The hawkish Senators’ lack of success is noticeable as the three men are seen as as some of the most influential Senators on foreign policy and national security. But their efforts to roll out a piece of bipartisan legislation pressuring the White House’s hand on diplomacy with Iran has found few allies across the aisle. Sens. Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA) reportedly signed onto the legislation and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is rumored to be on board. But Senate Democrats are concerned that the resolution “would be seen as creeping toward an authorization of military force against Iran,” reports The Hill’s Alexander Bolton.

A Senate aid denied that characterization of the legislation and emphasized that it is not an authorization of military action and leaves the option of further negotiations.

However a statement last month from Graham and Lieberman stated, in no uncertain terms, that they would support a bipartisan resolution explicitly opposing containment. The statement read:

When it comes to addressing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, all options must be on the table — except for one, and that is containment. [...] Containment is failure, and failure cannot be an option.

Neither U.S. intelligence officials nor the IAEA have concluded that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Indeed the IAEA has stated concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but senior U.S. intelligence officials have expressed support for ongoing sanctions and diplomacy.

Efforts to press Obama to employ the “military option” continue to be discussed in Washington but the partisan divide between those urging action — be it in Congress or outside pressure groups — and those pursuing diplomacy and sanctions is becoming increasingly distinct as Republicans seek to portray the President as weak on national defense and foreign policy.

Today the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on two Republican bills that would give one of the world’s largest copper deposits away to the Resolution Copper Company, owned by the large multi-national mining conglomerates Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. The deposit is located on public lands in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona.

Sens. John Kyl (R-AZ) and John McCain (R-AZ) are the biggest proponents of the bills in the Senate. Kyl testified today that

The legislation that came over to the Senate from the House is perfectly good legislation, it has all of the protections in it, and it has Congress making the decision.

Under the bill, the Resolution Copper Company would receive more than 2,000 acres of land with the copper deposit in exchange for approximately 5,000 acres of land that the company currently owns which would be set aside for conservation. The Resolution Copper Company plans to mine the copper deposit as soon as the transfer is complete.

The House version of this bill (H.R. 1904), which was debated today, would prohibit environmental review from taking place until after the land exchange had occurred. So, the extent of the environmental impacts would not be determined until after the land is made private, thereby limiting the ability of surrounding communities to work to stop or modify the mine should major problems be predicted.

Additionally, American taxpayers would not be properly compensated for the value of the copper that would come off of these lands when the area is made private in the land exchange. Instead, a single multinational corporation would benefit from one of the largest copper deposits in the world — a true example of giving away our public lands for corporate profits.

Finally, the Resolution Copper mine would be built on Oak Flat, a site that is sacred to Native American tribes. As Shan Lewis, president of the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona testified today:

Federal laws and policies are designed to protect Native sacred sites like Oak Flat.  The proposed land exchange that would be mandated by H.R. 1904 would circumvent these laws and policies and transfer ownership to of federal lands containing a sacred site of Apache, Yavapai, and other Native people to a company for mining activities that will destroy this sacred site.  Although ITCA is not opposed to mining in general, mining in this location that will result in the destruction of a sacred site is offensive to us and should not be condoned.

In past sessions of Congress, both McCain and Kyl have held up other Senate bills and nominations in order to try to move previous versions of the Resolution Copper bill.

The trade association “actively lobbies against legislation that would place unfair restrictions on salon businesses.” Boehner no doubt earned the group’s gratitude with his staunch opposition to inclusion of tanning salon taxes in the Affordable Care Act.

Ironically, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who famously tweeted to Jersey Shore star Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi that he would not tax her tanning bed received no contributions from the PAC this cycle or last. (HT: @lukerosiak)

That idea — which forms the basis of the radical anti-immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama — is inspired by the work of Kris Kobach, Kansas’ Secretary of State. Kobach, who advises Romney on immigration, explained the “self-deporation” concept in an interview with ThinkProgress recently, calling it “attrition through enforcement.”

In an interview with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, John McCain — who has endorsed Romney — distanced himself from the former Massachusetts governor’s rhetoric. “We have to present a humane approach to a very difficult issue of illegal immigration into this country,” McCain said, adding that he favors a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Ramos forced McCain to concede that he did not agree with the policy of self-deporation:

RAMOS: You’re talking about a humane way. Is self-deportation a humane way to treat 11 million undocumented immigrants?

McCAIN: No. I think there are some people who want to leave this country and return to the country they came from, but obviously it requires a broader solution than that, and we all know that.

