Two people are responsible for the torture and illegal seven-year detainment of Muhammad Saad Iqbal. Those two people are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. No one else needs to be held responsible. Bush and Cheney should answer for Mr. Iqbal's treatment in a court of law. If they want to implicate their accomplices, that's fine with me.

I cannot for the life of me imagine how any decent law-abiding American would makes excuses for Bush and Cheney in this matter, nor can I imagine why anyone lower than Bush and Cheney should take the fall for it. It's plain common sense that Iqbal should be able to not only sue the U.S. Government but to press criminal charges against the officials that ordered his mistreatment. Let Bush and Cheney use whatever legal defenses are available to them. A president and vice-president certainly have a lot of legal leeway when it comes to making decisions on national security or in the official duties of their office. Let them make their case before a judge and jury. Let us see if, unlike the editorial board of the Washington Post, a judge and jury think it is legal to abduct a man on a foreign street, send him to Egypt to be tortured, send him to Afghanistan to be tortured, send him to Cuba to be tortured, and then keep him in prison for six additional years without charging him with any crime. Take away seven years of a man's life, perforate his eardrums, ruin his spinal health, and set him free with a raging infection. Is this how we 'send a message' and 'create deterrence'? Really? Is this legal?

Am I partisan?

Unlike others, I haven't made a sport of nitpicking Barack Obama's staffing decisions. I've been disappointed in a few hires, but I've grown more comfortable with his decisions as the process has gone on. Today was the best day for announcements of the whole transition period. I am ecstatic about Obama's selections for the Department of Justice. I really couldn't be happier about the team he has put together there and what it portends for the future.

I feel very good about the selection of Leon Panetta as Director of Central Intelligence. Panetta is close to a perfect pick if you were going to choose someone from outside the Intelligence Community. And with all due regard for the Intelligence Community's professionalism, they need a fresh, respected face to present to the country and the world. Panetta has been an outspoken opponent of torture and that is exactly what we deserve.

Now, having given some praise, I want to issue a couple of complaints or concerns. I don't know anything about William Lynn. I hear he is going to be nominated for Deputy Secretary of Defense. Why do I have a problem with that? It's pretty simple. Lynn's current job is as Raytheon's senior vice president of government operations and strategy. Before that, he was an undersecretary of Defense, and before that, he worked on Sen. Ted Kennedy's staff on the Armed Services Committee. My problem isn't specific to Mr. Lynn, but involves this rotating door between senate staff, the Pentagon, the upper management of our arms manufacturers, and back to the Pentagon.

Don't get me wrong. I only think Raytheon is pure evil half the time. I used to work with Raytheon on radar projects and they're doing critically important work. But the opportunity for corruption and waste is enormous when Raytheon can offer senior vice president jobs to decision makers on the Hill and at the Pentagon and then turn around and place those senior veepees back in decision making roles in the Pentagon when their party comes back into favor.

So that's one concern I have, and it isn't anything personal against Mr. Lynn, whose work with Kennedy makes me hopeful that he understands what it means to be a great public servant. Another concern I have is with the Obama Team's seeming requirement that every member of their staff have an Ivy League graduate degree, preferably with an Ivy League undergraduate degree (summa cum laude), and a stint on the Yale or Harvard Law Review. It's literally harder to get a high-ranking job in this administration than it is to get into Princeton.

Why does this concern me? After all, doesn't it beat hiring people from fourth-rate uncredited religious schools that have no relevant experience? Well, sure it does, but there's a middle ground. I grew up in Princeton and I understand Ivy League culture as well as anyone. The Obama Team is supercharged with brains, ambition, and...arrogance. And that last piece is the problem. David Halberstam was the first to point out the danger of too much Ivy League firepower (without enough earth-saltiness) when he penned The Best and the Brightest. JKF surrounded himself with some of the smartest, best-pedigreed people in the country, but that didn't prevent him from going forward with the Bay of Pigs or LBJ (who kept them on) from escalating in Vietnam.

