The convergence between McCain and the Obama administration on so many of these issues was quite remarkable. For all the quibbles about timing and execution, McCain and Obama both seem to see the Arab spring in much the same way. They see the opportunities for the United States in the empowerment of Arab publics and the spread of democracy, and the inevitability of change. They saw the importance of intervening in Libya at a time of potential disaster, and they both recognize that every country is different. And while McCain continues to bemoan the failure to back Iran’s Green Movement in the summer of 2009 as “the greatest mistake of the 21st century” (I might have gone with the invasion of Iraq), McCain openly warns against a military intervention in Syria.

I only wish that I had the gumption to have asked him whether that meant that he now stood with Obama against the hyper-interventionist, neo-isolationist, or Islam-bashing attacks by the current crop of GOP presidential contenders … including, perhaps, even a certain former vice presidential nominee.

Lynch concedes that he should’ve challenged McCain on some of his party’s more insistent bombthrowers’ positions. But the senator had ample opportunity to call them out, and didn’t. Still, he demonstrated solidarity with his commander-in-chief while leaving just enough daylight between himself and the White House to tease out the faintest trace of ideological difference. In other words, he behaved like a mature realist—one who understands his caucus’ fierce volatility, and the extreme retribution it could exact if he chose to play the scold. Even when you’re decidedly not playing politics,  you’re playing politics.

Headley is also showering another security entity with some unwanted attention: the DEA, which employed Headley as an informant for a number of years. From The New York Times:

One of Mr. Rana’s lawyers, Charles Swift, began cross-examining Mr. Headley on Wednesday, and his relationship with the D.E.A. was one of the first areas explored. Mr. Headley said that he had traveled to Pakistan for the agency in 1999, and continued working with it until September 2002, months after he had begun training with Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Mr. Swift asked Mr. Headley about a 2001 episode in which his former wife warned the Federal Bureau of Investigation that she believed he was plotting with terrorists. Mr. Headley said he told the investigators that he was mixing with extremists as part of a government assignment.

“I had instructions from the D.E.A. to visit those mosques,” Mr. Headley said.

“So you told the government not to worry because you were working for them, right?” Mr. Swift asked.

Mr. Headley replied, “Yes.”

If Headley really was supposed to infiltrate extremist groups on behalf of the DEA, it makes sense that the FBI woudn’t have investigated what he was up to. Still, the revelation that he spent months working as a double agent dredges up ugly, painful memories of the December 2009 murder of seven Afghanistan-stationed CIA agents by Jordanian double agent Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal Al-Balawi—a man who, it turned out, the United States had already had already identified as a serious threat. Among US security and intelligence agenices, gaping lapses in vetting appear to be the unsettling norm.

A senior Iranian lawmaker says the country will soon launch an English-language news agency to report on human rights conditions in the West.

Member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Parliament (Majlis), Mohammad Karim Abedi, told Fars News Agency on Monday that the new news agency would seek to assert human rights in the US and Britain.

Called The Human Rights News Agency, Abedi said that the new agency would report on instances of rights violation in Europe and the US. He said such abuses have gone unnoticed over the years by the world media.

Thanks to its focus on the West, the news agency can conveniently ignore the situation back home. Say, for instance, the Ahmadinejad regime’s stifling censorship of the press, its penchant for juvenile executions, and its bloody crackdowns on political dissidents and religious minorities.

— Originally posted at Mother Jones

Mr. Pawlenty’s backers include Bob Perry, the Texas home builder who gave more money than any GOP donor to conservative groups like American Crossroads, which spent heavily in the 2010 election, and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which was active in the 2004 campaign. In 2008, Mr. Perry supported Mr. Romney.

Ray Washburne, a Texas real-estate developer and restaurateur who raised money for former President George W. Bush, is backing Mr. Pawlenty because “he’s got a great story to tell.”

The Pawlenty campaign held its biggest fund-raiser to date in Dallas on on Tuesday at the home of Tom Hicks, the private-equity and sports investor, who once owned the Texas Rangers baseball team. Co-hosts included heirs to the H.L. Hunt oil fortune, Dean Foods Chief Executive Gregg Engles, billionaire buyout investor Harold Simmons and Excel Communications founder Kenny Troutt.

Bill Strong, the Morgan Stanley executive who leads Mr. Pawlenty’s fund-raising efforts, was slated to host an event in Chicago on Thursday that was expected to haul in more money than the Dallas event. The campaign expects to raise $800,000 at the Dallas and Chicago events combined, according to someone familiar with Mr. Pawlenty’s fund-raising.

