...

I was pondering your "GOP bitch slap theory" and was wondering how you think the various Democratic contenders would hold up to this kind of treatment in the general election. If the bitch slap is a real GOP tactic, they'll need to be able to handle it. Take Edwards, for example. I can't help but recall him sitting next to Cheney during the 2006 VP debates - Cheney lies and says he's never met John Edwards before and the next day there are pictures circulating showing Cheney and Edwards together at some kind of function. Why didn't Edwards turn and call Cheney a bald faced liar? It would have grabbed the headlines and the next day the photos would've proven that Cheney is a bald faced liar. Cheney made him look weak. So I think Edwards is vulnerable to the bitch slap. Obama. When the Australian Prime Minister said that Al Qaeda wants Obama to win, Obama responded that Howard needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war or else he's just spewing empty rhetoric. He didn't whine about being attacked. Howard's attack seems rather Cheney-esque and I don't think he succeeded in making Obama look weak. Clinton. It seems to me that Clinton's statement decrying the comments of Geffen and (somewhat bizzarely IMHO) demanding an apology from Obama is essentially whining. It's not fair that Geffen said that. It's not fair that Obama won't apologize for something said by a third party. Doesn't this show that she's incredibly vulnerable to the GOP bitch slap?

The New Republic goes biweekly.

"A Weekly Journal of Opinion," as the masthead said, since 1914.

TPM Reader PR looks out his window ...

I'm looking out my downtown Austin office window at Auditorium Shores where a huge crowd has been growing since the gates opened at noon to see Sen. Barack Obama speak. It's been raining lightly now for the better part of an hour and the crowd shows no signs of letting up. On line ticket requests totaled about 16,000 and the park looks pretty full right now. They say the capacity for the park (which holds the statue of Stevie Ray Vaughan) is 20,000. I know Austin is the bluest dot in a really, really red state, but this turnout in this weather (even here) is amazing.

He's hot. There's no denying it.

TPM Reader TY responds to Dick Cheney's latest goofball lies ...

I think the main thing Cheney is doing here is making the point that the Iraq war is about al-Qaeda, when in fact al-Qaeda is only a very small part of the war, as the NIE indicates. The only was to validate the war is to constantly tie it to al-Qaeda (as they have done since 9/11). Pelosi and the Democrats should respond by knocking down the al-Qaeda canard. Perhaps they are tired of fighting this uphill battle but Cheney and the administration should be held accountable for continuously spreading misinformation. Even the media (yeah, sure) should question this assertion. But every time he says it, people believe it. The old trick of repeating a lie tirelessly and and it "becomes" true.

True. But the thing is, the bigger we screw-up in Iraq, the more unpopular we get in the region, the wider the pool of potential recruits for jihadist groups like al-Qaida. So, yes, it's a canard. But the scope and magnitude of Cheney's screw-ups and incompetence are so vast that they actually can increase the danger we face from al-Qaida, even though at the outset they had little to do with each other.

Lieberman just said it: He won't switch to the GOP! Or did he?