Just once I'd like to read a bio on an Obama pick and see that they have a degree from Penn State or Rutgers or Cal State-Northridge or SUNY-Albany. I'd like to see some high achieving folks that didn't go to the top schools in the country...that maybe had to work a little bit harder to get where they are today. As it stands now, there is too much Ivy League and not enough state college. Talented people come from all over, and you need 'all over' to bring the correct breadth of world experience and compassion to the job of running our government.

Lots of news today. Do me a favor and give me your thoughts on some of it. Some seriously great appointments, Al Franken is certified the winner, Leon Panetta has been appointed as DCI (I approve, even if DiFi does not). Most of all, I can't wait until we no longer have idiots speaking for us that just make us all look like fools.

If it's hard to be an effective senator in your first term, it's even harder to be effective in your first two years. Appointed senators often find that they are not fully accepted until they have run and won a mandate from the voters. It was not until recently that first-term senators had the temerity to even speak on the Senate floor. To be successful, new senators need to establish that their word is good and to demonstrate a strong work ethic. If they are good at raising money, that helps.

We have a large class of freshmen senators this year, and it's hard to project who will become influential long-serving members and who will fizzle out. One key is the ability to be reelected. Let's take a look at the freshmen class (in order of expected long-term influence on the institution).

1. Mark Warner (D-VA)- Warner enters the Senate with immense popularity. His executive and business experience will place him in good stead. He should have excellent fundraising abilities. As Jim Webb already serves on Foreign Relations and Armed Services, I expect Warner to tackle economic issues and to represent his home state's interests in the Intelligence Community. Expect to see Warner serving on the Finance Committee before long, and perhaps on Budget or Banking in the shorter term. He should be able to serve as long as he wants, building up seniority and eventually holding a key gavel. Role models: Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, Jay Rockefeller

2. Tom Udall (D-NM)- Like Warner, Tom Udall won election in a landslide in a state that is trending blue. Expect Udall, like his father, to become a national leader on environmental issues. He may also serve on the Indian Affairs committee, where he may make a quick rise. Udall will join Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders as recent additions from the House Progressive Caucus. He could quickly become a leader of an expanding left-leaning faction in the Senate. However, New Mexico is not so blue that we should expect Udall to vote as progressively as he did as a member of the House. Role models: Barbara Boxer, Claiborne Pell

3. Caroline Kennedy (D-NY)- Assuming she is appointed to the position, I expect Kennedy to hold this seat for the rest of her life. Both her name and her state should assure that she is influential (like Hillary) long before she rises the seniority ladder. She is almost assured to follow her Uncle Teddy's example, both ideologically and as a workhorse. If she had more raw political skill, I'd place her at the top of this list. Role Models: Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton

4. Mark Begich (D-AK)- Begich is immensely talented, but he will have to use all his skills to maintain his hold on this deep-red seat. If it were not for the threat of losing reelection, I'd put his long-term prospects higher on this list. Begich will need to tend to Alaska's unique interests in the oil and gas industry and feed its rapacious appetite for pork. For this reason, expect Begich to win a seat on the Commerce or Energy committees, and to be quickly elevated to a position on the Appropriations Committee. We may not always like how Begich votes, but we'll love the hard work he does in committee. Role models: Daniel Inouye, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd

5. Mark Udall (D-CO)- Mark Udall ran like crazy to the right over the last several years as he prepared for a state-wide run in purple Colorado. I believe his instincts are good but he strikes me as an excessively cautious politician. I expect he will continue his work on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate and will represent the Air Force's interests quite strongly. Despite his fairly progressive credentials, I would not be surprised to see Udall become a national security senator in the mold of John Warner or Carl Levin. His seat is not safe, but he could be a long-serving senator with a big profile. Role models: Gary Hart, Carl Levin, John Warner

6. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)- The most important thing you need to know about Jeff Merkley is that he was the speaker of the Oregon house. That means that he understands how to rise to the top of a legislative body. That is a different skill set than getting elected as governor, and it will pay to keep an eye on whether Merkley immediately begins raising a lot of money or volunteering for thankless jobs (like serving on the Ethics Committee) that will help him quickly rise in the leadership. Merkley might be the most progressive new member of the Senate, but I expect he may wind up working on Agricultural issues as a way of shoring up support from the eastern part of his state. Role models: Tom Daschle, Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold

