The New York Times reports on Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman during his first run for the GOP nomination in 2000, which often led to political favors:

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. [...]

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman.

The Times reports that McCain denied having an affair with Iseman.

UPDATE: In a statement tonight, the McCain campaign claimed that the Senator has “never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists.”

Does John McCain’s campaign really want to go on record with the idea that he has “never done favors for special interests or lobbyists”? I would, personally, find it shocking if there were truly zero instances in the man’s 25 year congressional career in which he did something for a special interest. What about Charles Keating? This seems like an invitation for trouble down the road.

Exploring the question “Iraq: What if we win?” in the latest issue of The American Interest, neoconservative Iraq war architect Richard Perle offers a series of false, incoherent, contradictory and misleading statements in an effort to not only, again, distance himself from the disastrous Iraq war policy he helped create but also to tout the war’s successes.

In his article, which is headlined “We Won Years Ago,” Perle claims that the Iraq war — which he argues was “imposed on us” — is “far from over.” But later, he claims that “we have already won in Iraq” because “Saddam will not be sharing WMD with anyone.” Missing from this line of thinking, of course, is that Saddam never had any WMD to share:

[D]espite the widely, if grudgingly, acknowledged progress of the surge, the war is far from over. [...]

Without military action we could not have decisively managed the threat from Iraq. It is now managed: Saddam will not be sharing WMD with anyone. Judged against that measure, we have already won in Iraq.

Perle takes a number of confusing positions on the issue of Saddam’s WMD. First he correctly noted that the pre-war intelligence on Iraq’s weapons “proved to be wrong” but only in “some” respects. Unfortunately, Perle does not expound upon which intelligence was correct on Iraq’s weapons.

Next, Perle asserts that if Saddam had only said Iraq didn’t have WMD, the U.S. wouldn’t have invaded:

If Saddam had provided solid, confirmable evidence of the destruction of the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction he was believed to possess, we would not have invaded.

But Saddam did tell the U.S. he didn’t have any weapons. In late 2002, Hussein’s government allowed UN weapons inspectors inside Iraq who subsequently did not find any “smoking guns” after visiting some 125 Iraqi sites. Moreover, in December, 2002, Iraq sent 12,000 pages of documents to the UN explaining how its WMD stockpiles had been eliminated.

Despite his earlier claim that “we have already won” the war, Perle also argues the U.S. should stay anyway because withdrawal would be “foolish” and “irresponsible.” But even though the U.S. needs to stay in Iraq, Perle claimed that “we have…created” a Pax Americana in the Middle East. Perle of course does not offer evidence of any such “Pax.”

In 2006, the Iraq Study Group (ISG) recommended a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq, reporting that “sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq.”

Bush ignored the Group’s recommendations. Conservative lawmakers Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Chris Shays (R-CT) are now attempting to revive the ISG for the GOP’s political gain. The Hill reported recently that the duo placed “a little-noticed provision in the fiscal 2008 omnibus spending bill calling for the rebirth of the Iraq Study Group.”

The ISG was supposed to be an independent, bipartisan assessment of the situation in Iraq. This time, however, Wolf wants to infuse the ISG with a right-wing agenda, seeking to “validate” the claim that the military surge is working. His motivation? To help mobilize public opinion in favor of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) view of the Iraq war:

Wolf said in an interview that he believed a second investigation would validate the Bush administration’s claims that the situation in Iraq has improved dramatically. He also said that he has pressed for the group to publish its findings well before the election, which could help diminish voters’ desire to see the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

That would help the likely Republican nominee, McCain, who supports maintaining a strong troop presence. “They would validate there’s been tremendous improvement,” said Wolf, predicting what the study group would conclude.

Wolf is pressing hard for the new ISG. “They ought to do it sooner and not later,” he said in December. In addition to helping McCain, Wolf appears to be reviving the ISG to aid Gen. Petraeus when he testifies Congress this spring:

The legislative language that could reconstitute the ISG became law at the end of December and gives the new group 90 days to report back, which would fall toward the end of March. That month could shape up to be a highly Iraq-focused time.

Curiously, Wolf didn’t even tell the co-author of the original ISG, Lee Hamilton, about the legislation. “There’s been no contact of me by anyone associated with the Congress that I have not initiated myself,” said Hamilton. “That’s my puzzle. Nobody’s been in touch with me.”

Wolf’s idea is futile and disingenuous. Public opinion is still strongly against the war, even as violence has decreased. Over a year later, the “fundamental causes” — in the ISG’s words — of violence in Iraq remain. But Wolf seems more concerned about bolstering his party than providing real facts about the situation in Iraq.

In a segment today about Sen. John McCain’s misleading attacks on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) willigness to act against al Qaeda in Pakistan, CNN notes that President Bush took the same position as Obama in a 2006 interview with Wolf Blitzer. “Absolutely,” said Bush when asked if he “would give the order” to “kill or capture” al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, even if the Pakistani government objected. Watch it:

CNN doesn’t note, however, that in a Feb. 10 interview with Fox News Sunday, Bush contradicted his ’06 comments by making the same misleading attack on Obama. “[H]e’s going to attack Pakistan,” Bush said of Obama.

PolitickerNJ reports that U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie and former attorney general John Ashcroft will not testify in front of a House Judiciary subcommittee next week about a lucrative federal monitoring contact Christie gave to Ashcroft. The Justice Department is refusing to say whether or not it barred Christie from testifying. The hearing has been postponed until next month.

UPDATE: Marcy Wheeler has more.