This is good news for Pawlenty, who’s still contending with yawning enthusiasm and recognition gaps among Republican voters. Even better news? A number of the Pawlenty’s early donors—including Perry, Engles, Simmons, Strong—contributed to Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2008. That’s not to say they’re committed to Pawlenty for the long haul, but it certainly must be encouraging for T-Paw’s camp.

The bad news? Romney spent more than any other GOP primary candidate in 2008, and appears to be well on his way to matching that pace in 2012 (RomneyCare problems, notwithstanding): at fundraisers this week, his fundraisers snagged $1 million in contributions, the Journal reports. Even if he loses a few donors to Pawlenty, chances are he’ll be able to make up for it.

With Haley Barbour sitting out the 2012 race and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels still undecided, the bundlers are still there for the taking. So despite his recent good fortune, Pawlenty’s got to keep bringing in the bacon.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said Huntsman would “absolutely” make for an acceptable Republican nominee.

“I consider it a compliment for anybody to be selected to be ambassador to China,” Wilson said. “So I think that enhances his credentials — he was sent to represent the people of the United States.”

If a hardliner like Joe ”You Lie” Wilson is giving Huntsman a serious look, that’s a sign the former Utah governor could find more friendly faces on Capitol Hill over the next few weeks. Wilson is attending this weekend’s graduation ceremonies at the University of South Carolina, where Huntsman will deliver the commencement address. He’ll also meet with two of the GOP’s rising stars, Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Gov. Nikki Haley (R), on his swing through South Carolina.

Keep an eye on the Palmetto state this weekend. In the wake of last night’s lukewarm GOP B-team debate in Greenville—where this little nugget could end up being the biggest news—now could be an ideal time for Huntsman to announce his arrival. The reality is that he has near-zero name recognition nationally, and his South Carolina visit offers him a big opportunity to drum up support in a key GOP battleground. Plaudits from rising party stars like Haley and Scott could give him the early shot in the arm he’ll need to stand a chance against heavy hitters like Mitt Romney.

Not long after Mother Jones reported on Monitor’s Libya project, questions arose about whether the firm had taken the proper steps to register as a lobbyist for Libya with the Justice Department. Offering advice on economic or governing reform without registering isn’t illegal. But the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) stipulates that groups like Monitor must register if they’re planning on conducting “acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal”—which, as we reported, is primarily what Monitor’s Libya project was all about. As we wrote back in March, Monitor decided to conduct an internal investigation into whether it had violated FARA, initially led by Eamonn Kelly, a senior partner at the firm. Later, the company brought in outside lawyers from the firm of Covington & Burling to finish the job.

The lawyers’ conclusion: yes, Monitor most certainly did break FARA law. Today, the company announced that it is retroactively registering some of its past work in Libya, as well as its more recent work with Jordan. And on Tuesday, Monitor CEO Mark Fuller, who played a key role in the Libya project, resigned. Monitor also issued a press release on the findings of its internal investigation:

These decisions reflect a thorough fact-finding and legal investigation initiated by Monitor after issues concerning its work in Libya were raised earlier this year. The investigation, conducted by the law firm of Covington & Burling, included a review of Monitor engagements with foreign governments. That review concluded that some elements of Monitor’s work in Libya from 2006 through 2008 should have been registered under FARA. It also became apparent that a more recent item of work on behalf of the Kingdom of Jordan should have been registered. Monitor will now take all appropriate measures to remediate these errors.

The Boston Globe reports that Monitor is also likely to release details on how much it paid its academics, including British academic Sir Anthony Giddens. How did Monitor mess this up so bad? From the Globe:

[Eamonn] Kelly said the failure to register was due to a misunderstanding about legal requirements. But others said it reflects a deeper problem: The company was not transparent about the fact that it was engaged in a calculated effort to burnish Khadafy’s reputation, even to professors recruited in the effort.

“If I had known that a primary purpose of the visit to Libya was to influence public opinion in the United States, I would not have gone,” Robert Putnam, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, said in a telephone interview yesterday. Other professors said they did not feel misled.

Whether the DOJ actually brings charges against Fuller, et. al, remains to be seen. But given the intellectual firepower and general worldliness of the people involved in its project, Monitor’s excuse—”We didn’t know, sorry”—is less than satisfying. Hopefully, the DOJ feels the same way.

As we reported, Barton’s enduring popularity among the evangelical community is the secret sauce that endears him to the Republican Party’s heavy hitters, including possible presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann. But Barton’s message (among other things, he has said that Jesus would oppose the capital gains tax and the minimum wage; that global warming is “self-correcting”; and that the nation’s homeland security apparatus has been infiltrated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood) is built on a foundation of distortions. Barton is not a student of history, but a manipulator of it.

