From CNN:

Embattled Republican Sen. Larry Craig will announce his resignation from the Senate Saturday, a GOP source in Idaho said Friday.

[...]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Friday called Craig’s conduct “unforgivable” and acknowledged that many in his caucus believe Craig should resign.

[...]

Sen. John McCain, a GOP presidential candidate, has called Craig’s case “disgraceful.” Another Republican senator, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, has said Craig pleaded guilty to “a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator.”

I find Craig’s treatment by his fellow Republicans extraordinarily interesting. He has been attacked, criticized, thrown under the bus and told to resign, all because of what amounts to a relatively minor misdemeanor charge.

As I wrote before, Republicans who did far worse things have been coddled by the GOP, staunchly defended and protected by the highest echelons of Republican power. Just look atDavid Vitter and his hookers, or Ted Stevens’ corruption probe.
Yet, Larry Craig–hypocrite that he is–gets thrown under the bus for a comparatively minor charge. The reason why is clear–Craig is gay. He got caught trying to pick up men, and the GOP panicked–they know their radical right-wing agenda can’t tolerate homosexuality. Infidelity, corruption, dishonesty, lawbreaking–all of those are fine, homosexuality is not.

In the end, Craig has become a victim of the same anti-gay culture he helped perpetuate. There is some poetic justice in that. But I still think it’s sad that a man would have to live a lie, lest he lose his career simply for being who he is.

UPDATE: Mcjoan at Daily Kos has an excellent rundown of Craig’s potential replacements.  Sources are saying that Idaho Governor Butch Otter will probably pick his Lieutenant Governor, Jim Risch, to fill the seat.

Otter and Risch are political rivals, but in this context the appointment makes sense–Risch gets to move out of the thankless, low-profile Lieutenant Governorship, while Otter pre-empts a future political battle by giving Risch a prime position and buying his loyalty.

Still, there’s always the potential for a political curveball to get thrown our way.

Senator John Warner (R-VA) is retiring:

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, said Friday he won’t run for re-election.

“I say that my work and service to Virginia as a senator will conclude upon the 6th of January, 2009, when I finish … my career of a then 30 years in the United States Senate,” said Warner, 80.

[…]

Last week, Warner called on President Bush to start the process of bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq in September.

Warner opposed Bush’s January decision to send nearly 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. But he has so far also opposed Democratic efforts to force Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home.

He and the current Armed Services chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, recently returned from a visit to Baghdad with harsh words for Iraqi Prime Minister’s Nuri al-Maliki government.

[…]

According to the most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission, Warner’s campaign committee had $734,494 on hand as of June 30 and had raised a little more than $72,000 in the second quarter of 2007.

This has been a long time coming. Warner has gone from being one of the most influential and respected members of the majority party to being a member of the minority, often at odds with his fellow party members.

He stopped towing the GOP line on Iraq several months ago, when he opposed President Bush’s surge. Since then, Warner has been criticized by war supporters for ditching the White House talking points in favor of acknowledging the hard truths on the ground.

His retirement puts his Senate seat in play. Virginia has become a purple state, especially after Tim Kaine beat Jerry Kilgore for the Governor’s mansion in 2005 and Jim Webb knocked off the massively-popular George Allen by several thousand votes this past November.

Warner’s heir-apparent is Northern Virginia Congressman Tom Davis, who has a massive amount of money on-hand—$1.05 million, according to the FEC. Yet, he may face a bruising primary battle with former Virginia Governor and failed Presidential candidate Jim Gilmore, who had announced his intention to run for Warner’s seat if the Senator retired.

Of course, the 800-pound donkey in the room is former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (no relation to Senator Warner). There has been a lot of speculation about Warner’s political plans since he turned down a run for the Presidency 10 months ago—many people have suggested he plans to either run for Governor again in 2009 or become the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. Mark Warner has voiced his intention to return to public office, and I’m sure he’s spent at least some time thinking about becoming the next Senator from Virginia.

If he chooses to run for Senate, the seat is basically his for the taking. Warner left office with massive approval ratings after turning Virginia from one of the nation’s worst states into one of it’s best. Neither Davis nor Gilmore could stand much of a chance against him.

So, the ball’s in Mark’s court. Will he step up and run for Senate, nearly guaranteeing a Democratic pickup? Or will he set his sights elsewhere—and, in that case, who else will step up to the plate?

All in all, it’s going to be an interesting year.

From the BBC, via Democracy Arsenal:

Gunmen with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles had forced their way past checkpoints and appeared to be trying to take control of the area around the shrines.

As security forces fought back, several hotels were set ablaze.

The BBC’s Mike Wooldridge in Baghdad says various sources blamed the attack on the Mehdi Army. In Karbala, the police are linked to their political rivals, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC).

In apparently related violence between the two groups in Baghdad, at least five people were killed.

It comes just two days after Mr Maliki announced a deal between Iraqi Shia, Sunni and Kurdish politicians aimed at building national unity.

[Emphasis added]

This is just another incidence of sectarian violence in Iraq, right?

Wrong.

Both the groups above are of the same sect—they’re both Shiite groups, yet they’re warring with one another.

Many war supporters like to simplify the conflict, dividing all the various groups into two camps—the good guys and the bad guys.

But this story is indicative of the fact that it doesn’t always work that way—the violence in Iraq is exceptionally complex, involving numerous groups with various ideologies and fluid, shifting affiliations.

This incident—as well as the rest of the violence in Iraq—undermines much of the exaggerated talk of political progress in Iraq.  Remember, just three weeks ago the last of the Sunnis left the Cabinet, leaving the Sunnis with no representation in the Al-Maliki government and sapping it of even more of it’s legitimacy

The Government Accountability Office has released a report detailing the miserable failure of the Iraqi government:

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration

[…]

The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. “While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced,” it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that “the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved.”

“Overall,” the report concludes, “key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds,” as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments “would be more useful” if they backed up their judgments with more details and “provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies.”

This doesn’t look like progress to me—the Iraqi government is failing to meet it’s goals; violence against the Iraqi people is up; and the capability of Iraq’s military has been completely stagnant, leaving them utterly dependent on American troops.

This mirrors the bleak outlook given in the NIE (PDF):

There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007.

[…]

However, the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively.

[…]

Coalition forces continue to conduct robust counterinsurgency operations and mentor and support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months but that levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

[…]

Political and security trajectories in Iraq continue to be driven primarily by Shia insecurity about retaining political dominance, widespread Sunni unwillingness to accept a diminished political status, factional rivalries within the sectarian communities resulting in armed conflict, and the actions of extremists such as AQI and elements of the Sadrist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia that try to fuel sectarian violence.

