I think it’s fair to say that 5th CD Republican Party congressional nominee Robert Hurt is not exactly getting rave reviews for his decision to flip flop on debating the tea party candidate in the race, Jeffrey Clark. To read what Clark has to say, click here. For now, an excerpt will do:

I was disappointed to hear of Senator Hurt’s change of position or the mix up that occurred concerning his opinion on the issue of the upcoming debates. I understand he believes that unless you have the money and backing you have no legitimate claim to be included in the political process because you risk being nothing more than a distraction in the important debate of how the two political parties intend to best govern us in the future.

On this matter, I respectfully must disagree with Mr. Hurt. Although it is true I am not independently wealthy and am nothing more than a common citizen that does not have the backing of the political parties…

Anyway, you get the idea — Jeffrey Clark is not happy with Robert Hurt. Not that this is surprising, given Clark’s need to appear in debates to have any chance at all of winning this election.  Still, the fact is that Hurt did seem to flip flop on this one, apparently once his boss Chris LaCivita knocked some sense into him, and Clark’s not pleased.

Meanwhile, the Roanoke Times weighs in, writing that “Hurt, state senator who spent six years in the House of Delegates, should have nothing to fear.”  Except that Hurt clearly does have something to fear, namely that Clark might take votes away from him and tip the election to Tom Perriello. It makes sense from a purely political point of view. The problem for Hurt is that this is about as anti-political a year as you’ll ever see.  Does Hurt really want to be acting like a typical,  calculating, conniving politician in the year of the Tea Partiers?  Something tells me, in the end, that Jeffrey Clark will end up in these debates — whether Hurt’s puppet master, Chris LaCivita, likes it or not!

Read more here.

Update: McChrystal has told NBC News that he did not tender his resignation.  You can find the reference here.

UPDATE: This was first published in bluecommonwealth.com over a year ago; in view of the Rolling Stone article I am re-printing it now. At the time, I was concerned about the politicization of the military by President Bush, and the growing power of the military-industrial complex under his administration, coupled with a virulent anti-Obama group of rising younger officers. Today we see the results. Note unedited e-mails circulating among younger officers.

One week after his inauguration Barack Obama is facing the first security test of America and his presidency, and the attack is coming not from sinister jihadist cave-dwellers, but from the Pentagon and a disgruntled cabal of both retired and active-duty top-ranking military officers. Included in the group are General David Petraeus (author of the “Surge” in Iraq, named CENTCOM Commander by Bush in October 2008), General Ray Odierno (replaced Petraeus as top commander in Iraq), General Jack Keane, US Army, ret. (Vice-Chief of Staff of the Army 1999-2003), a network of senior (and some not-so-senior) military officers, and very possibly Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense, held over from the Bush administration by Obama). Frustrated by President Obama’s determination to withdraw troops from Iraq, there is evidence they are mounting a public relations campaign to trivialize and intimidate Obama into doing as they want, in what amounts to acts of insubordination, thereby creating a constitutional crisis.

During the closing days of 2008 then-President Bush’s administration was frantically negotiating a new Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq, because the UN resolution authorizing the  use of Coalition forces (mainly American) in Iraq ran out on 31 December 2008. The new SOFA, signed just in the nick of time, stipulated that US troops would be withdrawn from all Iraqi cities by 30 June 2009 (this year), and all troops would leave Iraq completely by New Year’s Day 2012 (within 36 months).

In mid-December 2008 Secretary Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen (became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1 October 2007), met with President-elect Obama, according to a New York Times story dated 18 December, and told Obama they recommended re-categorizing “large numbers” of combat troops as support troops. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