But today’s front page story on Barton by Erick Eckholm in The New York Times almost makes it sound like there’s a legitimate debate over his view of history. Eckholm makes only fleeting mention of the fact that Barton has zero formal training in history, referring to him only as “self-taught,” and his “research” as merely “disputed” and considered “flawed” by historians.

In lieu of any careful examination of Barton’s record are laudatory passages about Barton’s drive. “Keeping an exhaustive schedule, he is also immersed in the nuts and bolts of politics and maintains a network of 700 anti-abortion state legislators,” Eckholm writes. And there’s this:

It is hard to know when Mr. Barton finds the time to pore over documents and write, let alone ride the horses he keeps on a small ranch. Beyond his hundreds of speeches, he tapes a daily radio program, manages a staff of 25 and keeps in touch with his national network.

“He doesn’t sleep much,” said his wife, Cheryl, who stayed near through an interview and helped him recall key dates in his improbable career.

Meanwhile, Barton’s no spring chicken in the conservative crackpot coop; he’s a formidable political player, the man picked by George W. Bush to sell his message to pastors around the country in 2004. Eckholm notes some of this history, but fails to explore how, as Barton’s political influence has deepened, he has increasingly distorted history (and the bible) to fit GOP talking points.

If The New York Times isn’t going to take Barton to task, at least Jon Stewart is. Barton appeared on the show last night. Watch a clip below:

And check out Right Wing Watch’s point-by-point take down of the arguments Barton made last night.

According to its new report to the president, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)—the federal agency that provides oversight of the government’s security classification system—puts the cost of classification for 2010 at over $10.17 billion. That’s a 15 percent jump from the previous year, and the first time ever that secrecy costs have surpassed $10 billion. Last month, ISOO reported that the number of original classification decisions generated by the Obama administration in 2010 was 224,734—a 22.6 percent jump from the previous year.

The price tag of government secrecy is actually higher than the ISOO report suggests. The agency reviews the classification of 41 agencies—but not the CIA or the National Security Agency, among other agencies, whose classification is itself classified. The Federation of American Scientists’ Steve Aftergood asked two security officials what damage to national security would result from releasing security cost estimates for the agencies in question. Their answer: that classifying that information “was consistent with intelligence community guidance.” In other words: because we said so.

Aftergood points out that there’s a plan for reforming the classification process, waiting in the wings to the implemented. But the White House has dragged its feet, and it remains in policy purgatory.

The object of this high praise from Huckabee—and recent shout-outs from other potential GOP presidential contenders—is David Barton, a Republican activist and minister who founded WallBuilders, a for-profit evangelical outfit that works to inject religion into politics. Barton holds some pretty unconventional views, and in the past he has spoken alongside fringe figures like Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. Among other things, he claims that Jesus would oppose the capital gains tax and the minimum wage; that global warming is “self-correcting”; and that the nation’s homeland security apparatus has been infiltrated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. He also contends that the separation of church and state is a perversion of the Founding Fathers’ intention to create a Christian nation.

Barton is just the latest in a long, loud tradition of charismatic evangelicals capable of commanding legions of fundamentalist Christians, stretching from Billy Graham to Jerry Falwell to James Dobson. But unlike other evangelical leaders, Barton’s focus is on history—or his own unique version of it.

So why are some of the GOP’s top presidential contenders—along with a host of other Republican notables—touting Barton? Probably because of the undeniable appeal he holds for the evangelical community—a vital voting bloc for the Republican Party.

“The dance these candidates have to perform is somewhat delicate,” says Rob Boston, a senior policy analyst at Americans United for Separation of Church and State who’s tracked Barton for years. “They want to get the base fired up during primary season.”

At the American Family Association’s Rediscover God in America conference last month, Huckabee sang Barton’s praises. “I just wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage, and understand something about who we really are as a nation,” Huckabee said. “I almost wish that there would be…a simultaneous telecast, and all Americans would be forced—forced at gunpoint, no less—to listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it.” Gingrich recently said he “never listen[s] to David Barton without learning a whole lot of new things. It’s amazing how much he knows and how consistently he applies that knowledge.”

Barton concocts his arguments about American history from highly selective, professionally debunked readings of founding documents—some 100,000 of which he’s ferreted away in a vault in WallBuilders’ Aledo, Texas, headquarters. His life’s mission is to restore what he regards as the broken relationship between church and state. Through WallBuilders, Barton publishes books and finances a virtually nonstop speaking tour that, over the past two decades, has turned him into a superstar of the religious right.

Barton promotes the idea of a “stolen legacy”: that the Christian history that birthed the United States and nurtured its national consciousness has been deliberately obscured by liberals. America’s religious history, according to Barton, has been covered up through a concerted movement to deny the facts. It’s a “a very powerful, validating force for people in the religious Right…’We are the real inheritors of this nation,’” Boston says.