[…]

The IC assesses that the emergence of “bottom-up” security initiatives, principally among Sunni Arabs and focused on combating AQI, represent the best prospect for improved security over the next six to 12 months, but we judge these initiatives will only translate into widespread political accommodation and enduring stability if the Iraqi Government accepts and supports them… We also assess that under some conditions “bottom-up initiatives” could pose risks to the Iraqi Government.

Iraq cannot be solved militarily.  There is no strategy, no army, no weapon out there that is going to be able to stop the violence on its own. Playing up the modest military gains in Iraq is taking pride in a job half-finished

Remember, the justification for the surge was to give the Iraqi government “breathing room” so they could foster political reconciliation and make much-needed progress.  Despite the surge and it’s modest military successes, that progress isn’t being made—in fact, it looks as far away as ever.  In short, military success is not bringing about political success.

In a few weeks, the White House will be releasing their report on the surge.  I’m sure it will be full of baseless optimism, inflating military victories while downplaying political failures, all while rewriting history as to what the initial purpose of the surge was.  I’m sure it will engage in extensive “anecdotes are data” conflation, while twisting/doctoring any actual data beyond recognition. 

In other words, I’m sure it will be like every other report on Iraq produced by this White House—unduly optimistic, unrealistic, non-factual and heavily doctored.

I’m not saying any of this to be pessimistic or defeatist (no matter what the right-wing bloggers might say).    But, the truth is that there are no good options left in Iraq—we are in a precarious and extraordinarily difficult situation.  If we are to minimize the damage—both to ourselves and to the Iraqis— we have to be realistic.  We can’t work off of GOP talking points, doctored reports and manufactured optimism.  We have to be honest about the conditions on the ground in order to come up with a workable plan that will actually get us somewhere.

So we have two choices—Either choose to believe the GOP hype and watch Iraq burn, or face the tough reality on the ground and start figuring out how to get out of this.   There are no  other options.  

I don’t want to spend too much time on Larry Craig, but this is something that has been bothering me, and I’m glad people are talking about it.  From Raw Story:

Less that 24 hours after he expressed regret for pleading guilty to disorderly conduct after an undercover cop said the Idaho Republican propositioned him, Craig was ousted from his committee posts in a decision Senate leaders said was “in the best interest” of the chamber. Meanwhile, it has been 52 days since Craig’s GOP colleague David Vitter acknowledged the “serious sin” of soliciting a call girl, yet the Louisiana senator has not budged from his committee posts.

Where Craig faced condemnation, Vitter received words of encouragement from colleagues — or at the very least, silence.

Sen. Ted Stevens’s prominent position in the Senate also seems safe, despite the Alaska Republican’s own taint of scandal. The FBI raided Stevens’s home last month in connection with a political corruption scandal in his home state. Substantial renovations of the home were carried out by contractors hired by oil-services company Veco Corp., whose executives have been accused of bribing state lawmakers.

“A disorderly conduct plea requires a member to give up his committee assignment, but a full-fledged bribery investigation does not,” observed Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Apparently, in the view of the Republican conference there is almost nothing more serious than a member attempting to engage in gay sex.”

The contrast between the GOP’s treatment of Craig and their treatment of other ethically-challenged Republicans is astounding.

Both David Vitter and Ted Stevens retain their positions in the Senate, the respect of their colleagues and their committee assignments—the former patronized prostitutes, the latter is the target of a massive corruption/bribery investigation.

Meanwhile, a man who plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct (without engaging in any actual lewd behavior) is stripped of his committee positions and attacked by his fellow Republicans (such as Senators Norm Coleman and John McCain).

It can’t be that Craig refused to admit he did anything wrong, instead offering a string of petulant denials—Senator Stevens has been exceptionally vehement and petulant about his own wrongdoing (though Vitter, to his credit, did admit some level of responsibility and regret).

It can’t be the hypocrisy, either—both Vitter and Stevens portray themselves as family-values, law-and-order Republicans, so their sordid transgressions make them just as hypocritical as Craig.

So, what is it?

Craig is being treated differently because he’s gay. 

That’s it, that’s all.  The GOP is turning him into a pariah because he was engaging in unethical homosexual behavior.  If he was taking bribes or sleeping with (female) hookers or anything like that, I doubt the Republican Party would give him the treatment he’s receiving now.

It just goes to show you the pathetic state of Republican priorities.  To them, bribery, corruption, lawbreaking, unethical behavior, soliciting hookers, protecting sexual predators (a la Dennis Hastert), etc. are all better than being gay.

Sad. Sad, sad, sad. 

Reading through the right-wing blogs this morning, I found several recurring themes about the Larry Craig incident, so I decided to spend a bit of time responding to them.

1. Why are you attacking Larry Craig for being gay? Doesn’t that make you homophobic?

The problem isn’t that Larry Craig is gay.

The problem is that Larry Craig is a hypocrite.

On one hand, he attacks gays, votes for the gay marriage ban and the defense of marriage act, votes against allowing gays in the military and promotes himself as a “family values” conservative.

On the other hand, he cruises for gay sex in airport men’s rooms—and this isn’t the first time Craig has sought public sex with other men, either.

2. I don’t care if he’s gay, that’s his private life.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s his private life, and unless it interferes with his job or breaks the law, it’s not the public’s business.

But, again, it’s an issue of hypocrisy.

Conservatives dragged Bill Clinton’s private affairs out into public and used them to attack him over and over again—in fact, many of them are still bringing that up ten years later.

Conservatives have also centered a large part of their agenda on gays and gay rights. They insist on taking what should be private matters and turning them into political fodder. Remember, gay sex itself was illegal in many states until just four years ago, when the Supreme Court struck it down—an action that was greeted with massive indignation by the right (you can read Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas for a taste of it).

As long as conservatives drag private conduct into the public spotlight, they’re hypocrites for protesting when someone else does the same to them. They set the rules, and now they have to play by them.

3. Craig didn’t do anything wrong. What’s the underlying crime?

Craig committed disorderly conduct.

How do we know that? Well, he plead guilty. He was charged with a crime and he said he committed it—case closed.

Of course, you could argue that what he did wasn’t disorderly conduct, and you could probably make a good case in that regard. Craig had a chance to do just that, and he didn’t—he plead guilty.

4. Craig didn’t know what he was doing—he pled guilty just to make this go away.

If that’s true, Craig committed perjury. He lied under oath about what happened and said that he was guilty when he wasn’t.

Craig isn’t your everyday man on the street, either. He studied at the University of Idaho and George Washington University. He’s been in politics since 1974, going from a State Senator to a Congressman to a U.S. Senator. Someone as experienced and educated as Craig should know the laws, know his rights, know the legal system, and know that you shouldn’t plead guilty to a crime you didn’t commit. In fact, I’d say that last part is pretty much common sense.

