Today’s edition of quick hits.<\/p>\n
* Details are still very sketchy, but the AP reports<\/a>, ” Hundreds of Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq early Wednesday to chase Kurdish guerrillas who attack Turkey from bases there, Turkish security officials said…. The senior security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, characterized the raid as a “hot pursuit” raid that was limited in scope. They told The Associated Press it did not constitute the kind of large incursion that Turkish leaders have been discussing in recent weeks.”<\/p>\n * The Kurdistan Regional Government’s representative in Washington, Qubad Talabany, meanwhile, released a statement denying<\/a> that the Turkish military crossed the border with Iraqi Kurdistan, though he warns about a Turkish “troop build-up.”<\/p>\n * Bradley Schlozman had plenty of interesting insights<\/a> to share with the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, not the least of which was a very different version<\/a> from David Iglesias about getting a sign-off from the Election Crimes branch of the Justice Department to pursue bogus “voter fraud” cases.<\/p>\n * Schlozman also suggested that any group that works with minorities is necessarily “liberal<\/a>,” and acknowledged that he may have “boasted<\/a>” to others about the number of conservative Republicans he brought into supposedly non-partisan positions at the Justice Department.<\/p>\n * In related news, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has retained private counsel<\/a> and will meet privately with investigators with the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow in DC. (thanks to K.M.)<\/p>\n * McClatchy<\/a>: “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy angrily threatened Tuesday to issue subpoenas ‘if the White House continues to stonewall’ his panel’s investigation into fired U.S. attorneys, and he said he was ‘deeply troubled’ by what he called White House efforts to ‘manipulate the (Justice) Department into its own political arm.'”<\/p>\n * The WaPo reported<\/a> this morning, “Test Scores Soar After ‘No Child’.” The truth is more complicated<\/a> (and less encouraging). * Bill O’Reilly took a John Edwards quote out of context<\/a> in order to disparage his anti-terrorism position. Imagine that.<\/p>\n * Former USAID Chief Randall Tobias will be honored<\/a> as a “Living Legend” by the Indiana Historical Society at a special awards dinner next month. Is this the same Randall Tobias who was forced to resign because he was a client of an escort service accused of being a prostitution ring? As a matter of fact, it is.<\/p>\n * As part of the media’s ongoing (and extremely unhealthy) fascination with presidential candidates’ physical appearance, the Politico’s chief political columnist Roger Simon declared Mitt Romney the winner of last night’s debate, in part because he “has shoulders you could land a 737 on<\/a>.” Ugh.<\/p>\n * Scarborough is scrambling to manage<\/a> the disgust generated by his disparaging comments about Fred Thompson’s wife earlier this week.<\/p>\n * Fox News is still trying<\/a> to apologize for “confusing” John Conyers and William Jefferson. (Every time this comes up, let’s not forget the network has a habit<\/a> of mixing up African-American elected officials.)<\/p>\n * Bernard Shaw, a CNN anchor until his retirement in 2001, doesn’t like<\/a> how the network has changed since he left. “CNN continues to ape many of the on-air mannerisms of the Fox News Network, and I don’t like that,” he said. None of us do, Mr. Shaw.<\/p>\n * In related news, Glenn Beck, one of CNN’s far-right blowhards, continues to see his ratings tank<\/a>.<\/p>\n * In still more related news, the ratings for the Democratic debates are far higher<\/a> than for the Republican debates.<\/p>\n
\n
\n* U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker<\/a>: “Sometimes I think that in the U.S. we’re looking at Iraq right now as though it were the last half of a three-reel movie. For Iraqis, it’s a five-reel movie and they’re still in the first half of it. I don’t see an end game, as it were, in sight.”<\/p>\n