Larry Craig Decides to Stay

Larry Craig said he would resign his seat in the Senate after his arrest and conviction on charges related to soliciting sex in a men's restroom. He changed his mind and tried to have the conviction overturned. He again promised to resign if he failed to have his conviction thrown out. The court upheld the conviction and now he has changed his mind again and decided not to resign after all. He has decided to remain in Congress for the rest of his term which ends in 2008. So much for the promises of Larry Craig. In refusing to overturn Craig's guilty plea the court said:

"It is not a manifest injustice to force the defendant to be bound by his plea bargain and the waivers and admissions which he made in conjunction with the execution of that bargain.... Because the defendant's plea was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and because the conviction is supported by the evidence ... the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied," Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter wrote.

"I am extremely disappointed with the ruling issued today," Craig said in his written statement. "I am innocent of the charges against me." He added that over five terms in the House and three in the Senate, "I have accumulated seniority and important committee assignments that are valuable to Idaho." He did not mention that at the request of the leadership, he relinquished the senior Republican posts on his committees. Although he refused to honor his pledge to resign, he did indicate that he would not seek re-election.

“When my term has expired, I will retire and not seek re-election, I hope this provides the certainty Idaho needs and deserves.”

His decision was a major disappointment to Republican leaders, who had hoped Mr. Craig would make good on his initial pledge and spare them from the potential political liability of having a senior lawmaker who has become a national punch line.

“The type of behavior we are talking about here is not exactly something that I think a senator should be engaged in,” said Senator John Ensign of Nevada, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

“I can’t think of anything good about it,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia.

“You don’t want to know what I really feel,” said Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina.

The ethics committee has already signaled it is reviewing the facts of Craig's case, taking the step after the Senate Republican leadership requested it. "I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee — something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate" said Craig. His decision to stay and fight raises the strong possibility of public hearings — virtually certain to be televised live — centered on the issue of gay sex. Republicans unhappy with Mr. Craig said they had little recourse except for the ethics inquiry.

Mr. Craig had his defenders among the Republicans, including Senators Michael Crapo, also of Idaho, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, both of whom said Mr. Craig was within his rights to remain and try to clear his name.

“Senator Craig is entitled to make his decision and I respect it,” Mr. Specter said. “Disorderly conduct is not moral turpitude and it is no basis for leaving the Senate.”

Mr. Crapo, a friend and ally on state issues, said he strongly supported Mr. Craig.

“I look forward to working with him in the Senate as he resolves his legal battles,” said Mr. Crapo.

What I fail to see in all of Senator Larry Craig's wrangling is what he hopes to achieve by prolonging the inevitable. The only outcome of his refusal to leave immediately is more public ridicule and embarrassment. Nobody believes or even cares if he is innocent. He has lost all credibility among his peers. He has lost all his senior posts in the Senate. He is the constant butt (pun intended) of jokes. If he really cares so much about clearing his name, he should do it full time on his own time and clear the way for someone who will only have the nation's business in mind.

Larry Craig do us all a favor and just go away!!

War with Iran?

By a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.

To see how each Senator voted on this resolution click here:

Have we learned nothing from the war in Iraq? Are we now preparing to take on Iran? Instead of looking for ways to bring the Iranians into an alliance that will promote peace and stability in the region, we are doing our best to antagonize and provoke them. I am not claiming that Iran is one of the "good guys" but they certainly have legitimate interests in what is going on in their neighborhood. Iraq is their neighbor and they share ethnic, cultural and religious ties. The Iraqi government has been engaging Iran in talks aimed at bolstering economic and security agreements. They are both majority Shiite states. They have a lot in common that can be of benefit to both countries. Why not encourage them to work together?

The resolution states that "it is a vital national interest of the United States" to prevent Iran from turning Iraq's Shiite militias into a "Hezbollah-like force" and says that US policy should "combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies." To accomplish this task, Kyl and Lieberman advocate "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq." Finally, the resolution dubs Iran's largest military branch, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, "a foreign terrorist organization."