5. This is all just a witch hunt!

Like I said before, this is about hypocrisy, dishonesty, and lawbreaking—all performed by a public official. Craig himself said it best: “As an elected official, I fully realize that my life is open for public criticism and scrutiny…”

And keep in mind that conservatives—Larry Craig included—have made a cottage industry out of turning the private into the public when it suits them.

So this no mo more a witch hunt than any other scandal involving the personal life of a politician—whether it’s David Vitter or Bill Clinton.

That’s the risk you run when you turn the personal into the political—you give people free reign to look into your own personal life, to scrutinize your private activities. And when you do something wrong, something hypocritical, something illegal, it means you’re going to be attacked for it—just as you would attack others for doing the same things if they got caught.

Like I said, they set the rules and now they have to play by them.

Last Night, Tucker Carlson admitted to beating up a man who ‘bothered’ him back in high school.

The latest from Media Matters:

During Discussion of Craig’s Arrest, Carlson Admits High School Assault on Man Who “Bothered” Him in Public Restroom

For Video of the Exchange: CLICK HERE

Washington, DC - Last night on MSNBC Live, during a discussion about Sen. Larry Craig’s (R-ID) arrest for “lewd conduct” and eventual guilty plea, MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson described his assault on a man who he said “bothered” him in a Washington, D.C., public restroom.

Carlson asserted, “Having sex in a public men’s room is outrageous. It’s also really common. I’ve been bothered in men’s rooms.” When host Dan Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being “bothered,” Carlson asserted, “I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the — you know, and grabbed him, and … hit him against the stall with his head, actually. … And then the cops came and arrested him.” Carlson had claimed earlier in the discussion, “I’ve been bothered in Georgetown Park,” in Washington, D.C., “when I was in high school.”

Transcript from the August 28 edition of MSNBC Live at 9 p.m. ET

ABRAMS: But Tucker, your position has long been on these kinds of stories that their personal lives are not our business. Does this case qualify for that, in your mind, as well?

CARLSON: Let me be clear, Dan. I am not gay. I have never been gay. I overreacted and made a poor decision.

SCARBOROUGH: And you love your — you love your wife, Tucker. Let me just say for the record, I am not gay, either.

CARLSON: Let me — let me put it this way. Whether he’s gay or not actually is not our business, and I do think it’s indefensible that the newspaper in Idaho spent a year interviewing 300 people to answer the question, Is he gay? That’s none of your business. Having sex in a public men’s room is outrageous. It’s also really common. I’ve been bothered in men’s rooms. I think people who do -

SCARBOROUGH: Really?

CARLSON: Yeah, I have. You know what, Let me just say.

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, hold on a second. Dan, hold on a second. I don’t mean to take over, but have you been bothered in public restrooms, Dan? Because I know I haven’t.

CARLSON: I have. I’ve been bothered in Georgetown Park. When I was in high school.

ABRAMS: Really?

CARLSON: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: Wow.

CARLSON: And let me just say, I think –

SCARBOROUGH: That’s something.

CARLSON: — people should knock that off. I’m not anti-gay in the slightest, but that’s really common, and the gay rights groups ought to disavow that kind of crap because, you know, that actually does bother people who didn’t ask for being bothered. So yeah, I think it’s outrageous that he did that. And also, this specter of him getting up there and blaming other people is so Clintonian. You know, if he just said, “I’m not going to talk about it,” that’d be one thing.

ABRAMS: And — and this notion –

[crosstalk]

CARLSON: But he’s clearly crazy.

ABRAMS: Well, and this notion that he pled guilty, and yet he’s saying, “Oh, you know what? I never should have done that.”

SCARBOROUGH: Well, it’s the newspaper’s fault.

CARLSON: Well it’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous.

ABRAMS: Well it’s the newspaper — it’s everyone’s fault except his own. I mean, I’ve never heard of — I mean, you’re a U.S. senator, and you’re thinking you’re going to make it go away –

SCARBOROUGH: But hold on a second, though, Dan –

ABRAMS: — by pleading guilty after you’re busted in a public bathroom?

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. You have Bill Clinton, who actually went out and did the same exact thing. He showed defiance. He said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” And he continued that line not only for months in the press, but then he went before a grand jury and said the same thing. And it — you know what? Here’s the thing. It worked for Bill Clinton. His wife went on TV and she blamed, remember, the vast right-wing conspiracy that’s been trying to take down her husband.

I don’t dredge this up to knock the Clintons. That is history, and it’s a — ugh — it is a nasty part of our history, and I’m glad it’s behind us. I just bring it up to say, you know what? Deny, deny, deny seems to work.

[crosstalk]

CARLSON: But it’s also — but it’s evidence, in Larry Craig’s case — I mean, you know, you just watch the press conference, and you see a man who’s not in possession of himself. I mean, there’s something — you know, I’m not a shrink, but there’s clearly something wrong with Larry Craig. He appeared to believe it. This is a guy who’s been accused repeatedly over the years of soliciting sex from men in bathrooms. So the chances that he’s arrested for the same thing accidentally –

ABRAMS: Right, right, right.

CARLSON: What, he’s the unluckiest man and he’s Job?

SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Tucker?

CARLSON: You know what I mean? It’s insane!

SCARBOROUGH: Was he the guy in Georgetown, Tucker?

CARLSON: No, actually. I got that — my point is — let me just say –

ABRAMS: Tucker, what did you do, by the way? What did you do when he did that? We got to know.

CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the — you know, and grabbed him, and — and –

ABRAMS: And did what?

CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!

[laughter]

CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I’m the least anti-gay right-winger you’ll ever meet –

[laughter]

CARLSON: — but I do think doing this in men’s rooms appears to be common. It’s totally wrong, and they should knock it off. I mean that. I think it’s — I can’t bring my son to the men’s room at the park where he plays soccer because of all these creepy guys hanging around in there. I actually think it’s a problem. I’m sorry.

[Emphasis added]

This is more than disturbing, on multiple levels. Tucker Carlson actually admits beating someone up who ‘bothered’ him in a men’s bathroom back when he was in high school.

Yeah, getting prepositioned in a men’s bathroom (if that’s what actually happened–Tucker is vague on the details) is pretty sleazy, but getting a friend and beating the guy up is far, far worse.

And, of course, he has the temerity to say he’s the “least anti-gay right-winger you’ll ever meet.” So not only is he saying that the right wing is inherently anti-gay, but that the least anti-gay right-wing guy you’ll find beats up gay men for ‘bothering’ them.

Unbelievable.

UPDATED: Pam Spaulding has picked up on this, too.

