More Behind the Larry Craig Arrest?

I had a comment this morning from Jen Clark on The Monster that won't die that I thought was worth talking about. She posts that there could be more to the Larry Craig scandal than meets the eye, that he was actually busted since he opposed Bush's eavsedropping. Now I have to be honest before this story broke, I had never heard of Larry Craig nor do I know the first thing about his positions, other than being portrayed in the main stream media (post scandal) as supporter of family rights (read anti-gay).

Jen is stating that there could be a conspiracy between the Bush administration and/or high ranking republicans and the arrest of Larry Craig. Now normally, I would say most conspiracy theories are complete garbage and utter hogwash, but what she is saying makes a fair bit of sense. Here it is and decide for yourself.

The other day, Arlen Specter (an old-school Republican who's still in the Senate) spoke publicly in defense of Larry Craig (the guy that got caught looking to get freaky in an airport men's room).

This is puzzling, being that it's political suicide. Arlen Specter has been around forever (he served on the Warren Commission, for God's sake) and wouldn't get in the middle of this sex scandal unless he had a damn good political reason. So what could that reason be? What is the connection between Arlen Specter and Larry Craig?

I am not sure it is political suicide for Arlen Specter to say Craig got railroaded. I do think Specter, a former prosecutor from Pennsylvania was probably looking at the case and said it looks kind of flimsy. I always believed it was a flimsy case, in my opinion was the Larry Craig plead guilty very quickly in an effort to sweep it under the rug and leave it in Minnesota. Somehow I doubt Craig ever expected to get called out, as it were, by Roll Call.

I'm pretty sure it all comes back to eavesdropping (paging Richard Nixon).

Arlen Specter is pissed about the NSA spying program, which allows a wide range of phone calls to be tapped by the Bush administration with no oversight. Another person who has been openly against this program, it turns out, is Larry Craig (go figure that bathroom boy wants to keep his personal life private). Specter wants to challenge the Bush administration on the spying program and is going to need all the votes that he can get, especially from the Republicans. The resignation of Larry Craig, because of this gay sex scandal, takes one of those Senate votes away. Score one for Bush.

Bush would also score in another way by releasing this story about Craig: it scares the other hypocritical Republican in-the-closet gay Senators into submission (because the guy who outed Craig is quite certain there are more). It's a "vote my way or I'll Larry Craig your ass" type of thing.

In this regard, the timing of Craig's outing works well for the Bush administration (keep in mind that Larry Craig was arrested three months ago, but this information is just coming out now). In the next few weeks Bush wants $50 billion more approved for the war, Bush's NSA spying program is going to be revisited, and Bush needs his next Attorney General to be approved. He's going to need his Republican Senator's votes for all of these tasks.

(As a side note, the timing of Craig's outing (the day after Alberto Gonzales resigned) also served to bury the news coverage of Gonzales' resignation. With a new sex scandal to cover, the media didn't look too deeply into why the Attorney General had to go.)

This isn't just a crazy conspiracy theory. There is a lot of speculation in Washington DC that Craig was set up, and the circumstances around his arrest (undercover cop working to bust gay guys in an airport) does raise questions. There is also the revelation that George W. Bush has referred to Larry Craig as "a God damned traitor" and that Bush had instructed the National Republican Senatorial Committee as early as December 2005 to look for someone to run against Larry Craig in 2008. Would it really be that surprising to find out that the Bush administration ate one of their own, especially one that Bush considered a "traitor" who needed to be replaced in the Senate?

Larry Craig himself said he was "railroaded" on the message he left for his lawyer on the wrong answering machine. Arlen Specter is willing to put is ass on the line for this. Craig even took back his resignation.

And no one has been pointing fingers at the Democrats. If they're not pointing at the Democrats as the railroaders, who else could it be?

It's all speculation, of course, but it makes sense. Your thoughts?

It certainly seems reasonable that this initiative was not driven by the Democrats, because every republican would be crawling under from underneath their rock, claiming this is 100% political and slinging as much mud as they can on the opposing party. (Don't get me wrong, I believe all politicians are slime, so I am not singling out just the GOP)

If any of the these revelations or conspiracies ultimately prove to be true, then I think, other than the hypocrisy of being in the closet, this case and the entire career of Larry Craig might require another review. It does not seem inconceivable to believe that the Bush supporters might go as far as setting up a sitting US Senator in order to defend and/or extend his policies. The cynic in me says this is just too ripe and reasonable to just walk away from.

I also agree that this is very Nixonian in the potential depth. But then again when you look at the architects of the Bush White House, there are some very direct lines from 1974.

It is possible that this is nothing more than a guy who caught with his proverbial pants down, but there is enough circumstantial evidence to imply otherwise. Someone smarter than me, with more contacts needs to investigate the issues here in an effort to uncover the truth. I realize in these political charged times, the truth does not always matter or amount to a hill of beans, but when we are dealing with illegal and unconstitutional activities then it is the right and responsibilities of the citizens to demand the truth. Most times, an investigation uncovers nothing nefarious, but sometimes it is more.and it takes someone to put the pieces together and solve the puzzle. Whether it is following the money, like Woodward and Bernstein did 33 years ago or following the email now someone needs to take the time and find out the truth. Is that too much to ask?