In today’s New York Times, Stephen Colbert guest-writes Maureen Dowd’s column. Colbert offers penetrating insights, for example,”winning the Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to be commander in chief. I think George Bush has proved definitively that to be president, you don’t need to care about science, literature or peace.” Check out the whole column HERE.

The Washington Post reveals that “the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.” Previously, the Bush administration and the GOP maintained that the NSA eavesdropping program was put in place in response to the 9/11 attacks.

President Bush: After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they’re saying. [White House, 5/11/06]

Former Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman: “This is authority the president does have. It’s authority that is consistent with protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties, and it’s an authority that is critical to learning the lessons of 9/11.” [CNN, 1/16/06]

But this latest revelation exposes the Bush administration’s post 9/11 power grab for what it is: an ideologically driven attempt to expand the power of the executive. Because the administration focused on implementing a neoconservative ideology in the wake of 9/11, rather than meeting the unique security needs of the nation, they increased the terror threat. They allowed ideology to trump reason.

Rather than pursue Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora, the administration dusted off pre-9/11 invasion plans for Iraq and diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. Rather than disrupting specific terror plots through reasonable and legal intelligence gathering methods, the administration instituted warrantless wiretapping, overwhelming intelligence agencies with useless information.

While Democrats should amend FISA to allow for warrantless wiretapping of foreign to foreign communication, they must ensure that intelligence agencies do not target Americans without first securing individualized warrants.

As “more than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips” that resulted from the warrantless wiretapping of Americans, “led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.” [NYT, 1/17/06]

America’s response to terror should be tailored to meet the terror threat. Unfortunately, the Bush administration applied an ill-conceived neoconservative template to the very real threat of international terrorism. Today, we live with its consequences.

On Friday, Mitt Romney suggested that overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, would move the country towards a place “where there was no abortion.”

“I would love to see an America where there was no abortion. But that’s not where the American people are…What I do want to see, and where I think the American people are today, is to see a conservative jurist on the Supreme Court and to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”

Romney’s naiveté is contradicted by the facts. According to a study released yesterday by The World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute, “abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.”

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

Rather than reducing the number of abortions, overturning Roe v. Wade would jeopardize women’s lives. Romney had it right in 1994 (”I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.”) and 2002 (”The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government’s.”). Unfortunatley, since he decided to seek the Republican nomination for president, Romney has been willing to place politics ahead of women’s well being.

In fact, by dismissing the science that contradicts his new-found ideology, Romney, like Rudy, is following in the footsteps of our current president.

The Republicans of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a satirical press release grossly misrepresenting the vetoed legislation that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Based in the fictional Springfield from The Simpsons, the release featured the rich Montgomery Burns and Mayor Quimby jockeying for government funded health care.

The release quoted Burns saying, “The little darlings are needy? Me, too. I need somebody to pay ,” suggesting that well-off parents would be allowed access to free health care should SCHIP be expanded.

Such scenarios, however, have absolutely no basis in reality. Under the vetoed plan, parents would only be eligible for coverage if they work low-income, uninsured jobs and the poorest children be “first in line” for coverage. The release comes just a day after the Republican Leadership in the Senate was found by ThinkProgress to be propagating known fictions about 12-year-old SCHIP beneficiary Graeme Frost. As Paul Krugman recapped in the New York Times:

Right-wingers began “insisting that the Frosts must be affluent because Graeme and his sister attend private schools (they’re on scholarship), because they have a house in a neighborhood where some houses are now expensive (the Frosts bought their house for $55,000 in 1990 when the neighborhood was rundown and considered dangerous) and because Mr. Frost owns a business (it was dissolved in 1999).”

