Once again, in a matter of only a few weeks since it’s publishing top secret government secrets, they do it again.  The problem is the ‘administration official’ who purportedly offered up the document to the New York Times reporter.  This is not just another secret document, this is a secret report which is an assessment of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s success in putting down the sectarian violence in Iraq, on the day that Maliki and Bush were to meet.  Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the 2-day meeting was cancelled in favor of a 1-day meeting.

An administration official made a copy of the document available to a New York Times reporter seeking information on the administration’s policy review. The Times read and transcribed the memo.

The leakers need to be sought and dealt with.  And I don’t mean like Fitzgerald dealt with the Valerie Plame leaker, Richard Armitage.  I think this time, we should think of the leaker as someone who commits a high crime. 

And now that the SCOTUS has affirmed the government’s right to phone records on one of their earlier release of state secrets, they need to get on the stick today.  While we’re at it, why doesn’t congress do something to protect state secrets?  Good place to start is to make it a crime to publish that which is known to be government secrets.  Protect them with the law and tell the ACLU to take a hike.

Debbie Schlussel has found the lost questions from the US citizenship test.  These are the questions that should be asked.  Here’s number one for example.

1. If a woman doesn’t want to cover her hair with a headscarf, she should be:

a) allowed to do as she pleases.
b) stoned to death, after being buried up to the neck in dirt. The woman exposed her sexy hair to men who are not her husband, so she is clearly a whore unworthy of life.
c) forced to watch PBS specials and the “ladies” of “The View.” Wearing a do-rag on my head is like way totally cool. Means I don’t have to wash or do my hair.

Coming direct from Fantasyland comes a Christian Science Monitor story entitled ‘Can Iran help stabilize Iraq?‘  Only if Tinkerbell will wave her magic wand.  Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has his own mission, which he has made crystal clear many times. 

Stuff like . . . ‘Death to the Great Satan’ comes to mind, and, oh yeah, Israel ought to be wiped off the map, and we’re a nuclear nation so get over it, I need a nuclear bomb to protect myself from the Great Satan, and I’ll train, fund, and supply al Qaeda so they can do their deeds in Iraq, and, Hezbollah, my shadow army, is showing those Jews what bombs and missiles and explosive vests can do with some help from my buds in Syria and Lebanon, and make way for the twelfth Imam, the end is near.

Yeah, Ahmadinejad, that’s the guy who will voluntarily stop all those things from happening.  He’ll just give up everything he has been ranting about for years if we’ll only offer him a cup of coffee and a basketball signed by Michael Jordan.  Maybe a one on one with Oprah would tilt the balance in our favor?  All that speculation is not only fantasy, it is ignoring all that Mahmoud has done and is currently doing.  The tip-off is this ridiculous goal. . .

Bringing Iran – and Syria – into a regional process to stabilize Iraq is being touted both by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Iraq Study Group, the US commission studying options that both Republicans and Democrats hope will provide a framework for facesaving change in Iraq.  (emphasis added)

Iran and Syria are part of the problem in Iraq and in the region.  This apparent goal for a face-saving anything is a haunt from the Vietnam war.  It’s political-speak for surrender.  It means we will ‘leave’ if you ‘say’ you will help.  They have it bass ackwards.  It’s the Iranian terrorist president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that needs a face job rather than face saving.  Scott (Peterson), take your head out of the sand man.