Various people have made a terrific effort to provide text-searchable versions of the 3000 pages recently issued by DOJ (that have been posted by the House in the form of 61 separate non-searchable pdfs), but in my opinion all the prior efforts have fallen short.

This includes my own effort, here, which was early but incomplete. Also, I was using an OCR program with a somewhat high error-rate.

ePluribus Media posted files (announced here). But for some reason their files are unnecessarily large. By the time they're done, I think the whole batch will be over 250mb (this is bigger than the original non-searchable files, which add up to about 172mb). [Update and correction: the original files add up to 142mb. The ePM files add up to 204mb.] I've created files 85% smaller, containing the same information, including graphics. Also, their approach requires searching across 61 separate files (Adobe Reader allows this, but it's cumbersome when the files are so big). I provide two approaches where 100% of the text is aggregated in a single file.

[MUCH BETTER VERSION NOW AVAILABLE. SEE UPDATE BELOW.]

Through the miracle of OCR (optical character recognition), it's now possible to search in these files. I think this makes research a lot easier.

Two versions are provided (aside from the original non-searchable version available at http://www.judiciary.house.gov/ ):

COMPILATION VERSION

Click here to get a single pdf (933 pages, 6.9mb) which is a merged compilation of all the separate pdfs that have been released so far. This approach makes it easy to do a single search across all the aggregate content. (Since that's a large pdf which may be slow to open in directly in your browser, it might be a good idea to use control-click [Mac] or right-click [Windows]  to download the file instead.)

Lots of current reporting talks about how October is our worst month in almost two years. In 43 months since the invasion, only three other months have been worse (as measured by US troop fatalities). If four more of us die between now and midnight, I'll have to update the preceding sentence to say "two other months" instead of "three other months."

There's also fairly ample reporting of the fact that our recent push to secure Baghdad was a miserable failure.

However, I think few are noticing that this is happening at the exact moment that troop levels are increasing sharply. Moreover, this is exactly the time when troop levels were supposed to be going down.

Yes, another one. First we heard from Shelton. Then from Taylor. Now NYT reports a third named witness: Ellen G. Hawkins "said Tuesday that she heard him use a racial slur in 1976."

The details:

This morning, lowkell's terrific diary pointed out that the Weekly Standard is taking a big shot at Allen. That's real news. Here's some more news: they're also taking a shot at Bush.

It's not every day that the Weekly Standard says Bush is a liar. It's not every day that WS aligns itself with dKos and Maureen Dowd, on a point like this. But that's exactly what's happening, and it's worth noticing.

Most dKos readers are well-aware that Pakistan has surrendered to the Taliban, and released a large number of jihadist prisoners. This critically important developing story has been well-covered at dKos (links provided below). The main purpose of this diary is to note an important milestone: the Weekly Standard (9/23/06, print date 10/02/06) is starting to catch on:

these events may constitute the most significant development in the global war on terror in the past year--yet the media have taken little notice

Yesterday LondonYank posted a terrific diary noting many connections between Pakistan and terrorism ("The REAL Reason for Secret Tribunals? Pakistan Terrorism Timeline"). Daniel Pearl was mentioned in the diary and also in the comments (including comments by LondonYank and PaulGaskin). These comments pointed out apparent connections between Pakistan and 9/11, connections that Pearl was reportedly investigating when he was killed. LY also made this important point: Bush is planning to send Pakistan F-16s. This prompted me to remember one of the major demands made by Pearl's killers: to send Pakistan F-16s.

In other words Bush is now in the process of appeasing and rewarding Pearl's killers, by sending Pakistan the F-16s those killers demanded.

OK, that might be a bit of hyperbole. I can't know for sure if this is the best one. But I think it is, and I've read zillions of them.

The Plamegate story is exceptionally important (below I'll explain why). Unfortunately, the story is complicated. And the Bushists (with the help, witting and unwitting, of various journalists) cynically exploit that complexity to discourage people from understanding the story.