7. Al Franken (D-MN)- Franken may have to wait for some time to take his seat, and that may result in him being 100 on the seniority list. His first job will be to get his fellow senators to take him seriously. He'll have to take whatever committee scraps are leftover and make the most of them. But if Franken can establish that his word is good and that he is a hard worker, he will eventually fit in. We know he is an expert at media and he'll have no difficulty getting quoted. If he can win reelection, he'll be on his way to replacing Paul Wellstone as a major voice in progressive politics. Role models: Bill Bradley, Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold

8. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)- Shaheen has extensive executive experience, which should be a useful asset during her first-term. Shaheen is already almost 62 years-old, so I don't know how likely she is to serve more than two terms. I also don't know what kind of profile she is going to carve out. She might work on agricultural issues, concentrate on national security, or more on finance and budget. Role models: Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Tom Carper

9. Kay Hagan (D-NC)- Hagan came from nowhere to defeat Liddy Dole, but she comes with a political pedigree. Her uncle was U.S. Senator and Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles. She should fit in quite well in the Senate. I expect her to serve on the Banking Committee, representing the considerable banking interests of the Charlotte area. She will have to raise her profile to assure her reelection, but she has promise. Role models: Diane Feinstein, Blanche Lincoln, John Edwards

10. Mike Johanns (R-NE)- Johanns served as governor of Nebraska and as Bush's Secretary of Agriculture. He should be able to hold onto this seat as long as he wants it, building up seniority. Don't be surprised if Johanns rises to a position of considerable importance in the Senate. Role models: Chuck Grassley, Pete Domenici

11. Jim Risch (R-ID)- it's no honor to replace Larry Craig in the U.S. Senate. Risch has executive experience as Interim and Lieutenant Governor. Provided that he doesn't behave erratically like Rep. Bill Sali, Risch should be able to hold onto this seat as long as he wants it. That should enable him to build up seniority. Having said that, I don't think Risch has the kind of personality that will translate into him becoming an important voice in his party and I don't think he has the intelligence or work ethic to become a respected member of the Senate. Role models: Mike Crapo, Jim DeMint, Jim Inhofe

12. Mike Bennet (D-CO)- Bennet has never before held elective office and I don't know much about him. He is currently the superintendent of schools in Denver, but he has held a variety of important positions, including in the Justice Department. He will need to win reelection before he is taken seriously by his colleagues, but I expect he will work initially on the Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee under Ted Kennedy's leadership. If he can place his stamp on the No Child Left Behind reauthorization, he'll be off to a good start.

13. Ted Kaufman (D-DE)- Kaufman is a placeholder who is not expected to run for reelection in 2010. By that time, Beau Biden should be rotated home from Iraq and he will take his father's position in the Senate.

14. Roland Burris (D-IL)- It is not assured that Burris will be seated in the Senate, nor that he will even seek reelection in 2010. For Burris to become a successful and influential senator, he will have to climb out of a very large hole.

How do you see it?

Ever wonder whether things might have been different if Carter had not dissed Poppy? Maybe no October Surprise?

Uh oh. Billy Kristol is making predictions again. This time, he almost assures us, the Israelis are going to come out of this war significantly better off than they entered it. Why? I don't know. Something about the terrain and setting more realistic goals. It's idiocy, basically. But the most glaring idiocy is a talking point someone emailed Kristol directly from Tel Aviv. Gaza, it seems, is actually part of the nation-state of Iran, and the Israelis have actually just invaded Iran. If they succeed, they will have defeated Iran, but if they do not succeed, Iran will be victorious. I don't know what they hell the people pushing this line are smoking, but it must be some Grade A shit.