Watch it:

Romney and Kobach’s radicalism is alienating allies in the Republican Party — even those who have endorsed Romney. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who supports Romney, said self-deportation “was frankly a bad choice of words.” Alex Garza, the vice president of Hispanics in Politics — and a Republican — said “the Republican Party shouldn’t promote policies of family separation. Self-deportation isn’t possible.”

Newt Gingrich also assailed Romney, saying “I think he’s amazingly insensitive to the realities of the immigrant community — his whole concept of self-deportation. I’ve not met anyone who thinks it’s in touch with reality. People aren’t going to self-deport.”

Their plan calls for delaying the implementation of the mandatory spending cuts one year (in to 2014) in order to figure out how to offset the reductions. The Republicans don’t plan on raising taxes however. Instead, they want to cut federal jobs and freeze federal workers’ pay, Reuters reports:

The new proposal by McCain, Kyl and four other Senate Republicans would spare the military and selected domestic programs of cuts set to go into effect in January 2013. The $127 billion in budget savings would be achieved, instead, by scaling back the federal workforce and freezing its pay.

The move is designed to buy time for lawmakers to decide on more orderly reductions than the across-the-board cuts put in place after a special congressional committee failed to develop a deficit reduction plan last year, a Republican aide said.

“Let’s not let a domestic issue such as tax increases interfere…with our nation’s security,” McCain said at the bill’s unveiling on Capitol Hill today. In fact, the military can more than afford the extra $500 billion in cuts. Not only has the U.S. defense budget doubled in the last 10 years, the U.S. spends more than the next 14 countries combined. Indeed, as Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said, “it’s difficult, but it is not super hard” to make the reductions.

Democrats, however, balked at the plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called the bill “unfair.” Referring to the fact that McCain and many of his GOP colleagues had indeed voted for the plan that ended up resulting in the sequester cuts, Reid added, “I believe that an agreement is an agreement. I believe that a handshake is a handshake. Here we have more than a handshake – we have a law that is in place in our country. They should keep their word. That’s what the American people expect them to do, and that’s what I expect them to do.”

Rep. McKeon, Sen. McCain, and Romney adviser Boot

I am deeply concerned that the size and scope of these cuts would repeat the mistakes of history and leave our forces too small to respond effectively to events that may unfold over the next few years.

House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) released a statement saying:

This move ignores a critical lesson in recent history: that while high technology and elite forces give America an edge, they cannot substitute for overwhelming ground forces when we are faced with unforeseen battlefields.

And Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s defense policy adviser Max Boot writes in the neoconservative magazine Commentary:

The fault in that line of thinking was displayed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we quickly found out there was no substitute for a humble rifleman to impose our will on the enemy at bayonet point. Now the Obama administration is fooling itself into thinking we will never have to fight another major ground war again.

The notion that the Obama administration’s cuts to previously proposed budget numbers — which on average over the next two years actually increase the budget but, accounting for inflation, amounts to holding spending steady — are setting up a U.S. inability to fight a ground war or prepare for the next conflict doesn’t hold water. Even if the full amount of nearly $950 billion in reductions are enacted — if sequestered cuts are added to the ones outlined yesterday — the military budget would still be at 2007 levels, when the U.S. was fighting two ground wars.

Furthermore, McClatchy newspapers today notes that “planned reduction in ground forces by 2017 would still leave a larger military than before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” And Center for a New American Security fellow Andrew Exum points out that hardware is much harder to scale up than troop levels should a war arise: “[I]n the event of a major war, you can recruit and train new infantry battalions quicker than you can design and build ships.”

–Zachary Bernstein

In Florida, McCain shot at Romney: “As head of his investment company he presided over the acquisition of companies that laid off thousands of workers.” In a debate, McCain charged, “He managed companies and he bought and he sold and sometimes people lost their jobs.” McCain’s campaign manager added, “He learned politics and economics from being a venture capitalist, where you go and buy companies, you strip away the jobs, and you resell them,”

But today, McCain suggested attacks on Romney’s jobs record at Bain are akin to “communism.”

Meanwhile, former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is also defending Romney on Bain, even though he once quipped that Romney looks “looks like the guy who fired you.”

With the U.S. expected to begin talks soon with the Afghan Taliban insurgency, all parties were quick to distance themselves from the act. The Marines said in a statement that the actions “are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps.” In a separate statement, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said a criminal probe was being launched and added:

This disrespectful act is inexplicable and not in keeping with the high moral standards we expect of coalition forces.