(Added the question mark to the title because the specifics of what happened are unclear, though they certainly seem to indicate as much.)

UPDATE II: The Huffington Post now has the Media Matters piece in their politics section.

UPDATE III: Atrios has it now.

UPDATE IV: This is all over the place–most of the major left-wing blogs have picked up on it by now. This is getting a lot of attention.

UPDATE V: Media Matters has a response:

UPDATE: Media Matters received the following statement from Tucker Carlson by email from an MSNBC spokeswoman:

Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men’s room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men’s room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

Several bloggers have characterized this is [sic] a sort of gay bashing. That’s absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn’t angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.

This statement makes no sense.

Now we know what Tucker meant by “bothered”– he was “physically grabbed.” The question is, why did he interpret this as a sexual assault? He provides no information as to how (or where) he was grabbed that would indicate this was some sort of sexual advance (and not, say, a mugging or something similar).

Also, Carlson says he and his friend “seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.” This contradicts what he said on-air, which was that they bashed the man’s head into the stall.

This just doesn’t make sense. If Carlson was physically attacked and got away, the first thing he should have done is gone to get a police officer or a security guard. Instead, a half-hour later, he and a friend go back, confront the man, hold him down and/or hit his head into the stall.

Sounds like Carlson got a lot of angry feedback from what he said and is now trying to backpedal. Either that or he exaggerated the story on-air to make it sound more impressive. Either way, some serious dishonesty coming from Tucker Carlson.

Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) is back!

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) made his return to public life Tuesday, appearing at a “Welcome Home” rally in Sioux Falls, S.D., and thanking his constituents for their support.

Johnson suffered a near-fatal brain hemorrhage last December and has not been seen in public since.

[...]

Johnson was rolled out on a wheelchair and hoisted himself to the podium with little or no assistance.

“You guys are a sight for sore eyes,” Johnson said to widespread applause.

“It must already be clear to you that my speech is not 100 percent, but doctors tell me that it will get there. In fact, if you ask [my wife] Barb, she will say that I’m already talking too much,” he joked.

Johnson spoke for just more than 10 minutes before stepping back into his wheelchair and being wheeled off. He said he feels like he has a second chance at life and promised to work harder than ever for his state.

He is expected to return to voting in the Senate in the coming weeks.

Rounds, who has been suggested as a possible opponent to Johnson in 2008, stressed the importance of the state’s nonpartisan support for Johnson’s recovery. Johnson has not yet said whether he will run again.

 Will Johnson run again?There are some good signs, courtesy of Badlands Blue:

Not only is Tim Johnson “back,” he also says “I expect to run and to win” in 2008.  The Rapid City Journal article adds:

Julianne Fisher, communications director for Johnson’s office, said the quote wasn’t an official announcement and that the senator would decide later. “He’s planning on it,’ she said. “He’s just going to make the decision later on. He wants to get back to the office first.”

Sure sounds like Johnson is running, and after last night’s extremely well-received “welcome home” speech, I think he’s in great shape to be re-elected.  As well he should be, given all he’s done and WILL do for South Dakota and America. Go Tim!

Remember, Johnson beat the guy who went on to beat Tom Daschle (current Republican Senator John Thune).  He’s a talented, smart politician and a good man to boot–I wish we had more Tim Johnsons in the Senate.

 Welcome back, Senator.   Best of luck in 2008 and beyond.

From MSNBC:

From NBC’s Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
Per a source close to the White House, ex-Deputy Attorney General George J. Terwilliger III is “looking very good” to replace Alberto Gonzales. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson and former appellate judge Laurence Silberman are “also in the running.” And Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson “are unlikely.”

Who is George Terwilliger? SourceWatch has more:

George J. Terwillger III is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of White & Chase LLP, an international law firm [1][2].

Terwilliger was “a leader of President George W. Bush’s legal team during the Florida election recount.” “He was an advisor to the Bush-Cheney Transition and counselor to designated cabinet and other prospective appointees.” [3]

In 2003, Terwiller co-founded Americans for a Better Country with Frank J. Donatelli, former Ronald Reagan White House political director and secretary and treasurer of the Young America’s Foundation [4], and Craig Shirley, president and CEO of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs. [5]

A former U.S. Attorney for Vermont and Deputy U.S. Attorney General (1991-93) in the George H.W. Bush administration, Terwilliger “specialized in white-collar crime and terrorism.” [6]

To summarize: worked closely with George H. W. Bush, part of the infamous 2000 Florida recount legal team, and founded a multi-million GOP 527 with other high-profile right wingers.

In other words, he fits the criteria for a likely nominee.  He’s mostly unknown, has a (mostly) non-controversial record, and he has shown significant loyalty to the Bush family in the past.  Terwilliger could possibly get through the confirmation process without any serious roadblocks and continue the legacy of politicization and White House protectionism established by Alberto Gonzales.

Will Congress look into his conduct during the 2000 election? Will Congress look into his extensive electioneering on behalf of George W. Bush? Will congress ask themselves, are these the qualities we want in an Attorney General, a supposedly-independent individual tasked with being America’s top law-enforcement officer?

Will Congress ask the right questions? Hopefully, yes.

From Pam Spaulding, posting at AMERICAblog:

As we reported yesterday (and how it always is for these guys) Larry Craig’s public record as a social conservative is solid. He:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Craig also has a 0% rating in HRC’s 2006 Congressional Scorecard.

There’s nothing wrong with being gay.

There’s nothing wrong with being gay and in the closet.

But there is something wrong with being gay, being in the closet and fighting endlessly to deny gays equal rights. There’s something deeply wrong with someone who would demonize gays, make them second class citizens, fight against their God-given rights as Americans…and solicit gay sex in an airport men’s room.

I understand that sometimes there’s a lot of pressure to stay in the closet, and that coming out poses enormous risks-especially if you’re a Republican. But these gay Republicans are the ones who perpetuate the culture that makes coming out so difficult.

I feel sorry for Larry Craig and all the closeted, self-loathing Republicans like him. I pity them because they, for whatever reason, feels the need to deny who they are, to spend their whole lives living a lie. They are so uncomfortable with who they are that they attack and denounce and demonize those who are brave enough to come out, to admit who they are and to live their lives happily and honestly.

I’m not gay, but I know a lot of people who are. I know people who have come out and been disowned by family members, abandoned by friends. I don’t pretend to know what it’s like to be gay and to face a culture that, in a lot of cases, is openly hostile to who you are. But I see people like Larry Craig as sad hypocrites who, inexplicably, help perpetuate the culture that forces them to deny who they are.

It must be a sad, difficult life. But hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and I wonder how all of this will affect Craig’s standing in Idaho come next fall. That is, if Craig doesn’t resign before then-something numerous conservatives have begun to call for.