I understand that Hamas is getting some military and financial support from Iran. That's a little bit unusual because the people of Gaza are almost all Sunni Muslims (plus a few Christians) and Iran generally supports Shi'ite movements (like Hizbollah in Lebanon). So, the Gazan government, which is not very popular in Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, is willing to accept aid from the heretical Persians. Nonetheless, cooperation between the two can only go so far. The truly hardcore members of Hamas are not natural friends of the revolutionary government in Tehran. An imperfect analogy might be the cooperation between Stalin's Soviet Union and Churchill's United Kingdom during the Second World War. They were united against fascism, even though they saw each other as mortal enemies (as became apparent immediately after the war). Would it make sense to say that the Battle of Stalingrad was really a fight against England? No, not really.

There is no obvious way for Israeli aggression in Gaza to restore Fatah to power there. It's not clear that they can incentivize the Gazans to stop rocket attacks. And, by taking these actions, Israel is suffering another terrible blow in world opinion, which could translate to more boycotts and other painful repercussions. It could even begin to erode U.S. opinion to a point that politicians are forced to respond.

Even if this war were a war against Iran, it's pretty stupid to wage a war that is almost ensured to benefit Iran. No? But that's just a silly short-term talking point to try to justify something really idiotic. Israel is too weak to stop rocket attacks by force. They are too strong to worry about Iran. The Israelis are collectively hyperventilating. The whole nation needs to go Yoga class or something.

John Jay explained the rationale for setting up the Senate the way it is in Federalist Papers No. 64. It was always intended that the Senate would be made up of the "most enlightened and respectable citizens" and people "most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." Originally, senators were selected by state legislatures, and this was a deliberate design.

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence. The Constitution manifests very particular attention to this object. By excluding men under thirty-five from the first office, and those under thirty from the second, it confines the electors to men of whom the people have had time to form a judgment, and with respect to whom they will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. If the observation be well founded, that wise kings will always be served by able ministers, it is fair to argue, that as an assembly of select electors possess, in a greater degree than kings, the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment.

It's easy to look at our present Senate and laugh at John Jay's high hopes. But it pays to look carefully at Jay's words. When he warns against political meteors that dazzle and deceive us with their genius and patriotism, he is warning us against demagogues. The Founders expected no shortage of demagogues to emerge in the House of Representatives, which was always intended as the People's House. The Senate was designed as a counterbalance. It was always supposed to be somewhat reactionary. It was expected that the populist impulses of the House would be tempered by the more august and deliberative upper chamber.

Senators were supposed to be largely free from day-to-day political pressures. Their terms were long (six years) and staggered (so that only a third of the body face reelection each two years). And the elections were not direct, but removed to the discretion of the legislatures. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that by providing for direct, popular elections to the Senate. It was the second amendment of the Progressive Era (the income tax was the first, Prohibition was the third, Female Suffrage the fourth).

I support the Seventeenth Amendment and I think it is better to have more day-to-day political pressure on senators than the Founding Fathers intended. But it comes with a price. The Senate now acts too much like the House, and partisanship rules the body and our whole political culture in a way the Founders hoped to prevent.

But, for me, the bigger problem is that House now acts like the Senate. The House is supposed to be filled with ordinary people: teachers, labor organizers, small business owners, country lawyers, etc. They are supposed to be passionate advocates for the little guy. If they try to give the whole treasury away to the poor (as they should be at least tempted to do) then it's supposed to be up to the Senate to stop them and represent the rational interests of business.

The Founders didn't anticipate the two-party system. They wanted a two-chamber system. And, I admit, the two-chamber system (one populist, one cautious and conservative) would work better than the two-party system. What we have now is a bunch of conservative-pandering representatives in the House.

I'm not sure what John Jay would have to say about a Senator Al Franken. I suspect he'd think him a better fit for the House. But I think John Jay might reconsider if he could see how many members of the House are indistinguishable from senators in their adherence to business interests over the interests of the people.

In any case, it doesn't bother me so much to see senators come from the upper classes (hello Caroline Kennedy). I'm much more concerned that the House is filled with conservatives who hate progressives.

So, it will be another matchup of the Eagles and the Giants. This is obviously Fate's way of causing me extreme anxiety. I don't like it when the Giants lose, but I really hate it when they lose to the Eagles. It doesn't help that almost all my friends are Eagles fans. But it makes victory that much sweeter.