ISAF strongly condemns the actions depicted in the video, which appear to have been conducted by a small group of U.S. individuals, who apparently are no longer serving in Afghanistan.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said of the incident, “I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.” Panetta has ordered an investigation to the matter.

Afghans offered across-the-board condemnation as well. “It was inhuman and despicable, an unforgivable act which we condemn in the strongest terms,” said a Taliban spokesman. Karzai called the act “completely inhumane” and asked that those found responsible by an investigation get the “most severe punishment” possible.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who served in the U.S. military, said:

Here’s a handful of obviously undisciplined young people of the hundred and some thousand Marines that we have. And it makes me so sad. There should be an investigation and these young people should be punished, but it does great damage. It makes me so sad.

Not everyone, however, was saddened by the events. Anti-Muslim activist Pam Geller wrote in favor of the incident. “I love these Marines,” she said, adding, “Perhaps this is the infidel interpretation of the Islamic ritual of washing and preparing the body for burial.” A former Republican National Committee researcher tweeted wondering, “this is a story?” He added: “I could care less. Liberal media at work.” Michael Goldfarb, a neoconseravtive Republican operative (a former McCain campaign spokesman), lobbyist and, as of recently, chairman of a new conservative online media venture, retweeted the comments from the RNC researcher.

This week, in separate moves, local Latino and black leaders called on Arpaio to resign. A Change.org petition for his resignation had received more than 19,000 signatures as of this publishing (sign it here), just two weeks after it was created.

McCain put out a statement earlier this month taking a much more circumspect stance, saying he was merely “concerned” with the report on the sex crimes, so today’s comments suggest the political winds may be turning against Arpaio.

The sheriff, who has made a dubious name for himself as “America’s toughest sheriff” for his hardline stance on undocumented immigrants, is also facing significant heat over a Department of Justice investigation, the results of which were released earlier this month, alleging that his department has systematically violated civil rights laws.

Nonetheless, presidential hopeful Rick Perry held a campaign event with Arpaio this week in Iowa. Perry has dodged most questions on the Department of Justice investigation or the sex crimes allegations, but a spokesperson told TPM, “Governor Perry knows Sheriff Arpaio as a dedicated law enforcement professional fighting to keep his neighbors safe in the wake of federal failures to secure the border and deal with border crime,” he added.

Ultimately, McCain’s selection of Palin only changed the game in that it made McCain look like a gambler. The selection didn’t actually chane the dynamic of the race, and Palin has essentially retreated into the small-town Alaska from whence she came in the years since. The selection of her didn’t even stem from particularly novel thinking, unless playing women and people of color off against each other counts. Not to go all Slim Charles on it, but the game was the same–it just got more fierce.

The story I’d really like to see out of that book, actually, is the one about John and Elizabeth Edwards, Rielle Hunter, and the fact that he went ahead with the 2008 campaign despite the mess in his personal life. Hubris and denial aren’t emotions that can be fit into rationality, which makes them particularly interesting. What happened behind the scenes in Palin’s brief, dizzying ascent has been done to death. The Edwards’ follies and tragedies are still somewhat inexplicable. And in a country where we’ve only ever had one divorced President, the idea that you could totally escape the expectations Americans have for the private lives of presidential candidates (Clinton, at least, only ever had Chelsea with Hillary) is a kind of magical thinking.

Gen. Martin Dempsey

Perhaps taking their cues from Congress or neocon websites, GOP presidential candidates long ago settled on a battle cry against President Obama’s national security record: the almost universal theme that the President should do to what the generals tell him. Texas governor Rick Perry said it about Afghanistan and Iraq. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said it about reinstating Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (many generals were for the repeal). Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said he would do what the generals want on Afghanistan, before backing down. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich went the other way, reversing his support for civilian control in favor of wondering why Obama “overrule(d) all his generals.”

But during a press availability while traveling in Saudia Arabia, the top U.S. military officer sang a different tune, using harsh language to describe the talking point about deferring national security and war decisions to the generals. Asked about the line, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

I’ll probably make news with this but I find some of those articles about divergence or control of the generals to be kind of offensive to me.

And here’s why. One of the things that makes us as a military profession in a democracy is civilian rule. Our civilian leaders are under no obligation to accept our advice; and that’s what it is. Its advice. It’s military judgments, it’s alternatives, it’s options. And at the end of the day, our system is built on the fact that it will be our civilian leaders who make that decision and I don’t find that in any way to challenge my manhood, nor my position. In fact, if it were the opposite, I think we should all be concerned.