This re-labeling subterfuge was intended to permit Obama to keep his campaign promise to withdraw American troops within 16 months without actually removing any combat forces at all- thus also subverting the SOFA’s intent, in a “rose by any other name” maneuver designed to fool the media and, hopefully, the Iraqis. On 21 January 2009 General David Petraeus, supported by Secretary Gates, met with now-President Obama in the Oval Office, and “tried to convince (him)… that he had to back down from his campaign pledge.” Obama refused and directed Gates, Petraeus, and Admiral Mullen, to return quickly with a detailed 16-month plan for withdrawal. Petraeus was “visibly unhappy” when he left the Oval Office, according to a staffer who was present, who explained “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Retired General Keane has been from the beginning a key player in the entire Surge policy.  He was Petraeus’ mentor and political ally, persuading President Bush to ignore the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the stress on the military of Iraq combined with the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and to appoint Petraeus top commander in Iraq when General George Casey refused to support the Surge. President Bush in September 2007 even promised that Petraeus could have as many troops as he needed “for as long as wanted” (as Bob Woodward reports in his book The War Within).  Keane also persuaded Gates to make Petraeus the new commander of CENTCOM by arguing that keeping Petraeus over there would be insurance against a Democratic administration’s changing Bush policies in the Mid East.  

An outline for the public relations campaign against Obama turned up the very evening of 21 January, right after a stunned and angry Petraeus left the Oval Office, when General Keane was on the Lehrer News Hour. The theme was that Obama’s withdrawal policy would threaten the gains supposedly won by Bush’s Surge. Keane insisted that Obama’s plan would jeopardize what he called the “stable political situation in Iraq,” and was unacceptably risky.

The New York Times published an interview with Odierno on 29 January which hinted that President Obama was “open to alternatives.”  The point was that Odierno had his own plan for a slower draw-down, hinting that it might take the rest of the year to determine when a significant withdrawal might begin. This was, of course, a direct contradiction of the President’s express orders on 21 January. The Keane network includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon who will begin working the journalists who cover the Pentagon, making the case that Obama’s reckless withdrawal plan will create an eventual political collapse of Iraq, supposedly because, with American troops out of the way, civil war will surely break out, and all of America’s hard work will be for naught. Who will bankroll such a public relations effort? I suspect the industrial-military complex, those corporations who make bundle out of constant warfare.

Gareth Porter in the Huffington article believes that Keane convinced Gates, Odierno, and Petraeus that no Democratic President could stand the political risk of rejecting Petraeus’ recommendation to delay troop withdrawal—- hence Petraeus’ bitter shock, and the plans of Keane’s network to take Obama down.  Joe Klein, writing in Time magazine, claims that Obama told Petraeus during his July trip to Iraq that, if he were elected, he would “regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus’ obvious interest in maximizing U.S. troop strength in Iraq.” It seems that Petraeus believed his mentor Keane rather than the Democratic candidate.  And, why not? The Pentagon had Bush completely under their thumb, and Keane’s far flung network can ruin Obama.

I myself have received copies of some alarming e-mails from younger mid-level officers, those who will be our next generation of generals, spouting  attacks on Obama, picking apart his every utterance and every appointment he makes, and wildly defending Bush and his policies, sounding more like Rush Limbaugh and talk radio than commissioned officers as they spout right-wing talking points. Example: In going over Obama’s Inauguration speech, every phrase was rebutted or scorned: “We reject as false the choice between our own safety and our ideals,” said Obama (whom they call “the enlightened one” whenever possible). The rebuttal by the officer: “this is simply slander, pure and simple. This is the old “shredding the Constitution” line cloaked in lofty rhetoric…. Furthermore, virtually everything the administration has done with respect to security has been upheld by the courts. No-one’s ideals were rejected except perhaps the ACLU’s.”  When it comes to climate change there is an orgy of sneering, including “Still spreading the old global warming fear, just as scientists are coming forward to admit that the theories were flawed… the planet has actually cooled over the past 10 years.”

The intent of these e-mails is to trivialize and debase respect for President Obama, and that is even more explicit in a rather pompous e-mail from another young officer, purporting to offer advice to Mr. Obama on how to change his performance before he becomes a laughing stock and humiliates America before the entire world. Sample phrases: “Even the fawning media—- that is responsible in some way for the crisis, given that they chose to be Pravda-like in encouraging the messianic style that got a haughty Obama in his present mess—- will start bailing in efforts to restore their lost fides.”  And more “Then there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas.” And finally the free advice, “Drop all the talk about the best, the most, the greatest ethical, moral, legal…I think Geithner cannot now stay… Never trash your predecessor or the US abroad.  Trust Billary, Gates, and Jones on foreign policy. Hush about the Bush homeland security measures. Just accept them as necessary evils. Halve the stimulus. Insist on tax-cuts rather than hand-outs…Replace Gibbs…. So stop ‘Bush did it’ refrains. And stop the trash Rush/Hannety/talkradio/Fox.” It is as if these officers are psyching themselves up to attempt a coup d’etat.

