In an interview on CNN today, Wolf Blitzer asked House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) about “the Americans who are killed every month” in Iraq and “how much longer” the “military commitment is going to require?” “The investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here,” replied Boehner. As Atrios notes, the “small price” Boehner refers to is “3774 dead US troops and counting.” Watch it:

UPDATE: Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has put out a statement today blasting Boehner’s comment, saying “no American should ever for even a moment think the cost of war is small.”

Earlier this week, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell claimed the new expansive FISA legislation passed by Congress prior to the August recess — the so-called Protect America Act — had helped to thwart a an alleged terror plot in Germany.

A government official later told the New York Times that McConnell was wrong, and that the intelligence had been collected under the old FISA law which required warrants. A chorus of House Democrats immediately raised concerns about McConnell’s claims.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) demanded McConnell back up his sworn statement. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said the Protect America Act “played no role in uncovering the recent German terrorist plot.” House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes urge McConnell “to issue a public statement immediately” correcting his remarks.

In a statement released today, McConnell unapologetically acknowledged he lied to the Senate:

During the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on September 10, 2007, I discussed the critical importance to our national security of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the recent amendments to FISA made by the Protect America Act. The Protect America Act was urgently needed by our intelligence professionals to close critical gaps in our capabilities and permit them to more readily follow terrorist threats, such as the plot uncovered in Germany. However, information contributing to the recent arrests was not collected under authorities provided by the Protect America Act.

Read the statement here. McConnell would be well-advised to officially correct his testimony.

Note that in the statement, McConnell does not apologize, but rather uses it as another opportunity to call for Congress to authorize the “unnecessary and dangerous” expansion of the administration’s spying power.

UPDATE: Here’s exactly what McConnell said in his Senate testimony:

MCCONNELL: [The new FISA law] was passed, as you well know, and we’re very pleased with that. And we’re better prepared now to continue our mission; specifically Germany, significant contributions. It allowed us to see and understand all the connections with –

LIEBERMAN: The newly adopted law facilitated that during August?

MCCONNELL: Yes, sir, it did. [Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 9/10/07]

On Monday, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell claimed that the new expansive FISA law adopted by Congress prior to the August recess was responsible for the foiling of an alleged terrorist attack in Germany.

As Think Progress noted yesterday, McConnell’s testimony was later contradicted by an anonymous government official, who said “McConnell might have misspoken,” as the intelligence used to thwart the plan was gathered under the old FISA law:

[T]he official, who has been briefed on the eavesdropping laws and the information given to the Germans, said that those intercepts were recovered last year under the old law.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, both issued statements chastising McConnell and urging him to back up his claims.

Today, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the Chairman of the full House Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to McConnell, confirming that the new FISA law did not play a role and requested a public correction:

I am told by senior American officials that U.S. assistance to German intelligence was based on collection under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), several months before its modification by Congress in August. Accordingly, the new law did not lead to the arrests of the three terrorist plotters, as you claimed. [...]

I therefore urge you to issue a public statement immediately to confirm that the surveillance used to assist in the disruption of German plot was collected pursuant to FISA before the passage of the Protect America Act.

McConnell has yet to publicly concede his false claim.

Oil prices jumped “above a record $80 a barrel after the government reported a surprisingly large drop in crude inventories and declines in gasoline supplies and refinery activity.”

Ed Kilgore explains:

Think about it. Since 1998, we’ve witnessed the first presidential impeachment since the 1860s, the first presidential election to go into “overtime” since the 1870s; the first attack on the continental United States since 1812; the first major preemptive “war of choice” in U.S. history; and the first televised destruction of an American city. I don’t mean to equate any of these non-9/11 occurances with what we witnessed that day, but it has been an extraordinary span of time.

If you want to truly understand why Democrats (especially those whose entire formative political experience has been the last decade) are so often “angry,” remember the behavior of the leadership of the Republican Party in all of the non-9/11 events I’ve mentioned. And then remember what the president and vice president have done to destroy the national unity and worldwide symphathy this country enjoyed just after 9/11, typically viewing domestic unity and global approval with ill-disguised contempt.

I only hope that Ed can appreciate that part of the reason there’s a lot of anger also directed at a somewhat nebulous “Democratic establishment” is precisely a perception that at just these moments of conservative perfidy to which he points, the response mounted by said establishment was notably ineffectual.

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson “has emerged as a top contender to replace” Alberto Gonzales. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said today: “Ted Olson will not be confirmed.” “He’s a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan,” Reid explained. Democrats, including current Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), indicated they would mount strong challenges to Olson if Bush nominates him. “He is certainly not a consensus nominee,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “He has a very political background.”