Dempsey isn’t the first top military officer to tell politicians about the chain-of-command recently. This summer, the last two Joint Chiefs chairmen, Gen. David Petraeus, since retired and leading the CIA, and the now-retired Admiral Michael Mullen, explained the concept in hearings on Capitol Hill.

The most curious thing about McCain’s argument, though, is that the anecdote he delivered in support of it didn’t bolster the case for, as he claimed to put it, maintaining U.S. troops through the “fighting season,” the warmer months when there tends to be more fighting. But rather, McCain made the case for the U.S. to stay in Afghanistan for a very, very long time.

McCain relied on the usual conservative trope that Obama should have deferred to the generals on his withdrawal decision — despite the chain of command (which the generals themselves understand well) and McCain’s own selective reliance on the brass’ word. But he had a twist: He posited that the end of the war would come when the Taliban insurgency acquiesced to the terms of a peace deal. This, his story suggested, would never happen if the U.S. leaves.

Here’s McCain’s story about an unnamed former George W. Bush administration official:

A story was related to me just recently. Former member of the previous administration, high ranking, in a meeting with one of the highest ranking members of the government of Pakistan. He said, to this high-ranking government official, “What do you think the chances of peace with the Taliban are?” That individual just laughed and said, “Why should they make peace? You are leaving.” Those are fundamental facts.

Watch the video of McCain on the floor of the Senate here:

But McCain’s anecdote isn’t about staying through this “fighting season,” as he claims commanders on the ground advocated for, with the Obama administration setting the partial drawdown timeline for a few months earlier. Rather, McCain’s statement that the Taliban won’t make peace because the U.S. is leaving applies just as much to the middle of the “fighting season” as it does the end of the “fighting season.” Instead, McCain’s anecdote seems to call for a heavy, long-term military presence, perhaps an interminable one. After all, according to McCain’s story, no peace deal can be made to end the Afghanistan war if the U.S. leaves. Perhaps that’s why, over McCain’s objections, the amendment to expedite the Afghanistan withdrawal passed the Senate.

Indeed, like in Afghanistan, if McCain had his way in Iraq, American troops would be there for at least 97 more years, instead of coming home by the end of this month.

Also during the Halifax forum discussion today, McCain criticized Obama for not speaking out more forcefully for the Green Movement in 2009, saying that it amounted to one of the greatest foreign policy missteps of the 21st century. In a press conference after the Halifax forum discussion, ThinkProgress asked McCain what he thought an attack on Iran would do to the opposition movement there. McCain paused, saying, “That’s a good question.” Then after diverting a bit by talking about general sanctions on Iran, McCain came back to the question and suggested that the Green Movement might welcome an attack:

TP: I just wanted to go back to Iran for a second. There was talk of attacking Iran in the discussion earlier over its nuclear program and I’m wondering what you think that would do to the Green Movement.

MCCAIN: That’s a good question and I’d like for Senator Udall to talk about that. First of all on the attack, the issue of an attack on Iran. I do believe that we should pursue sanctions. [...]

The Green Movement in all candor is already very disillusioned with the United States of America because of our failure to support them in 2009 when they rose up and died in the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran. So I think that it — I can’t speak for them but if they thought it was a way that would eventually unseat the government then they might be supportive but they are understandably in my view very skeptical about whatever the United States does now.

Watch it:

While it’s unclear what information the Arizona senator is basing that assessment on, Iranian civil society, human rights activists and those close to the Green Movement have said that military action against Iran would be a huge set back for the opposition there. Last June, a spokesperson for the Green Coordinating Council said, “The regime would really like for someone to come drop two bombs” on Iran’s nuclear facilites because it “would then increase nationalism and the regime would gather everyone and all the political parties around itself.”

RAND Corp. Iran expert Alireza Nader agrees. “What a military strike could do is unite all Iran’s various factions and personalities around the supreme leader,” Nader said in June.

McCain apparently did not appreciate that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey defended the president’s decision to order all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. When Dempsey — who reportedly opposed the 2007 surge in Iraq — credited the troop increase for bringing down violence, McCain thought he saw an opening to attack the chairman’s credibility:

MCCAIN: Since you brought up regrettably Gen. Dempsey 2003 and 2004. The fact is that you did not support the surge and said that it would fail. Secretary Panetta was part of the Iraq Study Group that recommended withdrawals from Iraq and opposed the surge and so we’re all responsible for the judgments that we make and obviously that affects the credibility of the judgments that we make now on Iraq. I regret that you have to bring that up Gen. Dempsey.