Obama is under a planned assault on several fronts, including not merely the openly political Republican element but, worse, from the Pentagonese military cabal. The Capitol Hill Republicans (including retirees like Newt Gingrich) are specializing in the so-called stimulus package; we will never hear the end of it. The Pentagonese are specializing in the Iraq withdrawal and military policy. Bill Clinton ran into a buzz saw when he started his Presidency with an attempt to eliminate the ban on homosexuality in the military; his top generals defied him successfully, and he caved in, leaving us with “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” The Republicans took notes, and concluded that “Clinton was a political pushover,” said David Lindorff, writing in The Smirking Chimp on 4 February (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)  Obama is about to receive the same treatment from this disgruntled group of the military, aided by the disgruntled Republicans.

Mr. Lindorff’s recommendation is that Obama move swiftly to nip the mutiny in the bud, or his presidency will be toast.  “Obama must sack Petraeus and Odierno, and any other general who tries —- openly or behind the scenes—- to move politically against his military strategy and orders.”  I concur. Remember how Truman fired McArthur when that egotist went behind the back of his Commander in Chief to Republicans in Congress to lobby for a wider war in Korea. Id Petraeus and Odierno disagree with their CIC, they can do as Admiral Fallon did when he opposed Cheney’s plans to invade Iran: he resigned.  

This is a very serious constitutional question. My own father, a general officer, told me on more than one occasion, that the greatest invention of the American system, and its greatest protection, was the absolute subordination of the military to the elected civil authority. That is what at risk with our new egotist, Petraeus, and his mentor, Keane. As Lindorff says, “For the past eight years, the biggest threat to American democracy was that a president and vice-president attempted to convert the office of president into a military dictatorship, with the position of commander in chief subsuming and replacing the position of president. Now the danger is that the nation’s top generals are trying to eliminate or emasculate the president’s rule as commander in chief, making the generals the leaders of the nation’s military. Both dangers are equally threatening to constitutional government.”  

To now, the teacher-scholar relationship between the Department of Defense and the President has been reversed. Obama has been led by the hand, blindly. Military matters were never his strength. With no idea where to turn, he kept the Bush team on. The McChrystal tempest should have been expected.

Hours after his inauguration, the Department of Defense (DoD) asked for and obtained authority to conduct a strike that blooded the new President. From that point forward, Obama has acquiesced to every important decision, carrying the failed Bush military policies forward not only in Southwest Asia, but around the world. Maybe that initial uncomfortable decision conditioned him and affects his approach to the DoD. Now is a time for him act Presidential. While the comments by McChrystal reported in a Washington Post article today and the subject of a Rolling Stone profile in this week’s edition are far from seditious, it is symptomatic of a potentially pre-cancerous condition that merits preventive intervention.

Half a century ago the new President was handed the portfolio for the Bay of Pigs, a Richard Nixon nurtured plan of action. John Kennedy had military experience, but it did not prepare him for the kind of inertia found even then in bureaucracies. Fortunately for Kennedy, the then Commandant of the Marine Corps, General David Shoup, intervened with a dramatic illustrative objection and provided a perspective that altered history.

Times have changed and Obama faces a tempo of activity that did not challenge Kennedy. There are the two wars. There is the economy. There is the Gulf of Mexico. And the quality of advice that he is receiving from a former Commandant fails in comparison to the counsel of Shoup. While it may be appropriate to can McChrystal, it is more important to fire the National Security Advisor, General James Jones. It is Jones who has failed most miserably. It is Jones who figured in the alienation of General Tony Zinni and helped position the bullying sycophant Richard Holbrooke as senior envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Zinni might have turned out as Obama’s Shoup. Now Obama has no one up to the task of taking on DoD or, for that matter, the State Department. Time for Obama to step to the podium but he is without a practical frame of reference or anyone to trust to provide it.

Update — The article is available online and it is a nightmare.

