According to the Washington Post, “President Bush has settled on retired federal judge Michael B. Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.”

Mukasey presided over the first case involving Jose Padilla after 9/11, in which he ruled that “President Bush did have the authority to hold Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant without charging him for a crime,” but also “ruled that the government must allow Mr. Padilla to see his attorneys.”

Moreover, “both Mukasey and his son, Marc, are connected with Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign, as members of the Republican candidate’s justice advisory committee.” A Republican source tells the Post, “conservatives might have some serious concerns with Mukasey.”

UPDATE I: In 2005 the Alliance for Justice named Mukasey one of four Judges who, “if chosen for the Supreme Court, would show the president’s commitment to nominating people who could be supported by both Democrats and Republicans.”

UPDATE II: Mukasey recently penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he argued that “terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions.”

The Plank documents “the similarities in this week’s coverage of the two fallen ingenues” as they each attempt a comeback.

According to statistics compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, “members of the U.S. military have dramatically increased their political contributions to Democrats, marching sharply away from the party they’ve long supported. In the 2002 election cycle, the last full cycle before the war began, Democrats received a mere 23 percent of military members’ contributions. So far this year, 40 percent of military money has gone to Democrats for Congress and president.” Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) have received the most military donations of all the candidates in the 2008 field. (H/T Andrew Sullivan).

“[U]sing a couple of black vehicles, motorbikes, and a Canadian flag,” an Australian comedy group made their way passed heavy security into this week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “They got through two checkpoints and within 30 feet of the president’s hotel. … The 11 ‘TV people’ arrested were using fake credentials which contained the name of the show, and had the word ‘joke’ next to the APEC logo.” In fact, one of them “was dressed as Osama Bin Laden.”

For months, President Bush has said he would wait for the upcoming progress report on the “surge” in Iraq before deciding on future action:

[B]y respecting the command structure, I’m going to wait for David to come back — David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees. And then we’ll use that data, that — his report to work with the rest of the military chain of command, and members of Congress, to make another decision, if need be.

Yet, it now appears the White House has already made its decision on Iraq in advance of the report.

In an interview with the USA Today editorial board published today, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten was asked whether there will be a substantial commitment of U.S. troops in Iraq at the beginning of 2009. Bolten replied, “it partly depends on the, on your definition of ’substantial.” Bolten went on to say that, “I don’t think that any realistic observer thinks that by the time the president leaves office in 2009 it’ll be possible — safely — to get all or even most of the American troop presence out.”

Bolten is misleading on both counts. Time and again, the White House has repeatedly hinted at their intent to “draw down troops from Iraq,” only to instead maintain or increase the number of forces there.

Moreover, many “realistic observers” do believe it is possible “to get all or even most of the American troop presence out.” A new report authored by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb and other military analysts at the Center for American Progress demonstrates that an “orderly and safe withdrawal is best achieved over a 10- to 12-month period.”

Bolten has it backwards: withdrawing from Iraq by 2009 would be safe; it’s continuing to follow the misguided policies of the Bush White House that would be truly dangerous.

Former vice president Al Gore says “odds are that I will” endorse a presidential candidate in 2008, noting that “some have made private visits to Nashville.”

When President Bush returns from this week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Sydney, Australia, he is expected to announce his choice to replace disgraced former attorney general Alberto Gonzales. Many media accounts describe Acting Attorney General Paul Clement as a leading candidate, and several experts believe that, in fact, “the president plans to leave in Clement indefinitely.”

Clement is a former member of the far right-wing Federalist Society, and is “a movement conservative across the board…[a] true believer on the issues that drive the Bush administration.” Moreover, Clement lied to the Supreme Court about the Bush administration’s torture policies mere hours before the exposure of abuse at Abu Ghraib:

When Clement appeared before the Supreme Court on behalf of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the Jose Padilla case on April 28, 2004, skeptical justices asked him about the risk that a detainee like Padilla might be abused while in custody. Clement’s response: “Where the government is on a war footing … you have to trust the executive to make the kind of quintessential military judgments that are involved in things like that.” When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that some governments engage in “mild torture” to obtain information from detainees, Clement shot back: “Well, our executive doesn’t.”

Eight hours later, CBS News aired the first photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Yet, most major media outlets have ignored Clement’s record, instead touting him as “completely a straight shooter” who is a “just-the-facts, just-the-law kind of guy.” Even pundits that typically are more progressive refer to Clement as the “last honest, well-respected guy inside the Justice Department,” and describe his arguments before the Supreme Court as “a thing of geeky beauty.”

Clement, like Chief Justice John Roberts, is using his “skill at relationships” to convince progressives that he “has not defined his life driven by his politics or driven by his ideology.” As Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice notes, “[W]hen you have a John Roberts, a Paul Clement, who is at least willing to engage in a conversation and is respectful of both sides of an argument, lawyers tend to be taken in.”

Roberts “has made the [Supreme Court] an arm of the Republican Party.” Under Clement, the Department of Justice will be more of the same.

In June 2005, ThinkProgress noted the Bush was constantly revising the definition of our “mission” in Iraq.

Reporting on his escalation strategy this week, President Bush claimed “satisfactory” progress in many areas of the “new mission” in Iraq. Bush has changed the definition of our “mission” in Iraq so many times, he has made it impossible for the American public, U.S. forces, and the Iraqi population to have any confidence that the mission will be ever completed.

THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD

Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]

AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED

Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]

Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE

Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” [5/3/03]

BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN

Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ

Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]

Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.” [5/4/04]

AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS

Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]

Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves. And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]

THEN IT SHIFTED TO ADVANCING DEMOCRACY

Bush: “We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. … Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation — and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans.” [11/30/05]

AND PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS

Bush: “In the coming days, there will be considerable reflection on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and our remaining mission in Iraq…By helping the Iraqi people build a free and representative government, we will deny the terrorists a safe haven to plan attacks against America.” [3/11/06]

Bush: “We will finish the mission. By defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we will bring greater security to our own country. And when victory is achieved, our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” [3/18/06]

THEN THE MISSION WAS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE IRAQI POPULATION

Bush: “In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.” [1/13/07]

Bush: “[I]t’s the combination of providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training that is the current mission we’re going through, with a heavy emphasis on security in Baghdad.” [4/10/07]

AND NOW?

Bush: “It’s a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation — to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war.” [6/28/07]