I didn't see this coming. It's kind of an interesting pick. I'm not sure what it means.

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has withdrawn his name from consideration for the position of Secretary of Commerce. Apparently, a grand jury is investigating a potential pay-to-play scheme involving a California company that won a contract with the government of New Mexico.

"Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact," he said Sunday in a report by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. "But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process."

I have to say that I heard rumblings both during the primaries and during the vetting for potential vice-presidential picks that Bill Richardson had too many dubious business connections and would prove an embarrassment if he wound up on the ticket. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty, but this hardly comes a surprise to me. I applaud Richardson for doing what Governor Blagojevich refused to do, which is putting the party and the country before his own personal ambition.

The next question will be who Obama will select as Richardson's replacement. Any ideas?

TWO TRILLION TONS of ice would make a lot of shaken martinis, my friends.

[R]esearchers determined that more than 2 trillion tons of landlocked ice in Greenland, Alaska, and Antarctica have melted since 2003, a melting trend that researchers expect to continue. Using new satellite technology that measures changes in mass in mountain glaciers and ice sheets, NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke concluded that the losses amounted to enough water to fill the Chesapeake Bay 21 times. “The ice tells us in a very real way how the climate is changing,” said Luthcke.

Why, oh why, do the facts hate global warming skeptics so much?

I haven't been watching Meet the Press much lately. I tuned in this morning to see how David Gregory is handling his new job. He had a round table at the end to discuss the situation in Gaza. What struck me was less what any of the guests had to say than the collective failure of imagination they displayed. They seem to understand that the invasion of Gaza is unhelpful to U.S. interests and they seem to agree that it will not end well for Israel. But they just can't bring themselves to broach what those facts mean.

A more appropriate response would be to pound the table and ask 'what the hell are they doing?" And it should occur to at least one Villager that by allowing the United States to become completely isolated on this invasion the administration and all our political leaders are increasing our security risks. If you make people want to kill you, sometimes they will kill you.

Terry McAuliffe has made it official, he's running for governor of Virginia. I ordinarily am not much interested in who runs states that I don't live in, although I obviously prefer Democrats to Republicans. Mr. McAuliffe is an exception. He represents everything that I see as being wrong with the Democratic Party over the last 16 years. I would actually prefer that a Republican run Virginia than to see McAuliffe raise his profile and influence within the party.

Everyone acknowledges that McAuliffe's main qualification is his prolific fundraising prowess. He's a glorified bagman...the nuts-and-bolts-guy of the DLC's corporatocracy. If he holds a progressive idea anywhere in his head, it is merely a branding decision that makes him distinct from George Allen-Republicanism. It's little more than a charade. McAuliffe is every bit the Economic Hit Man. He's a James Carville 'D' to Mary Matalin's 'R'. They are so in bed with each other that they're raising each other's kids. That kind of branding is no branding at all. It's just a deceit.

The health of the Democratic Party depends on it ridding itself of the soulless moneygrubbers, like McAuliffe, that stole its soul during the 1990's and delivered one devastating defeat after another. But McAuliffe prospered anyway. That's how that game is set up. Mark Penn made a killing last year, too.

The recount in Minnesota is over and now will move to the courts:

Norm Coleman's term as a U.S. Senator ended at noon Washington time today, and by evening his hopes of winning a second term had been dealt an expected but serious setback as state officials counted previously rejected absentee ballots in St. Paul.

Democrat Al Franken held an unofficial lead of 225 votes over Coleman, according to a newspaper tally of officials' count of the absentee ballots. Franken had led unofficially by 49 votes going into the day and gained a net 176 votes from the new ballots.

With the recount complete, focus immediately shifted to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which continued to consider a request from the Coleman campaign to alter the process and add more absentee ballots to be reconsidered. But by early evening there there was no word from the state's highest court as to when it would rule or hear arguments.

Franken could be named as the winner as early as Tuesday (when the other senators will be sworn in), but Coleman has promised to challenge the result. Nevertheless, short of a miracle, Stuart Smalley is going to be a U.S. Senator. And that's pretty cool.