However, if explained well, anyone can grasp the story in about five minutes. And yesterday Eric Mink of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch explained the story very, very well.

Here's what makes Mink's article great. It's short (1250 words). In that small space, he manages to tell the whole story from beginning to end. He makes it simple and concise by omitting every needless word and every secondary detail. Plamegate has a mountain of confusing secondary details; Mink includes 100% of what's important, and leaves out everything else.

And the one minor flaw in Mink's article is something I think I manage to correct in this diary.

Over the last year or so, important milestones were reached when major righty voices jumped ship, with regard to the war. People like William F. Buckley and George Will (along with various other major figures) have now turned their back on the war.

But naturally there have been a few holdouts. And perhaps none is more prominent than Charles Krauthammer. As far as I can tell, he has stood relatively alone as a very, very influential conservative voice who has not budged even an inch on his commitment to Dubya's folly.

But now even Krauthammer is getting ready to jump ship. In my opinion, this is a significant milestone that's going relatively unnoticed (aside from here, about 5 paragraphs down).

Let's look at today's column from Krauthammer, titled "Iraq: A Civil War We Can Still Win."

The Dubai/UAE ports deal had huge political impact because it spoke to Bush's base. It punctured their illusion that Bush and the GOP are working to keep them safe. It vividly exposed the reality, that our first MBA president values corporate profits more than he values national security, and that the GOP is the party of global business, not the party of America.

Now, Bush and the GOP are going down that same road again, but in a manner that's infinitely more dangerous. Amazingly, the reality of what's happening is largely unnoticed. No surprise: the Dubai ports deal had already been public information for months, at the time the press and public finally woke up to the significance of the story, quite strenuously but also quite abruptly and almost by accident.

Below the fold: the devastating overlooked truth.

We can learn a lot if we pay close attention to what one of the dead men said. Unfortunately, his words have been largely ignored, here and elsewhere. We can also learn a lot by looking at the details of what the UN reported, in the days prior to the incident. But those words have also been largely ignored.

I've read SusanHu's diary ("Kofi Annan: Don't You Dare Criticize Israel") and I notice that certain critical information is missing not just from the diary itself, but also, for the most part, from the 900 comments (last time I checked) that are attached. (A handful of the comments allude to the following issues, but for whatever reason those comments seem to have received little attention.)

Since Coulter has now spoken of taking "a shot at Clinton," presumably she will soon be visited by the Secret Service. After all, Clinton is under their protection. And we know the Secret Service takes any threat very seriously. For example, they saddled up in response to the idea that some high school kids were merely planning to sing the exact words of a 40-year old Bob Dylan song.

Contact information for the Secret Service is here. Presumably Coulter's threat would fall under the jurisdiction of the DC field office (202-406-8000). Concerned citizens should do their patriotic duty and make sure the government is aware of this assassination threat against a Secret Service protectee. Call now. CPAC is going on today, in DC, until about 6 PM. Presumably the Secret Service would want to appear there promptly to make sure that no other CPAC speakers are making further threats against SS protectees.

Mr. Brady,

Until recently, there was room for doubt. But in your recent panel, your answers to Hamsher filled in important pieces of the puzzle. It's now clear you're trying to get away with something.

The issue here is not how to define profanity or civility. The issue here is not whether you have the right to set rules for your blog. The issue here is not even whether Abramoff bought Democrats. The issue here is whether you're an honest man. The issue here is that your recent behavior appears to have patently political motivations.

I'd be very happy to see you prove otherwise, and in that event I'll promptly retract my accusation. The proof is in your hands: the 420 messages you're still withholding.

It's worth taking a close look at the facts, because it would be nice to know that WaPo's admirable steps into the world of blogging are being guided by integrity, and not by politics. This is an important matter that deserves careful examination.