Indeed, the “press release” and their previous smear campaign betrays the callous zeal with which House Republicans and some Senate Republicans have sought to prevent the needed expansion of SCHIP. While an astounding 91% of Americans want “Congress to help states cover more uninsured children”, a “vast majority [of Americans] also supported covering uninsured parents in low-income working families,” and “more than 600,000 children joined the ranks of the uninsured last year,” House Republicans are more concerned with scoring cheap brownie points with an out-of-touch Bush administration. (via Atrios, Wonkette)

*Seriously Joe, stop.

Adam Key, a law student at Pat Robertson’s Regent University, has been banned from campus and ordered undergo a mental health evaluation for posting a screen-capture of a “video in which Robertson scratches his face with his middle finger.”

Robertson told the AP that, “in general, no action should be taken against anyone who exercises their freedom of speech and expression, and that includes criticism or satire of the chancellor.” Adding, however, that “the school did not feel that deliberately manipulating a television image to turn it into something obscene was included in that freedom.”

When the university was made aware of the “unflattering” photo of Robertson, “officials demanded that [Key] publicly apologize, then withhold public comment about the matter, or submit to the law school dean a legal brief defending the posting. Key chose the latter, arguing that his posting was satire protected under the First Amendment, and said [the university] rejected his written legal brief.”

The University said in a letter to Key that several of his fellow students had expressed “concern about Key’s behavior this semester, and have reported that Key said he brought a gun onto campus.” Key denies the accusation and accuses the university of “exploiting the fear that lingers since a gunman at Virginia Tech killed 32 people last April.”

On Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of “lying” about its nuclear program. “There is an Iranian history of obfuscation and, indeed, lying to the IAEA,” she said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “There is a history of Iran not answering important questions about what is going on and there is Iran pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to nuclear weapons-grade material.”

While Iran’s intentions are uncertain, the United States has no evidence that it is lying about its nuclear capabilities. In fact, Rice’s rhetoric is reminiscent of the false charges levied by the Bush administration against Iraq in 2002. On March 6, 2003 President Bush accused Saddam Hussein of lying to UN weapons inspectors.

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors…We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors…. These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world….Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received — the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council — total disarmament.

The following day, testifying before the United Nations, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix contradicted Bush’s assessment.

In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure….This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

Five years and one war later, the cautious-fact based approach of the United Nations is vindicated. Even today, the UN is singing a similar tune. While acknowledging that Iran’s nuclear ambitions may not be “entirely peaceful,” Mohammad ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA maintains that “he had seen no evidence to back allegations that the country was attempting to build a bomb.”

If the war in Iraq has taught Americans anything, it’s that ideology should not overwhelm reality. A policy driven by “wild-eyed theories and fantasies” will most certainly lead towards another catastrophic war.

ABC News is reporting Mitt Romney’s reaction to John McCain’s health care proposal:

Romney was also asked about Arizona Sen. John McCain’s health care plan that was unveiled Thursday, but he claimed that he hadn’t “seen Sen. McCain’s health care plan yet.”

However, he did use the question to emphasize his argument that health care is “not a Democrat issue. It’s a conservative, Republican issue.” Romney added that, while he hadn’t seen other candidates plans, “my plan is the best.”

“Former Vice President Al Gore Jr. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today, along with a United Nations panel that monitors climate change, for their work educating the world about global warming and advocating for political action to control it.”

Gore said of the award:

I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–the world’s pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis–a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.

Gore also said he would donate the prize money to “Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.”

Other recent Peace Prize winners include Former President Jimmy Carter, IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei, and Former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan.

No word on whether or not the New York Sun is disappointed that their Peace Prize favorite, Gen. David Petreaus, was passed over. At least the Sun can still campaign for a Petreaus presidency.

UPDATE: Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress “explains how Gore’s environmental work is directly related to peace and security issues.”

The Vice President and many others have said that climate change is a security issue because it will create millions of environmental refugees and will lead to water scarcity that can cause conflict. Conflicts like those in Darfur have environmental roots and need environmental solutions, along with political and economic solutions. Gore is trying to prevent a humanitarian crisis; he is trying to prevent regional wars that will be driven by resource scarcity. This isn’t the first time that a major environmental issue has won the peace prize. Winning this Prize proves this isn’t an ordinary environmental issue. It is one of the most important issues of our time. It would be good if this award were part of a trend.