We’ll have to see…

UPDATE: Joe Sudbay over at AMERICAblog brings attention to this article from the Idaho Statesman:

Sen. Larry Craig has spent 27 years in Congress — with rumors about his sexual orientation following him almost from the outset.

Now, after the report of Craig’s arrest at a Minnesota airport restroom, Idaho’s senior senator must speak candidly with the people who have hired him for more than a quarter of a century. He owes this to voters — no matter how difficult that may be for him and for his family. And voters owe Craig a chance to explain himself.

Craig should simply be honest about himself and his sexuality. It’s sad to think, though, that if he does, it may hurt his chances for re-election.

Of course, if people like Craig weren’t on their crusade-attacking and stigmatizing gays-we could build a society where coming out of the closet wouldn’t be a nail in the political coffin.

UPDATE II: DailyKos’ mcjoan has a write-up of Dan Popkey’s investigation into Senator Craig’s sexuality-it’s lengthy, but revealing.

UPDATE III: Via RawStory:

When the ethics committee voted to boot Bob Packwood from the Senate for lewd sexual harassment in 1995, Sen. Larry Craig lamented the difficult decision, but called it “the right one.”

After Packwood resigned the next day, Craig, then a member of the Senate ethics committee, shared a tearful embrace with his former colleague.

“One particularly poignant moment came during an exchange between Packwood and Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a member of the Ethics panel,” Edwin Chen reported in the Los Angeles Times Sept. 8, 1995. “Afterward, they shook hands and hugged one another. Then Craig began sobbing and quickly strode into the GOP cloakroom, his hands covering his face.”

“It was not an easy decision to vote to expel a colleague from the Senate, but it was the right one,” Craig said of the ethic’s committee’s sanction related to charges that Packwood made 18 “unwanted and unwelcome sexual advances” against women.

Now an independent watchdog wants the ethics committee to begin an investigation that could see the Idaho Republican face a similar fate. The group wants a formal investigation of reports reports that Craig tried to solicit anonymous sex in an airport bathroom.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington charges the three-term senator’s alleged conduct reflects poorly on the august chamber.

CREW filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee calling for an investigation of Craig after Roll Call reported that he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after being arrested in a bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

“The Senate Select Committee on Ethics should immediately commence an investigation into Sen. Craig’s conduct,” Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said in a statement. “If pleading guilty to charges stemming from an attempt to solicit an undercover officer in a public restroom is not conduct that reflects poorly upon the Senate, what is?”

[...]

In its formal complaint, CREW notes that the ethics committee has previously disciplined members for engaging in improper conduct that reflects upon the Senate.

“In 1995, the Committee recommended that Senator Bob Packwood be expelled for repeated sexual misconduct,” Sloan writes in a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who chairs the ethics committee, and its vice chair, Sen. John Cornyn.

The committee also has the option to formally reprimand a senator, without officially sanctioning him or her.

“Therefore, even if the Committee is not persuaded that Senator Craig’s conduct reaches the level of improper conduct — though given the circumstances it appears obvious that it does — at the very least, the Committee should issue a public statement criticizing the Senator’s conduct,” Sloan wrote in CREW’s complaint to the committee.

Will Craig receive the same treatment at other Senators who engaged in sexual misconduct? I’m not sure, but the Senate needs to at least open up an investigation into this incident and determine the appropriate course of action.

Surprising news from Roll Call:

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.

Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.

[...]

According to the incident report, Sgt. Dave Karsnia was working as a plainclothes officer on June 11 investigating civilian complaints regarding sexual activity in the men’s public restroom in which Craig was arrested.

Airport police previously had made numerous arrests in the men’s restroom of the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal in connection with sexual activity.

Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see “an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall.”

The man, who lingered in front of the stall for two minutes, was later identified as Craig.

“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states.

Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”

[...]

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could … see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. … Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

In a recorded interview after his arrest, Craig “either disagreed with me or ‘didn’t recall’ the events as they happened,” the report states.

Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine,” the report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor.

“It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper,” the arresting officer said in the report.

Is this a Bob Allen-type situation, or just a simple misunderstanding? Could Larry Craig, a popular Senator in a conservative state, be another closeted Republican? Craig is up for re-election in 2008-his Senate opponent is Larry LaRocco.

Real Clear Politics does some speculating:

Early word is that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is the odds-on favorite. Asked by CNN about the possibility of a Chertoff appointment, even Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer seemed cautiously optimistic. Chertoff’s major problem, almost exactly two years after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, comes from the calendar: Democrats will likely feel free to question the DHS Secretary who oversaw FEMA during their inept handling of the disaster. Still, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux reported that Bush administration officials say “he’s at the top of the list.”

Should Chertoff leave DHS headquarters, many say Clay Johnson, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, would likely take his place.

Others suggested a temporary replacement at the Department of Justice would be Solicitor General Paul Clement, whose long career included over 25 cases argued in front of the Supreme Court, time at Georgetown Law School and as a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia.

Long-shot candidates whose names always crop up when there’s an opening at DoJ include Senators Orrin Hatch, of Utah, and John Cornyn, of Texas. Both have been long-time supporters of President Bush. Another candidate who finds himself always the bridesmaid, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, may be perfectly happy to be overlooked. After a career in government, Thompson now works as general counsel to PepsiCo.

As does Political Insider:

Back in March, The Politico ran a story on potential replacements for Gonzales, and included a few names that are coming up less prominently today. Among them: SEC Chairman Chris Cox, former Attorney General William Barr, Judge Laurence Silberman, former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, and White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Fragos Townsend. It is not yet clear which, if any, of these names might still be under consideration.

Clement would probably win confirmation most easily of any of these nominees. He is regarded as a conscientious lawyer by legislators on both sides of the aisle, and has stayed remarkably clean in a Justice Department plagued by corruption charges. But Clement may not be interested in moving up in the Bush administration - at least not if he wants to win a seat on the Supreme Court one day, which some believe he does.

The Bush administration is infamous for their cronyism and their respect for loyalty.  It’s unlikely that anyone who isn’t a die-hard Bush supporter would want the position- at this point, being part of the Bush administration may be a career-killer.  Someone who is already part of the administration has little to lose and a lot to gain by moving up, especially if they manage to perform well and stay scandal-free until 2009.

The White House and Congress have major political battles coming up-Iraq funding and budget bills, for the most part.  Either, or both, may be wary about a drawn-out confirmation battle, which means the administration may roll the dice and choose someone controversial.  On the other hand, they may pick a stealth candidate-someone loyal enough to defend them, but with decent enough performance and a solid enough record to avoid any major confirmation roadblocks.