Watch it:

It’s unclear whether the influx of U.S. troops was the key catalyst that tipped the scales in Iraq, as the so-called Sunni “Awakening” had begun to ferment months before President Bush made the decision to send more troop. So whether Dempsey was right or wrong about opposing sending more troops to Iran in 2007 is difficult to prove.

But by his own measure — one’s past statements on Iraq effect the credibility of current ones — McCain’s authority on the Iraq issue is quite limited, if even non-existent. Here’s a run down of some of McCain’s greatest hits:

– “I believe that [the war in Iraq] will not be nearly as difficult as some allege.” [NBC, 9/22/02]

– “I think most Iraqis would greet the removal of Saddam Hussein with relief and pleasure.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

– “The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

– “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

– In April 2003, McCain said “It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” Eight months later he declared victory, “This is a mission accomplished.”

– In April, 2003, McCain said “we’ve got to de-Baathize Iraq.” Yet 4 years later he hoped the Iraqis would “pass a reverse de-Baathification law.”

– Iraq is “a peaceful and stable country now.” 8/28/08

The the list of McCain’s false predictions and bad judgment on Iraq is extensive. In taking his own advice, perhaps McCain would realize he is not the most credible voice on American policy in Iraq.

“The truth is that this administration was committed to the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and they made it happen,” McCain said, not hiding his displeasure. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta then had to remind McCain that Iraq is a democracy, it’s their country, and ultimately the decision wasn’t entirely the president’s and that the administration would not accept a deal in which U.S. troops staying past 2011 were not given legal immunity:

PANETTA: Senator McCain, that’s just simply not true. I guess you can believe that and I respect your beliefs…but that’s not how it happened. This is about negotiating with a sovereign country. An independent country, this was about their needs. This is not about us telling them what we’re going to do for them or what they’re going to have to do. … This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. [...]

This is a country where you could very well be engaging in combat operations. If you’re going to engage in those kind of operations, you’re going to engage in CT operations, you absolutely have to have immunities and those immunities have to be granted by a SOFA agreement. I was not about to have our troops go there in place without those immunities.

Panetta also had to remind Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who expressed hope that the Iraqis would grant U.S. troops immunity before the withdrawal deadline. “Again I would stress to you Senator Lieberman,” Panetta said, “It’s got to be a two way street.” Later in the hearing, committee chair Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) tried to clear up all the confusion:

LEVIN: Did Iraq ever request U.S. trainers or other troops remain in Iraq after December 31 and if so in what number did they request and were they willing to grant legal protection, immunity to our troops?

PANETTA: There was no such request. …

Watch the clips:

The problem with this plan is that it’s already been tried, and it didn’t work. In 2004, corporations used the money they brought back to enrich executives and buy back stock, not for job creation. In fact, the corporations that benefited the most from the tax break cut tens of thousands of jobs in the subsequent years, and companies pushed huge amounts of money offshore in anticipation of a future holiday.

McCain is evidently well aware of the shoddy history of these holidays, because why else would he include a special, even lower rate for companies that use the money to create jobs? In fact, McCain said at a Reuters summit yesterday that he is fine with giving corporations this big tax break so that they can use it to buy yachts and jets:

In defense of legislation he is offering in Congress, McCain said his bill would try to ensure that profits brought into the country from abroad at a reduced tax rate would be devoted by corporations to investment and job creation.

“If you brought $1.5 trillion back to the United States of America, it’s bound to have some positive effect somewhere,” he said at the Reuters Washington Summit. “I don’t see how it would not. Even if they buy more yachts and … corporate jets and all that, it’s bound to have some effect.“

McCain is technically correct that having corporations spend money on yachts and jets is stimulus in the truest sense of the word. But providing corporations with a huge tax break in the hopes that they purchase luxury goods is hardly the most efficient way to boost employment. At the same time that McCain is promoting this cockamamie idea, he is joining his party in blocking each and every portion of President Obama’s Jobs Act that comes up in the Senate.

The Joint Tax Committee has found that a repatriation holiday would add billions to the deficit, and the previous holiday shows that there would be very little bang-for-the-buck in terms of jobs. But McCain would still forge ahead, so that companies have extra cash to buy some “jets and all that.”