Yesterday, The Body Politik noted that while former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani portrays himself as an expert on terrorism, his actual statements and policy judgments usually reveal his ignorance. Today, Josh Marshall notes that Rudy Giuliani has hired “Michael Rubin as Senior Iran and Turkey Advisor and Middle East Advisory Board Member.”

Rubin worked at “Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans” and “like the most interesting and frightening neos, Michael is that perfect mix of extreme factual knowledge and extreme lack of judgment, prone to wild-eyed theories and fantasies of various sorts but all in the end leading inexorably toward catastrophic policy moves for the United States.” Below is a sampling of Rubin’s greatest hits:

- IRAQ: “The question with Iraq is not whether they were involved on Sept. 11. The question with Iraq is, do we think they have the capacity, the will and the means to create mass casualties in the United States. I think they do. The evidence shows they do. And then the issue is, why should we wait and sacrifice another 5,000 innocent lives?” [10/24/01 Yale Daily News]

- “September 11 has helped to persuade the region that the United States isn’t going to take it anymore. Even onerous regimes are eager or willing to be part of the U.S. coalition against Usama bin Ladin’s terrorism. Under resolute U.S. leadership, some of this spirit could be mobilized against Iraq.… [Ankara, Amman, Kuwait City, and Riyadh] want to see a plan that is focused, determined, and close-ended. If the United States can produce one, its regional allies will fall into line.”[Winter/02, Middle East Quarterly]

- “The Kurds themselves, many of them patriotic veterans of the Iraqi Army do not wish to split from Iraq; they do want a federal, unified and democratic Iraq. Their only problem is with Saddam Husayn himself. Until he is removed, nothing can proceed.” [ 7/10/01, Middle East Forum]

- The New York Times reports that Rubin advised The Lincoln Group, a Pentagon contractor that paid Iraqi newspapers to print American propaganda, on the content of the propaganda campaign in Iraq. [1/2/06, NYT]

- IRAN: “U.S. and Iranian interests in Iraq are diametrically opposed, and will continue to be until one side wins and the other loses.” Diplomacy with Iran is “a mirage, a tactical tool to divert U.S. policy attention away from the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence officials charged with implementing the Iranian leadership’s objectives…For the U.S. government to succeed in Iraq, it must engage not with the illusion of Iranian policy, but refine its strategies to neutralize and counter the Iranian strategies.” [8/09/07, Washington Post]

- “In the wake of Sadr’s uprising, Washington is faced with the same choice: End Iran’s infiltration through forceful action, or wish it away. How long can we afford to keep choosing the latter?“ [4/26/04, New Republic]

- ISLAMIC WORLD: “In the Islamic world, confrontation may work better than dialogue. As the Taliban were driven from Kabul, Afghans spontaneously celebrated, cheering America in the streets…Washington should not negotiate with rogue regimes, at least not until they move beyond mere rhetoric and unilaterally cease all weapons proliferation and terror sponsorship without precondition.” [12/12/01, Opinion Journal]

- REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA: The Asia Times reported that Michael Rubin and the usual neo-con suspects “signed a report released three years ago that called for using military force to disarm Syria of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to end its military presence in Lebanon.” [4/17/03, Asia Times]

By recruiting hard line neo-conservatives, Giuliani is tacitly endorsing the failed foreign policy of the Bush administration. If the war on terror and the war in Iraq have radicalized jihadists and increased the terror threat, Giuliani’s willingness to pursue a confrontational and militant foreign policy– possibly extending the war to Iran– would jeopardize American safety and security.

Good Magazine illustrates the growing crisis of student debt. Currently, the “total federal student loan debt in the United States is $492 billion.”