All in all, Congress should heavily scrutinize anyone that this White House puts forward for the post, especially considering their track record with appointees.   The next appointee will have to prove that he/she will not play the same role Gonzales did-that they will uphold our laws and our Constitution, instead of just playing defense for the White House.

We’ll have to wait and see.

CNN Reporting:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, senior administration officials told CNN Monday.

Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have long called for his ouster after the firing of several U.S. attorneys in 2006. President Bush had long stood by Gonzales.

One more down. I wonder who his replacement will be…

UPDATE: Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog has a good rundown of reactions. Some key excerpts:

Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House.

Senator Patrick Leahy, who will oversee the confirmation hearing for the next AG, had this to say:

Reacting to press reports about the resignation, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he hopes that Gonzales’s decision “will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.

Leahy added that under Gonzales, “the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence.”

[...]

Speaker Pelosi says it’s “long overdue”:

The resignation of Attorney General Gonzales is long overdue. The rampant politicization of federal law enforcement that occurred under his tenure seriously eroded public confidence in our justice system.

The President must now restore credibility to the office of the Attorney General. Given the serious loss of public trust and the disarray at the Department of Justice, the American people must have absolute confidence in the integrity of the next Attorney General as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and as defender of our constitution independent of political influence. The President’s nominee must have the character and stature to command that confidence.

The nominee must also pledge to cooperate with ongoing congressional oversight into the conduct of the White House in the politicization of federal law enforcement. Hearings on the nominee will provide Congress with another opportunity to examine the new, flawed FISA law and will aid in our efforts to improve it.

The NY Times provides a shortlist of possible replacements:

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said early this morning. Among those being mentioned as a possible successor were Christopher Cox, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a former congressman; Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security who is a former federal judge; and Larry Thompson, a former deputy attorney general.

A lot of rumors and speculation have centered on Chertoff. Would he be confirmed? And, if so, who would become the next Secretary of Homeland Security? Could they get confirmed?

DailyKos’ Kagro X on the possiblity of a recess appointment:

Can Bush make a recess appointment? Yes. Would it break the deal he supposedly had with Harry Reid? Probably. (Who knows whether there was “extraordinary circumstances” escape clause?) What would it take to prevent such an appointment? One or two Senators (or Representatives this can be done in the House correction: a pro forma session of the House takes “Congress” out of recess, but to prevent recess appointments, the Constitution specifies the Senate must be in session, which makes sense, since it’s the Senate that handles appointments) coming in to open a pro forma session.

More as it comes…

UPDATE II: Gonzales’ resignation is effective September 17th, so a recess appointment is unlikely.

UPDATE III: The Presidentials react:

Gov. Bill Richardson:

“Long overdue. The president must nominate an attorney general who is a lawyer for the American people, not a political arm of the White House.”

Sen. Barack Obama:

“I have long believed that Alberto Gonzales subverted justice to promote a political agenda, and so I am pleased that he has finally resigned today. The President needs to nominate an Attorney General who will be the people’s lawyer, not the President’s lawyer, and in an Obama Administration that person will first and foremost defend and promote the rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution,” said Obama.

Sen. John Edwards:

“Better late than never.”

Sen. Chris Dodd:

“Mr. Gonzales’ Justice Department became a political wing of the Bush Administration and his resignation is long overdue. I will only vote to confirm a nominee for Attorney General who is truly independent and who will guarantee reforms that restore and uphold the Constitution.”

Sen. Joe Biden:

“As I’ve said before, Attorney General Gonzales has lost the confidence of the vast majority of the American people and the Congress. His resignation is long overdue. “When I voted against Attorney General Gonzales’ confirmation, I voiced concern about his ability to go from being the President’s lawyer to the people’s lawyer. I expressed doubts then about his judgment in light of his track record, and role as an architect of policies attempting to place the President above the law. “My skepticism was confirmed by his conduct, and his failure to put protecting the American people over protecting the President. The next Attorney General should not make the same mistake.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton:

This resignation is long overdue, and so is the appointment of an Attorney General who will put the rule of law and our Constitution above partisan politics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took an oath to uphold our Constitution and respect the rule of law, but time and time again, he demonstrated that his loyalties lie with the President and his political agenda, not the American people or the evenhanded and impartial enforcement of our laws. In his actions and inaction, from warantless wiretaps to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, his loyalty was to the President, not the American people.

More reactions, from TPM:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “I spoke with the White House this morning, and suggested a couple of nominees who I believe would easily gain confirmation.”*

And my favorite, from Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL): “Alberto Gonzales is the first Attorney General who thought the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth were three different things.”

And Bush’s response, via MSNBC:

Bush on Monday said that he “reluctantly accepted his resignation.”

“His good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons,” Bush added in a brief statement to reporters.

Rumsfeld. Rove. Gonzales. Three major White House resignations, all coming not long after the 2006 elections. Though the Democratic Congress may not be as successful as some of us would like, without a Democratic majority I doubt any of these men would have left their offices.

As they say, elections have consequences.

UPDATE IV: CNN on possible replacements:

Senior administration officials were quick to tell CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux that Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff would likely get the nod.

[...]

But while some senior administration officials are strongly floating Chertoff as a candidate, others are waiving CNN off, saying that because of his role during Hurricane Katrina, the nomination could run into problems.

Chertoff has taken heat from both Democrats and Republicans for the government’s slow response in providing relief to victims of the 2005 storm.

[...]

Meanwhile, a congressional source familiar with deliberations about Gonzales’ replacement tells CNN’s Dana Bash the impression is that it will not be Chertoff and that the media is “playing us.”

Furthermore, a source close to Chertoff told CNN’s Kelli Arena that the Homeland Security chief isn’t aware if he is being considered for the top Justice post.

So, Chertoff or no? Are we being played? Will the Bush Administration find an unknown insider to avoid political wrangling over the nominee? And if Chertoff is chosen, how much will his dismal Katrina performance hurt him?  And, of course, then who will head up DHS?

From CNN’s political ticker:

HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) — A spokeswoman for U.S. Senator Chris Dodd says someone broke into his Hartford office last night. Jamie Radice says she’s not sure what was taken and a police investigation is underway. She said the senator’s office would have no further comment. Police say the suspects apparently broke in through a second floor window at Dodd’s office on Lewis Street and left evidence at the scene. Police are not saying what that evidence is or what was stolen. Authorities believe the burglary happened between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. last night

The article doesn’t mention whether it was a Senate office or a Presidential campaign office, but it seems like the former. In all likelihood, this doesn’t look like anything politically-motivated.

UPDATE: The Advocate has more:

HARTFORD, Conn. — Police arrested a homeless man Monday in connection with a weekend burglary at Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd’s Hartford office.