US-Iranian tensions have mounted significantly in the past few days, with heightened rhetoric on both sides and the US decision to establish a military base in Iraq less than five miles from the Iranian border to block the smuggling of Iranian arms to Shia militias.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) in criticizing the resolution said that amendment’s attempt to categorize the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran. “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.”
He also slammed the lack of debate and examination that was accompanying the amendment, saying “this is not the way to make foreign policy”:

We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war.

Sen. Larry Craig Just Won't Go Away

Like a computer virus, like a recurring nightmare, like terminal cancer, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) just won't go away. Everyone thought they had heard the last from the disgraced Senator, who was charged with soliciting gay sex in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport and pleaded guilty to charges arising from that incident. He made us believe that he was doing the best thing for his Party, the Congress, the Nation and himself by resigning from the Senate.

Larry Craig now expects us to believe that not only were his actions (in soliciting gay sex) misinterpreted but also his words. He never said he was going to resign, he said it was his intent to resign in what many took as his farewell speech in Boise, Idaho over the Labor Day weekend.

His spokesman, Dan Whiting, said Mr. Craig is fighting the ethics and misdemeanor charges “and should he be cleared before then, he may, and I emphasize may, not resign.”

The Senator has hired two sets of lawyers; one to fight the ethics charges in the Senate and the other to seek a withdrawal of his guilty plea in the sex solicitation charge. In seeking to have the Senate ethics charges thrown out, lawyers Stanley M. Brand and Andrew D. Herman wrote a letter to the committee stating that there is no precedent for a Senate ethics review of “purely personal conduct unrelated to the performance of official Senate duties.” Investigating such a complaint, they warned, would draw the Senate into “reviewing and adjudging a host of minor misdemeanors and transgressions” even if “minor or professionally irrelevant.”

“I don’t expect them to withdraw it,” Mr. Brand said in a telephone interview. “I expect the committee, which is an evenly split committee, to look at the precedents and to dismiss the complaint.”

The committee rules say it is authorized to “receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or employees of the Senate.”

The committee rejected Sen. Larry Craig's lawyers argument with the following statement:

"Pending Sen. Craig's resignation, the committee will continue to review this matter," the committee's senior senators wrote.

Tom Kelly, the lawyer chosen to tackle the guilty verdict entered by Craig, was in Minnesota, evidently preparing to file papers seeking to have the senator's guilty plea withdrawn. Lawyers not involved in the case have said Craig faces a difficult challenge, pointing to Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure requiring that a defendant show a "manifest injustice" to withdraw a guilty plea. In Craig's case, he voluntarily signed a plea agreement that included a provision stating that the court would not accept such a confession of guilt from anyone who believed himself innocent.

Whatever happens in his battles with Congress and the law, Sen. Craig has managed to enrage the GOP leadership, many of whom thought that this episode was already over. His change of heart apparently came after words of support from Sen. Arlen Specter who said he would like to see Craig "seek to withdraw the guilty plea, and fight the case." Specter, a former prosecutor, said he believes the Idaho lawmaker could be vindicated. While on his way to give his "resignation" speech, Craig called one of his lawyers and left a Voicemail message indicating that he would modify his speech to include the phrase "intent to resign".

He also got a boost from fellow Idaho Republican Senator, Mike Crapo who said: "I support whatever Larry does. Everybody has a right to try to vindicate themselves." Several officials have said Crapo played a key role in last week's events, serving as an intermediary of sorts between his home state colleague and Republicans in Washington eager to see Craig resign.

I don't know if the Senator is under the delusion that, even if he gets his way in the Senate ethics committee and manages to have his guilty verdict withdrawn, all will be well again and he can just resume his Senate life as if nothing had ever happened. The truth of the matter is that he is, and always will be, under a cloud of doubt. His Republican buddies are not going to give him back his senatorial duties and the public will only see him as dishonorable gay Senator whose words and actions can not be trusted. Sen. Larry Craig, please do us all a favor and just go away!!