For years, Barton’s most extreme arguments—like how science always confirms the word of the Bible (explaining why global warming and embryonic stem cell research are hokum) or how the story of the Tower of Babel proves that God hates socialism—were confined to Christian talk shows and his national speaking circuit. In 2009, the Christian Broadcasting Network hosted Barton for a two-week, 10-part special on the program Gospel Truth with Andrew Wommack to explain why Christians should control every aspect of American society. He spent some time laying out God’s case against socialism: “Bureaucracy treats everybody like they’re a brick. And that’s the problem with socialism, is you’re a brick, when you need to be a living stone that’s unique, like a snowflake, like a DNA cell, like an iris in an eye; every one of them is different. And that’s what got God ticked off.” This is typical Barton: encoding a conventional conservative talking point in evangispeak, distorting the Bible to justify the Republican Party’s agenda.

Barton’s ascension into the conservative upper crust has been gradual. In 2004, he led the Republican National Committee’s outreach to members of the clergy nationwide. According to Chris Rodda, senior research director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and a longtime Barton-watcher, his method is to indoctrinate the clergy, who go back to their congregations to organize voter registration drives. “They need to convince these Christians that Barton’s version of history is true, so that they feel the right-wing agenda is justified by history,” she explains. Barton, she says, continues to do this outreach work.

But now, thanks to Glenn Beck and Huckabee—both of whom have hosted Barton on their shows on the Fox News Channel—he’s been catapulted from the megachurch speaking circuit to the mainstream. Gingrich certainly took notice. In 2009, the possible presidential contender and born-again Catholic spoke at a number of Barton’s clergy powwows. (As he tests the presidential waters, Gingrich has also courted another controversial evangelical leader from Texas, John Hagee.)

Michele Bachmann’s relationship with Barton dates back to her time in Minnesota’s state senate, when she enlisted his help in drafting a bill requiring public schools to include alternative explanations for the origin of life as part of the state’s public school science curricula. (The bill had four cosponsors, but died in committee.) And last November, she announced plans to hold “Constitution classes” for new lawmakers to keep them from being “co-opted into the Washington system”—and she invited Barton to teach.

Bachmann is also a big supporter of Barton’s “Spiritual Heritage” tours of the US Capitol, aimed at educating new lawmakers on “the foundational role God has played throughout American history.” (Watch a promotional video for the tours below.) Reps. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) and Pennsylvania’s Joe Pitts (the author of a recent controversial anti-abortion measure) are among the lawmakers who have taken part in Barton’s tours.

Such events have only widened Barton’s sphere of influence in Washington. “As politicians have adopted him, cozied up to him, he seems to be speculating even more widely now on even more GOP talking points,” says Ryan Valentine, a deputy director at the Texas Freedom Network, a grassroots watchdog organization that keeps an eye on the religious right. “His lack of expertise in an area does not slow him down.”

But he’s not a big fan of defending his views. Last month, Barton ducked out of an invitation to debate a blogger who has been calling him out in recent weeks. And he didn’t respond to an interview request from Mother Jones.

R.T. Rybak sure doesn’t think it will. Rybak’s the Democratic mayor of Minneapolis, and was in office during the Pawlenty years. On a conference call with reporters yesterday, Rybak slammed Pawlenty’s self-engineered reputation as tax slashing, job-creating governor. According to Rybak, Pawlenty’s claim that he never raised taxes on Minnesotans just isn’t true. Among other things, he pointed to Pawlenty’s cuts to local government aid—to the tune of $2.7 billion—that forced mayors across the state to gut health and human services programs and hike property taxes. As a result of Pawlenty’s cuts, property taxes across the state went up 65 percent. “If the tea party really knew how much Tim Pawlenty raised taxes in Minnesota, they would throw him in Boston Harbor,” Rybak said.

Pawlenty shrugs off any responsibility for those tax increases, but he could have a tougher time explaining away his decision to accept federal stimulus dollars, and the “health impact fee”—a tax—on cigarettes he signed into law in 2005. In the end, taxes went up for 90 percent of Minnesotans under Pawlenty. His economic strategy, Rybak said, was simple: “If you lower taxes on the highest earners, and you gave targeted tax breaks to a few lucky companies, it would create more jobs… If the tea party wants taxes to go down, they’ve got the wrong guy.”

Even Pawlenty’s own recently hired pollster, Jon Lerner, acknowledged some unspecified “bad marks” on his record, perhaps referring to the $5 billion budget deficit Pawlenty left behind.

So will the tea party buy what Pawlenty’s selling? He better hope so. With few legislative accomplishments to flaunt and a still-forming national profile, Pawlenty could use a strong showing today in Mitt Romney’s backyard.