Gilberto Soto, 47, who lives in a shelter, allegedly took a television, a computer and other electronics, police said.

“It does not appear right now that he knew he was breaking into a presidential candidate’s office or that there’s any political motivation,” said Assistant Police Chief Neil Dryfe.

Today, CNN reported:

Iraq’s former interim prime minister accused Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of fomenting the sectarian violence plaguing the war-ravaged nation and said Sunday he will return to Baghdad soon to “reverse the course in Iraq.”

However, Ayad Allawi’s ties to a powerful Washington-based GOP lobbying firm is raising eyebrows as President Bush has adamantly expressed his support for al-Maliki.

[…]

“I would play my role in Iraq in whatever capacity is required to change Iraq into an unsectarian country, to a peaceful country, to a democratic country,” Allawi said.

[…]

Allawi has hired Barbour Griffith & Rogers, a GOP lobbying firm that employs two of Bush’s former foreign policy aides: Robert Blackwill served as Bush’s envoy to Iraq and helped form Allawi’s interim government in 2004, and Philip Zelikow formerly served as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

A few days ago, Think Progress wrote:

The right-wing has long had a fascination with Allawi, largely because he has proved to be compliant with the Bush administration’s agenda. Allawi was ceremonially anointed Iraq’s leader in June 2004 by then-Coalition Provisional Authority chief administrator Paul Bremer.

While serving as interim Prime Minister, Allawi repeatedly rejected calls for U.S. troop withdrawals. During the height of the 2004 presidential election campaign, Allawi delivered a strong defense of Bush’s “stay the course” strategy in much-hyped Rose Garden appearance. Later, media reports revealed that Allawi had been “coached” by the administration prior to his appearance

[…]

Allawi has been described as “Saddam lite.” In 2004, he handcuffed and blindfolded suspected terrorists and shot them in the head with a pistol. Now, with frustrations mounting against current prime minister Maliki, the administration may be using that as an opportunity to usher in its reliable ally Allawi.

And I think AMERICAblog’s Alex Rossmiller said it best:

The attacks on Maliki are mostly misguided. While the critiques are true, they really describe the problems of the prime minister position more than any failure on the part of Maliki himself. This is just part of the four-year fantasy that if we just find the right guy to run Iraq all our problems will be solved.

[…]

Allawi is not the answer. He has virtually no domestic constituency, no military or militia forces loyal to him to support security efforts, and he royally screwed things up last time he was in power. Recently Ambassador Crocker was asked about Allawi. His response? “Crocker, when asked about Allawi, said he only spoke to people who actually came to Iraq.” Ouch.

The problems in Iraq, as anybody who follows them closely knows, are structural and political. They were not caused by nor can they be fixed by a single leader. And for the US, the worst result would be the double-whammy of further screwing up Iraq by installing a “non-sectarian” leader . . . followed by administration claims that we have to “give the new leadership a chance, not withdraw troops at such a crucial moment.”

In short, major GOP operatives are working to oust Iraq’s democratically-elected Prime Minister—in favor of White House puppet Iyad Allawi, the former interim PM who was installed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Allawi towed the White House line for years, and was an extraordinarily ineffective leader with some highly disturbing tendencies.

Some fervent war supporters are calling for the installation of a strongman in Iraq—a pro-American dictator who quells sectarian violence much in the same way Saddam Hussein did: through force. This wouldn’t be unprecedented, since many countries the White House considers “allies” in the war on terror have such regimes—Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have pro-American non-democratic governments, for example.

But could Allawi even play that role? As Rossmiller said, he has no base of support within Iraq, no militia or group or sector of the military that’s loyal to him, and he’s pledging secularism in a heavily religious, sectarian society. Furthermore, it’s clear that Allawi has massive support from the United States, if not directly from the White House itself. Would the Iraqi people even accept him as their leader? Would they see him as anything more than a pro-American puppet? An Allawi government would—in all likelihood—have even less support and legitimacy than Al-Maliki’s.

The war supporters know that Iraq’s government is on the verge of collapse, and they’re desperate for a solution, no matter how far-fetched. They don’t understand the structural limitations of the office of the Prime Minister and they don’t understand the nuances of Iraq’s society that are making political progress nearly impossible at this point.

Most of all, though, I think this reveals the true feelings of the war’s supporters. They care little about freedom, democracy, liberty—all they care about is controlling Iraq. They don’t care whether Iraq has a democratically-elected government or an iron-fisted dictator, as long as they’re pro-American. Once again, they dress unconscionable ideas up in hollow patriotic rhetoric and hope nobody will realize how misguided their ideology is.

Republicans don’t understand Iraq.

How do most of us see Iraq? We see a complex struggle involving a variety of different actors—US troops, militias, terrorist groups, insurgents, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military. We see a political and a military confrontation, a battle fought on the ground and in the parliament. We see some progress, but not nearly enough relative to the massive level of violence.

Republicans, on the other hand, don’t see the reality on the ground. They brush off the political aspect of the conflict and the limitations of military force. They dismiss the various factions in Iraq, as well as their alliances and enemies—more often than not, conservatives simply lump all of them together into one group.

In other words, Republicans see Iraq as a chess game, a two-sided black-and-white battle of wills. Their view of Iraq boils down to “staying is winning and leaving is losing.”

Their perceptions, their talking points, their arguments, their expectations, all of it is based on this one overly-simplistic meme. As long as we’re in Iraq, we’re winning; as soon as we start to pull out, we’re losing.

This also explains the recent Iraq-Vietnam comparisons among Republicans—they see Vietnam the same way.

To them, we didn’t lose Vietnam because of poor leadership that left us with no good options; we didn’t lose because we were massively outnumbered; we didn’t lose because the Viet Cong were willing to suffer massive casualties; we didn’t lose because the Viet Cong knew the terrain and could easily hide among the populace, giving them a strategic advantage. No, to conservatives, America lost because we gave up—because the anti-war movement pressured Congress to withdraw from Vietnam. They ignore the reality on the ground in favor of their overly-simplistic battle-of-wills viewpoint—had we just stayed in Vietnam, we would have won.

Now, like then, they believe staying is winning and leaving is losing, no matter what the reality on the ground is. Just like in Vietnam, when things end badly in Iraq they won’t blame the people who started and mismanaged the war—they’ll blame the people who opposed it. And if things actually end up going well in Iraq, they’ll likely credit themselves for it.

Let’s examine two extremes. If we withdraw from Iraq and the country falls into a bloody, violent, destructive, regional civil war, conservatives will say war opponents are responsible for forcing Congress to pull out of Iraq. But, all the way on the other end of the spectrum, if we pull out and Iraq turns into a stable, peaceful democracy, conservatives will say they were right all along to want to invade and democratize Iraq, and the war opponents were foolish defeatists who didn’t believe success was possible.

