Gore: No Laughing Matter?

"The appearance of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Thursday will in a sense kick off not one but two hearings, and both could be dangerous for the White House," says the Chicago Tribune .

"Most directly, senators will examine Hayden's qualifications to be the director of the beleaguered Central Intelligence Agency. But a hearing within a hearing will explore whether Hayden went too far or broke the law in sanctioning domestic eavesdropping programs in his former job as director of the National Security Agency . . .

"Hayden's answers--and the extent to which they reassure senators concerned about the invasion of Americans' privacy--could determine not only his future at the CIA but also whether Congress chooses to delve deeper into spying activities the president approved after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

If that doesn't excite you, guess what's coming back?

"Social conservatives say President Bush must work harder before next month's scheduled Senate vote to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman," says the Washington Times , "and some even say the White House is sending all the wrong signals on the issue . . .

"Conservatives said Mr. Bush could stand to push the Federal Marriage Amendment, especially given his faltering support among his base and the widespread support for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

Meanwhile, the House ethics committee has decided to open for business again.

"Breaking a long stalemate, the House Ethics Committee opened investigations into Republican and Democratic lawmakers who are already under scrutiny by the Justice Department," the Wall Street Journal reports.

"The bipartisan panel announced last night that it will look into the activities of Reps. Bob Ney (R., Ohio) and William Jefferson (D., La.). The committee also said that it would examine whether other lawmakers were involved in a bribery scandal that has already led to the conviction of former Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R., Calif.).

"The committee would have investigated the overseas travel of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R., Texas), but won't because Mr. DeLay has decided to leave Congress, the panel announced."

The congressman who jump-started the debate over Iraq has dived back into the fray:

"Six months after first calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops," says the Philadelphia Inquirer , "Rep. John P. Murtha (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the military situation in Iraq had only gotten worse, and he predicted the war would be pivotal in this year's elections.

"Murtha, a decorated war veteran with credibility across the political spectrum on military issues, triggered an intense national debate Nov. 17 when he called for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, saying the United States had become bogged down and could accomplish nothing more.

"Murtha contended in a Capitol Hill news conference yesterday that by most every military and economic measure, the situation in Iraq had deteriorated. He said oil production, a key ingredient for Iraqi prosperity, had not reached prewar levels; much of the country gets only nine to 11 hours of electricity a day. In Baghdad, the average is 2.9 hours.

" 'The president insists that our military needs to stay the course, but there is no plan for progress,' Murtha said. 'Every convoy is attacked, IEDs [improvised explosive devices] exploding all around, being shot at every day. They [American troops] are in constant and severe stress. The only people who can settle this are the Iraqis.' "

Should the Dems vow to sic their probers on the president if they capture the House? Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum weighs in:

"Republicans are already raising money from their true-believer base by warning them that a Democratic victory in November will mean nothing but endless investigations of the president. The mainstream press has picked up on this theme too. So does that mean Democrats should avoid the subject for fear of looking hyperpartisan? I think Zack Roth gets the answer right in 'Investi-Gate,' in the June issue of the Monthly:

"Democrats might wish they could avoid talking about their investigative plans. But if they do, the press and the GOP will raise the issue for them, and they'll frame it around the prospect of impeachment. So Democrats might as well meet the challenge head on, and spend the summer making their case. Of course we'll vigorously investigate the administration if we win, they should say. And we'll do so the same way previous Democratic Congresses have investigated GOP presidents: shoulder-to-shoulder with honest Republican lawmakers willing to put country before party. The fact that the current GOP leadership chose to abandon the great American tradition of bipartisan Congressional oversight is no reason Democrats have to follow suit."

Oh, and Paul McCartney doesn't like the coverage of his split from Heather Mills. On his Web site , the ex-Beatle says there is "no truth" to the notion that she married him for his money and that "almost everything I'm reading is 100 percent untrue."