Hillary Gets Tough

Sen. Hillary Clinton shows that she will not be easily dealt with or ignored. In a letter dated May 22, 2007 and addressed to the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, Sen. Clinton asked if there were contingency plans for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and if so, could he share with the appropriate congressional committees what those plans were.

She received a reply, not from the Secretary of Defense, but from the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Eric Edelman, which she claims not only did not respond to her inquiries but his comments were "outrageous and dangerous" in insinuating that congressional oversight emboldens the enemy.

In a second letter, again addressed to the Secretary of Defense, she renewed her request for a response to her original letter and demanded to know if the views expressed by the Under Secretary of Defense in his letter were the same views held by the Secretary of Defense. Below are excerpts from the three letters involved. For the entire contents of all three letters click here

Sen. Clinton's first letter addressed to Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense:

Given the express will of the Congress to implement a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq and the importance of proper contingency planning to achieve that goal, I write to request that you provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress - including the Senate Armed Services Committee - with briefings on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, please provide an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning....................

The response written by Eric Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense:

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia..............
I assure you, however, that as with other plans, we are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."

Sen. Clinton's response to Edelman letter, again addressed to Robert Gates:

I am in receipt of a letter from Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who wrote that he was responding on your behalf. Under Secretary Edelman's response did not address the issues raised in my letter and instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
Rather than offer to brief the congressional oversight committees on this critical issue, Under Secretary Edelman - writing on your behalf - instead claims that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. Under Secretary Edelman has his priorities backwards. Open and honest debate and congressional oversight strengthens our nation and supports our military. His suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and dangerous............
Redeploying out of Iraq will be difficult and requires careful planning. I continue to call on the Bush Administration to immediately provide a redeployment strategy that will keep our brave men and women safe as they leave Iraq - instead of adhering to a political strategy to attack those who rightfully question their competence and preparedness after years of mistakes and misjudgments...................
I renew my request for a briefing, classified if necessary, on current plans for the future withdrawal of US forces from Iraq or an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.......Finally, I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Elelman's letter accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.

In this commentary, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC provides his perspective on the entire episode:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDLGlzLuio]

Congress Debates Immigration Bill

The Senate has agreed to take up the Immigration Bill and will debate the pros and cons for about two weeks. The bill is a bipartisan effort to come up with a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal immigrants currently residing and working in the US. There are five major areas that are addressed by this legislation:

1. Current Illegal Immigrants


2. Border Security


3. Workplace Enforcement


4. Guest Workers
   


5. Future Immigrants

For a detailed breakdown of each section click this link

The Bill provides for a path to citizenship for the more than 12 million illegals thought to be currently in the US and provides for better border security. However it is a complicated piece of legislation that has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans alike. One of the major complaints has been the rushed manner in which the bill has been introduced to the Senate. Many have not had time to actually read the 300 plus page "draft" version. The final "finished" version is expected to run almost 1,000 pages. Another complaint is that because the bill was rushed, there was no time to do a "fiscal analysis" so that the real cost of the bill remains unknown.

Many see the Bill as nothing more than amnesty for the 12 million illegals. This is because the plan is to issue "Z" visas to all illegal immigrants allowing them to work and stay in the US legally. This new class of visa would be available to any illegal residing in the country before Jan. 1 2007.

Others see problems with the guest worker provision that de-emphasizes the role of family re-unification in favor of a merit-based system that gives points for things such as education and work skills. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada: "The bill impacts families in a number of ways that I believe are unwise."

However Reid said the bill is a good starting point and shows an encouraging spirit of bipartisanship. "If we can continue along that road in the coming days, I am confident that we can write another chapter in America's great immigration story that makes our country safer, treats people with dignity and keeps our economy moving strong," he said.