Hilarious Colbert snippet on Sen. Allen’s ‘ethnic rally’.

Apparently the Feds got Rep. Ney (R-OH) to ‘fess up about those dodgy poker winnings in London too.

Here’s the Ney press release from the DOJ. We’ll have the documents up shortly.

“The president wants us to forget the mistakes he’s made in Iraq. He says capturing bin Laden isn’t a priority for him. And now he’s off caught up in a fight with senators of his own party about which kinds of torture we should use. This president just can’t or won’t keep his eye on the ball. President Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan when bin Laden was in our grasp because he wanted to hurry up and get into Iraq. And now he wants us to forget about Iraq because he doesn’t want to take responsibility for all the mistakes he’s made in Iraq. The American people have a choice on November 7th. If you think our country is going in the right direction, if you think Iraq is making us safer, vote Republican. If you’ve had enough and thinks it’s time for a change, vote Democratic.” — quoted from a (fictional) congressional candidate.

Bob Ney issues statement apologizing for crimes, says “dependence on alcohol has been a problem.”

Late Update: Ney’s lawyers say he’s already entered rehab.

Even Later Update: Former federal prosecutor says Ney got off easy, didn’t even have to agree to cooperate.

Senate Democrats call for hearings on whether the White House pressured top military lawyers to go along with their torture policy.

President Bush responding today to a question about reports that the Pakistani government has called off the hunt for bin Laden and whether the US should be searching for him on its own …

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.Earlier this week, you told a group of journalists that you thought the idea of sending special forces to Pakistan to hunt down bin Laden was a strategy that would not work.

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: Now recently, you’ve also…

BUSH: Because, first of all, Pakistan is a sovereign nation.

QUESTION: Well, recently, you’ve also described bin Laden as a sort of modern day Hitler or Mussolini. And I’m wondering why, if you can explain, why you think it’s a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden wherever he is.

BUSH: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question.They were asking me about — somebody report — well, you know, your special forces here. Pakistan — if he is in Pakistan, which this person thought he might be who was asking me the question — Pakistan’s a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we’ve got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that. And then when you find him, you bring him to justice.And, you know, there is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn’t stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It’s convenient throw-away lines, you know, when people say that.We have been on the hunt, and we’ll stay on the hunt until we bring him to justice. And we’re doing it in a smart fashion, Richard, we are.And I’ll look forward to talking to President Musharraf.Look, he doesn’t like Al Qaida. They tried to kill him. And we’ve had a good record of bringing people to justice inside of Pakistan, because the Paks are in the lead. They know the stakes about dealing with a, you know, a violent form of ideological extremists.So we will continue on the hunt, and we’ve been effective about bringing to justice most of those who planned and plotted the 9/11 attacks, and we still got a lot of pressure on them.The best way to protect the homeland is to stay on the offense and keep pressure on them.

I don’t think we’ve had any good explanation of the recent reports that the Pakistanis have agreed to stop hunting for bin Laden as long as he doesn’t launch attacks within Pakistan.

Maybe it’ll work. And maybe it won’t work. But whichever way it falls out, we can still point out the cartoonish logic and unbridled cynicism of the president’s last ditch election ploy.

The president is now warning that “time is running out” for Congress to pass his Kangaroo Court bill.

It is of course more or less a perfect replay of 2002. At least then there was a notional, if bogus, argument for urgency. Now? Time is running out to set up military tribunals to try suspected terrorists who we’ve had in custody for two, three, four, in some cases I think even close to five years with no particular need or urgency to try them at all. But right now, seven weeks before the election time is running out because when Congress comes back in December it’ll be too late.

By then I guess we’ll have had to release them and give them a clean suit, two hundred bucks and release into some American city.

Time’s running out!

And that from the same guy who wants a permission slip from the Pakistani government to hunt down Osama bin Laden.

Sidney Blumenthal responds to comments on his new book How Bush Rules.

Karl Rove is certainly playing high stakes poker on the Kangaroo Courts. Set aside for the moment the merits of the underlying questions of whether our country should continue to abide by the rule of law and the principles our founders based the country on. Hard I know, but for a moment, put that to one side.

The aim here was to unite Republicans behind a bill and then force Democrats either to vote for or against — demoralize the supporters of those who vote for and crush with 30 second ads those who vote against.

But if the White House actually gets tripped up in a fight with members of his own party over what kind of torture we should use, and that’s the last legislative story out of Washington going into the election, that really seems like it would be a big disaster for the White House.

I don’t pretend that it’s a clear political shot to argue, in a highly polarized electorate, that there are certain rights we should afford to anyone in our custody, no matter how bad they may be.

If there’s some division over a president who wants to sully our national honor by enshrining torture as national policy, I don’t think there’s much division over a would-be torturer-in-chief who’s so feckless that he can’t even get his bills through congress — and this while he’s twiddling his thumbs as Iraq goes to hell.

The question is, Am I really supposed to believe that Republican senators are willing to hand their party leader that kind of reverse on the eve of a critical mid-term election? I have a hard time believing that’s going to happen. And yet, who’s going to blink?

A friend suggestst that President Bush will do what he’s done before in similar cases — fight up to the end, then embrace the opposition’s position, repackage it as his own and declare victory.

The problem is that that’s not necessarily enough for the president and his chaperone in this case to get an agreement with members of his own party. The whole point of this exercise, which is entirely political, is to pick a fight with the opposition. So the president needs to find a political sweet spot that guarantees agreed with senate Republicans and disagreement with most senate Democrats. This is the first thing to remember. Agreement, consensus is the last thing the president wants because then he loses his political cudgel.

Debate moderator asks Muslim House candidate whether he ‘associates with terrorists’.