Suddenly 315 of the detainees at Abu Ghraib are back on the streets. Wonder how that happened?
About a week ago, there were about 3,800 prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The new U.S. commander of detention operations in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, said he plans to reduce that number to somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000.
Okay, either we had reason to believe these guys were dangerous, or we didn't. If we did, they shouldn't just be released. If we didn't, someone should be punished for locking them all up.
And what is it with targeting a number of detainees? If they get the number down to 1,999, will they just hold all of them, regardless of guilt or innocence?
On the same story, an interesting argument for why Rumsfeld should step down.
Congress banned the use of soft money by political parties and certain political groups in 2002, but that law did not address activity by 527s.
As a result, a number of high-profile Democratic groups have emerged this year attacking President Bush and drawing cries of foul from GOP officials as well as from the Bush campaign.
Anyhow, we all need to remember that this would have passed if the Right really wanted it to pass. Congressmen with their eyes on the future realize that they're going to need this money themselves before long. The difference, you see, is that the conservative groups tend not to be high profile. Liberals tend to put their organizations and issues openly out in public, as well as being proud to attach their names to what they believe in. Conservatives? Not so much.
Turning our attention elsewhere, let's consider the recent elections in India.
But the country's markets, which at first welcomed Gandhi's big win as a sign of stability, plunged after a day of criticism by key communist leaders of economic reforms -- especially plans to sell India's inefficient and monolithic state firms.