In 2005, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) believed in polls:

I’m glad that 58 percent of the American people believe that we should stay the course, as well.

On Wednesday, McCain no longer believed in polls:

The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll.

By Thursday McCain believed in polls again:

He said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced — if only by the will of public opinion — to end American involvement in Iraq. “I do believe that history shows us Americans will not continue to support an overseas engagement involving the loss of American lives for an unlimited period of time unless they see some success,” he added. “And then, when they run out of patience, they will demand that we get out.”

“National polls don’t mean anything at this point,” as we all know. Chris Bowers, however, notes that they may not mean anything at all:

By sampling between 40-50% of all registered voters, the vast majority of national Democratic primary polls are not specifically sampling the Democratic primary electorate. As such, these polls should not only be taken with a grain of salt, but should almost be dismissed entirely as useful indicators of the current state of play in the Democratic primary / caucus season. If they are not polling the Democratic primary / caucus electorate, or even coming close to doing so, then they should not be used as indicators of opinion in the Democratic primary / caucus electorate. To use an analogous example, one does not poll the entire nation as a means of determining public opinion in California. One does not poll all Democratic self-identifiers and leaners in order to determine the opinion of Democratic primary and caucus goers.

This seems correct. We know from history that the universe of Democratic primary voters is different from the universe of Democratic self-identifiers. The problem, from the pollsters’ perspective, is that with the primary calendar constantly shifting around, it’s far from clear that beyond the traditional early primary states one would have anything on which to base a turnout model. Who’s likely to go to the Nevada caucuses? Who knows? Of course, from the media’s point of view this is all irrelevant since accurate forecasting of elections and accurate portrayal of public opinion aren’t things media outlets are interested in. Shocking, yes. But they’re trying to attract attention — i.e., readers and viewers and ad dollars — while minimizing costs. Actual candidates, however, do have an interest in accurate information and it would be fascinating to know how they handle this.

President Bush has tried to justify his planned veto of Congress’ Iraq withdrawal legislation by complaining about the non-Iraq related funds included in the bill.

American Progress senior fellow Scott Lilly, who served for years as Clerk and Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee, debunks Bush’s rhetoric:

CLAIM: Bush opposes spending in the emergency supplemental that is “unrelated to the war.”

FACT: Bush’s own supplemental request to Congress contained millions in non-war related funds.

Contained in Bush’s request were funds for federal prisons, Kosovo debt relief, flood control on the Mississippi, nutrition programs in Africa, educational and cultural exchange activities around the world, disease control in South Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, and salaries for U.S. marshals.

The request spread additional funding across seven major departments of the federal government. Such items were not only contained in the White House request for this year’s supplemental but have been part of nearly every supplemental the president has signed since the beginning of the Iraq war. One quarter of the money in last year’s $94 billion “Iraq” supplemental was directed at a variety of domestic programs.

CLAIM: The funds added by Congress were largely “pork barrel projects.”

FACT: The overwhelming majority of non-Iraq spending is for vital needs, including upgrading medical care for Iraq veterans, U.S. operations in Afghanistan, children’s health care, and emergency funds for agricultural disaster areas. Read more

it is agreeing to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request for how to choose someone to help recover some lost e-mails involving official presidential business.” But as David Kurtz notes, “The Senate gets to help pick who will find the emails but the White House still hasn’t agreed to let the Senate see the emails once they are found. Ah, compromise.”

Via TPM, the Washington Post reports:

After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.

At a meeting of the president’s foreign policy team Tuesday, the administration decided the five Iranians will remain in custody and go through a periodic six-month review used for the 250 other foreign detainees held in Iraq, U.S. officials said. The next review is not expected until July, officials say. . . .

Differences over the five Iranians reflect an emerging divide on how to deal with Iran. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went into the meeting Tuesday advising that the men be freed because they are no longer useful, but after a review of options she went along with the consensus, U.S. officials say. Vice President Cheney’s office made the firmest case for keeping them.

“Congressional investigators looking into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys saw Wisconsin prosecutor Steven M. Biskupic’s name on a list of lawyers targeted for removal when they were inspecting a Justice Department document not yet made public, according to an attorney for a lawmaker involved in the investigation.” (More on Biskupic and the Bush administration’s pressure on him here.)