Just a little update. As I explained in my earlier diary, sometime early Sunday morning, WaPo very quietly restored 948 posts, which were attached to an article called "New Blog: Maryland Moment." They left the thread open to new posts. 4 new posts arrived, between 11:56 am and 2:10 pm, on Monday 1/23. At some time after that, the thread was locked.

The new posts can be seen here, at least as of right now.

But here's the interesting part. Even though WaPo reposted 948 messages, they now seem to be in the process of gradually deleting large numbers of those messages.

Since life is short, I will dispense with my ordinary excruciating thoroughness, and be content to just provide a sampling. The following messages were present at washingtonpost.com on Monday (an image of the blog as of Monday can be found here). Now they're gone (as you can see if you check here).

By the way, be sure to tune in today at 1 pm ET, for a live WaPo chat on this subject, with  Jim Brady, Jeff Jarvis, Jane Hamsher, Jay Rosen, and Glenn Reynolds.

In a masterstroke of covert action, WaPo has quietly restored 948 blog posts that they had ripped down several days ago. Not just that: posting is enabled on this particular article. And not just that: they apparently did this roughly 24 hours ago, because a spambot noticed. And I just did my own little posting test here.

Now here's the fun part: what's missing? In my diary a couple of days ago (recommended by 332 people, I'm tickled to notice), I looked into that question, with regard to another batch of messages they restored. The results were interesting. So let's do it again.

Jim Brady, Executive Editor of washingtonpost.com, seems to be terribly upset about "personal attacks, profanity and hate speech." He claims "comments on this blog were shut off because of the tone of it, not the substance." (Background on this entertaining flap can be found in many places, such as here.)

With all due respect, I think the facts strongly suggest that Jim Brady is full of shit. He seems to be complaining about messages that simply never existed.

This archived copy of a WaPo blog page is a record of 238 comments that were posted on 1/19, between (roughly) noon and 4 pm. (This archive was apparently created at approximately 4 pm on 1/19; this is evident because two messages posted minutes later are not captured in this archive; more on this below.) These 238 comments are roughly 99% profanity-free. Brady would have us believe that during this period, there were many other comments which were highly profane, and were deleted, and therefore don't appear on the archived copy.

Lost in the middle of a 4,000-word official transcript is a sworn statement that directly contradicts the major alibi Bush has been floating. Here's what Congress was told in 2002:

"Let me repeat for emphasis: We cannot monitor anyone today whom we could not have monitored at this time last year."

(Underlining is in the original.)

That declaration is found here: "Statement of Associate Deputy Attorney General David S. Kris, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Presented on September 10, 2002."

This is the Bush administration telling Congress (in the course of discussing certain relatively obscure details of the Patriot Act) the same crap Bush has told the public over the last few years: that wiretaps still required a warrant, because the Patriot Act didn't change anything in that regard. (Essential Bush transcripts are here. Also, this short video is indispensable, because it shows emphasis that a transcript cannot convey.)

Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Jane Smiley posted a chilling and brilliant essay at The Huffington Post a couple of days ago. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been noticed here at dKos. I think it merits attention, so I hope it gets some.

Smiley argues that for the most part, the Bush presidency is proceeding according to plan. The goal is to dismantle American democracy, and great, deliberate strides have been made in this direction.

Here are some excerpts:

... The Bushies have a pattern and they stick to it ...  it is to break down the government so completely that it can't be put back together again.

... many observers ... assume that the president does not want to destroy the army. But if the army is destroyed, then the services that the army provides at a relatively moderate expense to the taxpayer can be farmed out to companies like Halliburton. ... Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush have cast their lot not with the draft, or even the volunteer army, but with the mercenary army, which is more profitable, less subject to Congressional and public oversight, and, really, the appropriate army for a rogue state.

CNN is currently running a "Quickvote" poll at their home page (scroll down, it's at the right edge of the page).

The question is "Was the New York Times right to publish details of a secret program that allows spies to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant?"

As of a few minutes ago, 69% (out of about 47,000 votes) say "Yes, we need to know." The rest say "No, security needs secrecy."

Vote.