I’ve written on the surge before, and we’ve seen some military success and no political success. Atrios and MissLaura wrote about this, and I agree wholeheartedly with them.

Putting more troops in Iraq has reduced violence, to some degree, which was completely expected—more troops mean a greater ability to fight extremists, that’s common sense. But what most of the right-wing doesn’t understand is that Iraq cannot be fixed militarily—preventing this car bomb or killing a few more militants in Baghdad will not fix Iraq.

Remember, the original justification for the surge was to reduce violence in Baghdad so the Iraqi government could start making political progress. So far, we’ve only been able to accomplish half of that. Without a cooperative, functioning government, Iraq won’t be able to stop their downward spiral into bloody, raging violence—especially when you consider that the U.S. won’t be able to maintain the surge much longer, according to our government’s own estimates.

So, conservatives are quick to point out the moderate military successes in Iraq as proof of the surge’s victory, ignoring the Bush administration’s stated purpose in implementing the surge—giving Iraq’s government the time to make political progress. And as long as conservatives maintain their unrealistic, simplistic stance on Iraq, they will never understand the reality on the ground, they will never be able to acknowledge our failings and understand the changes both we and the Iraqis need to make.

Simply put, Republicans don’t understand Iraq.

So, let me get this straight.

Debating the FISA bill in Congress? Not okay, because “some Americans will die”

Cutting the number of armored vehicles sent to Iraq? Perfectly acceptable.

Shameful.

A common allegation among the right-wing is that the left is intolerant. What leads them to this conclusion? Because progressives aren’t afraid to condemn conservative bigotry–and thus begin the conservative cries of “You hypocrittes, how dare you don’t tolerate our intolerance!”

Case in point: Congressman Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who’s currently running for Governor. Jindal converted from Hinduism to Catholicism years ago, and he has published several pieces on religion–particularly, on Catholicism and Protestantism.

The Louisiana Democratic Party collected some of these writings and put them up on a site called Jindal on Religion. What it shows is that Jindal is a proud Catholic who doesn’t appear to look too kindly on Protestantism.

The defense from the right is as predictable as it is nonsensical. They’re alleging that–since Jindal is using his Catholicism to justify his bigotry–that the left is intolerant of Catholics (of course, that must be a surprise to the multitude of Catholic Democrats out there).

Nobody’s criticizing his religion–we’re criticizing his bigotry against Protestants, and his use of his Catholic faith to justify it. We Americans are pretty tolerant of the religious beliefs of others–hence our reverence for the concept of freedom of religion. Just because he may claim it’s his religious beliefs that give him those opinions doesn’t make it true–personally, I don’t feel that anti-Protestantism is an inherent part of Catholicism, do you?

So the problem for the right isn’t that Jindal is prejudiced–it’s that we Democrats don’t hestate in pointing it out. Let’s make it clear–believing in tolerance doesn’t mean you have to tolerate every belief, every staement, every idea. If someone believes in something compeltely bigoted, it makes no sense whatsoever to be tolerant of their belief, since the point of tolerance is to eliminate bigotry and prejudice, not sanction it.

In other words, no, we don’t have to tolerate intolerance. Sorry.

Kos, Digby and Crooks and Liars picked up on this, but I thought it warranted a closer look.

A right-wing organization called Family Security Matters published the article below on their website; the site has since been scrubbed and the article removed, but here it is, in its entirety:

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization.

Let’s deconstruct.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

Democracy isn’t perfect, no. But it is the best system humanity has ever known—it’s the fairest, the most egalitarian and the most sensible. It allows people to choose their own government, their own policies, their own destinies. Overall, the people usually make pretty smart decisions, except when they’re misinformed. The right wing has made an entire industry out of spreading misinformation, disseminating misleading talking points, publishing bogus research done by front groups, etc. Democracy isn’t the problem—the people who shamelessly manipulate it are.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This is completely nonsensical. Whenever we face the possible threat that a nation may amass terrible weapons to possibly use against us, the only prudent action is to use force? It’s that kind of “every-problem-is-a-nail-and-every-tool-is-a-hammer” thinking that got us into this debacle to begin with.

In addition, there are plenty of nations out there with the potential to amass dangerous weapons—to say that the only prudent option is to go to war with Iran, North Korea, Syria, China, Pakistan (just to name a few) because they might pose a threat is ridiculous. This is the epitome of the 1% doctrine, which burns out our intelligence and military capabilities extremely quickly, leaving us vulnerable.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

I agree with the first sentence. The second, not so much. The justification given for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a brutal, iron-fisted dictator with stockpiles of WMDs, who was seeking more weapons in order to attack the United States. Since Hussein is dead, the WMD don’t exist and Iraq is caught up in the midst of a bloody, all-consuming civil war, I fail to see how the threat we faced before could return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

So, the wisest course of action would have been to nuke the Iraqis, glassing their country piece by piece until they gave us what we wanted—and since the WMDs we were looking for didn’t exist, that means Iraq would have been destroyed before they met our demands.

Ironically, Iraq was a dictatorship—the form of government Mr. Atkinson prefers over democracy because it allows a country’s leader to ignore the will of the people. Yet, he advocates killing the people of Iraq in response to the actions of their government, even though the people of Iraq had no influence whatsoever on what their government did. Still following?

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

So the only two options available to America are genocide or suicide? What kind of stilted, unrealistic, uncompromising, idiotic view of the world do these people have, to believe that America has to either kill its enemies or be killed by them? Just look at the Cold War—America and the Soviet Union both possessed the capability to destroy the world multiple times, yet that power never had to be used. In the end, America found other ways to defeat the USSR without having to resort to either genocide or suicide.

And while Iran may threaten Israel, Iran has been threatening Israel since 1979—that’s nothing new. Israel has a strong, capable, well-funded and well-trained military, and they’ve done a fine job defending themselves over the past sixty years. Iran, on the other hand, has an incredibly unpopular fundamentalist government ruling over a mostly pro-western non-fundamentalist populace, along with a military that is nowhere near as capable and developed as the Israeli military.

Also, Israel has nukes.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

Democracy didn’t elevate fancy over truth, conservatives did. Weren’t they the ones who cherry-picked the intelligence to make the case for war? Weren’t they the ones who refused to come up with any post-war planning, because Iraq was going to be a cakewalk? Weren’t they the ones who ignored the extensive sectarianism in Iraqi society? Weren’t they the ones who said they would overthrow Iraq’s dictator of thirty-five years, install a democracy in a nation without any history of democratic institutions and leave, all within six months? No, truth wasn’t a victim of democracy—it was the victim of conservatism.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his