Attorney General Cuccinelli stubbornly continued his assault on science and reason with a recent court filing against the University of Virginia.  Super Cooch continues to press his “case” that  Professor Michael Mann committed “fraud” against state government by conducting climate change research that failed to conform to the looniest conspiracy theories of the far right:

“Neither academic freedom nor the First Amendment have ever been held to immunize a person, whether an academic or not, from civil or criminal actions for fraud, let alone immunized them from an otherwise authorized investigation,” Cuccinelli’s filing with the Albemarle County Circuit Court states.

In order to truly appreciate what a radical and precedent-shattering act Super Cooch has undertaken here, it’s important to understand what a deadly serious (and rare) situation it is for a state’s top legal official to charge someone with fraud for conducting legitimate academic research.

Wikipedia has a helpful list of categories of fraud, to illustrate the type of major crimes we’re talking about here:

Types of criminal fraud include:  • bait and switch • bankruptcy fraud • benefit fraud, committing fraud to get government benefits • counterfeiting of currency, documents or valuable goods […] creation of false companies or “long firms” • embezzlement, taking money which one has been entrusted with on behalf of another party • false advertising • false billing • false insurance claims • forgery of documents or signatures, • health fraud, for example selling of products known not to be effective, such as quack medicines, • identity theft • investment frauds, such as Ponzi schemes and Pyramid schemes • […] • rigged gambling games such as the shell game • securities frauds such as pump and dump • tax fraud, not reporting revenue or illegally avoiding taxes.

Also from Wikipedia is the following list of the 10 elements needed to prove fraud:

1. a representation of an existing fact; 2. its materiality; 3. its falsity; 4. the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity; 5. the speaker’s intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff; 6. plaintiff’s ignorance of its falsity; 7. plaintiff’s reliance on the truth of the representation; 8. plaintiff’s right to rely upon it; and 9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff

We’re not talking about debatable differences of opinion here, but rather about malicious lying in order to rip someone – or everyone – off.  And Super Cooch is aiming such heavy charges, not at a real criminal, but at one of the world’s most accomplished climate scientists.   Professor Michael Mann, currently Director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, is known not for cheating old ladies out of their Social Security checks or launching Ponzi schemes, but rather for publishing over 80 peer-reviewed journal articles and serving as a major contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that have convinced countless scientists, and those who take science seriously, that climate change is a very dangerous trend for humankind that is being driven by human activities.

Considering how extensive Professor Mann’s work has been, it surely must include the occasional error, as all human works do, and as Mann – like all good scientists – has admitted when logic, mathematics, experimentation and/or empirical evidence have proven him wrong.  But the scientific process is designed to deal with errors by testing all propositions and disregarding those that don’t make sense, don’t conform with the facts or can’t be replicated.  

To inject a criminal fraud investigation into the honest differences of opinion that arise during scientific debate is to derail and exploit the whole scientific process for cheap political gain.  

But this is not to say that no one is committing fraud in this case.  In fact, a fraud trial may make sense if you simply shift the prosecutor to the defendant’s table.  Indeed, Cuccinelli’s attack on Mann, UVA and climate science in general sounds an awful lot like the knowing misrepresentation of facts for material gain.

You could say that Super Cooch is innocent because he actually believes what he is saying.  But this man is no backwoods yahoo.  Cuccinelli has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from UVA and both a J.D. and an M.A. in International Commerce and Policy from George Mason.  It is safe to assume he is smart enough to know that his misrepresentation of climate science is utterly spurious, but that he is pursuing it because he believes it can help his political career.    

He probably believes, justifiably, that he can benefit politically both from gaining more contributions from fossil fuel-driven corporations like Massey Industries and from winning more support from the hyper-paranoid Tea Party psychos who are busy taking over the Republican party.  

And so the man elected to protect Virginians from shysters and crooks is himself perpetrating what is arguably the greatest fraud in the Commonwealth’s history, trying to undermine current climate change theories, not through respectable scientific methods but though the blunt weapons of state power and virulent propaganda.  Like the nice-sounding man calling your grandma on the phone and telling her why she should hand over her bank account number, he does it all while trying to appear so earnest, logical and sincere.  

We can only plan and wait for his judgment day to come, whether it comes in court or at the polls – when Cuccinelli’s fraud is ultimately rejected and science triumphs over yet another political swindler.