Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) insisted on Sunday that, had it not been for the Bush administration's failure to catch Osama bin Laden in 2001, there likely would be no debate about sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Addressing a new Senate Foreign Relations Committee report claiming bin Laden was nearly captured by U.S. forces at Tora Bora, Levin argued that had the capture taken place, "there would be a good chance we would not have forces or need to have forces [in Afghanistan]."

"This has been kind of well known for some time," Levin added. "We took our eye off the ball instead of moving in on him at Tora Bora, the previous administration decided to move its forces to Iraq. It was a mistake then. I think this report of the Foreign Relations committee just sort of reinforces that."

Released on Sunday, the SFRC report [pdf] provides a harsh indictment of the Bush administration's actions in the early stages of the search for bin Laden.

"Removing the Al Qaeda leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," reads the executive summary. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics world-wide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan. Al Qaeda shifted its locus across the border into Pakistan, where it has trained extremists linked to numerous plots, including the July 2005 transit bombings in London and two recent aborted attacks involving people living in the United States. The terrorist group's resurgence in Pakistan has coincided with the rising violence orchestrated in Afghanistan by the Taliban, whose leaders also escaped only to re-emerge to direct today's increasingly lethal Afghan insurgency."

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Levin also stressed that any increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan had to be accompanied by an equal commitment within the country to bolster its own security.

"I think there's greater question on why the additional troops would help increase the size of the Afghan army," Levin said. "When I was in Afghanistan, I was told that the greatest need in Afghanistan is for more Afghan troops."

"I favor additional trainers, I favor a surge in equipment," the Michigan Democrat added, "but the key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge."

Two former advisers to George W. Bush had a spirited debate on Sunday morning over the possibility of a surtax to pay for a troop escalation in Afghanistan.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Dan Senor, a neoconservative war hawk who served as Bush's spokesman in Iraq, called proposals for taxing the rich to pay for the war a backdoor effort to derail any surge in forces. He was opposed by another Bush hand, former communications honcho Matthew Dowd -- a GOP traditionalist -- who said it was unfair to have an increase in troops without a shared social sacrifice.

The whole exchange is worthwhile, but the below portion was particularly illuminating:

SENOR: Let's be honest about what this is about. It's about a campaign against President Obama's troops surge. It's not really about paying for it. It's about arguing against it.

GEORGE WILL: And there's going to be no surtax. We all agree on that. So everyone, relax.

DOWD: I agree with you. There is not going to be a tax. But I think this goes to a fundamental value that I think we lost, which is that we can get things for nothing. That we can go to war and not have to pay for it either by cutting the budget or doing something else. We have a war; we don't have a draft. All of these sorts of things, that we think, 'Oh, by way, we can go fight the most important war in the history of our country, but we're not going to have a draft, we're not going to pay for it, we're not going to do anything that causes anybody to sacrifice.'

SENOR: If [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [House Appropriations Committee Chairman David] Obey were being intellectually honest about this they would wage a war against the President's surge policy Wednesday morning. As opposed to doing this via some proposed surtax.

[Snip]

DOWD: David Obey's idea I think underlines the problem that we don't ask people -- when we say these things are important -- we don't ask the country to come together for them.

Coming days before President Obama is set to announce an increase in roughly 30,000 to 35,000 troops in Afghanistan, the debate between Senor and Dowd provides a window into the Republican Party's internal divisions. While Democratic opposition to a troop escalation is well known, the disagreement inside the GOP seems to be primarily along the margins. Elsewhere on Sunday, for example, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued that it was a "sham" to insist that Congress had to be cautious and concerned about the costs of the Afghan war. But on another show, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) -- the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- acknowledged the need to consider "the capacity of our country to finance this particular situation."

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean urged progressives on Sunday to have patience with President Barack Obama, predicting that the White House would pass comprehensive health care legislation and touting stimulus package successes.

The former Vermont Governor, a respected progressive voice himself, told Fox News Sunday that he thought Obama was "going to do fine" and would "get re-elected" in 2012.

"But I think we'll have a tough election in 2010 unless we can start dealing with the job situation," Dean added.

"He's not in big trouble with his own base," the former DNC Chair said. "I think we need to give him time. If we are successful -- and I do think there's a better chance than not that we'll pass a decent health care bill at the end of the day. It's just a frustrating time right now. I think he needs some time and he'll have that time and we'll pass a decent health care bill that really is going to start reform... Jobs are the biggest concern right now. I will say this -- the stimulus package, which has come under Republican attack, has been unbelievably successful in saving jobs. Hundreds of thousands of teachers and police officers would have been laid off by the states. Now we have a big problem coming up. That money is going to be spent halfway through the next fiscal year and states are really going to be on the hook. These huge drops in state revenue as we go through this recession. But I'm more optimistic in that I think small businesses will be helped enormously by health care reform, small businesses with payrolls less than half a million dollars don't have to buy health insurance anymore for their employees. That's a big step forward."

Dean's positive take on the Obama presidency was echoed to some extent by his co-panelist, Fox News host Mike Huckabee. While the former Arkansas Governor scoffed at the idea that the stimulus had been, in any way, a success, he did caution fellow Republicans not to buy into the narrative that the president was in some sort of political malaise.

"The Republican Party needs to unite if it's going to win in 2012, and anyone who thinks Barack Obama is an easy mark off, just remember Bill Clinton was just labeled politically dead and came back to win a resounding re-election in 1996," said Huckabee.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair came to President Barack Obama's defense on Sunday after a scathing New York Times editorial accused the White House of losing legitimacy and strategic standing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," Blair urged, above all, patience in resolving a problem that has confounded so many previous administrations. noting, also, how long it took to resolve the discord in Northern Ireland. More subtly, he contrasted Obama's commitment to the issue to that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, arguing the importance of setting a "strategic objective" for the region at the onset of the administration.

Asked if he agreed with the NYT editorial, which claimed that "Obama's own credibility [on Israel-Palestine] is so diminished... that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever," Blair replied:

I don't, actually. I mean, it won't surprise you to know. I think that, first of all, let me tell you that I have worked with Senator George Mitchell on the Northern Ireland peace negotiations. We work together very closely. He is, in my view, one of the most skilled and strategic negotiators I've ever come across. Secondly, I think President Obama, Secretary Clinton are completely committed to doing this. But third and perhaps most important of all, I went through situations in times in the Northern Ireland process where people were convinced the thing was going to fail. Where even at times, I found it difficult to see a way through. But you know, the thing is, there is a way through here. Because in fact both parties want to achieve a two-state solution.

Actually, the Palestinians have made significant progress on security. in fact, the Israelis are prepared, in my view, to change significantly their posture on the West Bank. And if we can get [captured Israeli soldier] Corporal Shalit released, than a major change in the way that we view Gaza. It's not without hope. And here's the thing... There is no alternative but to keep trying. The alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution and that will, I assure you, be a hell of a fight. So I think when we look at the various strands of negativity there are around at the moment and there always are in these negotiations, there are, nonetheless, positives. We've got to seize on them, work on them, and make sure that we bring about a situation in which the central strategic objective of President Obama, which is right at the outset of his administration, to make this process count and work is achieved.

And I do emphasize that as well. The president set this at the beginning. This is, to my mind, the big difference from what has come before. At the very beginning of this administration, he set that as a core strategic objective. I have absolutely no doubt he holds to that and whatever the difficulties and the obstacles; we have to find a way through. And personally, although as I say I am optimist by nature, I believe we will.

HERE'S VIDEO OF BLAIR ON CNN:

One of President Barack Obama's closest Republican allies in the Senate urged him to put health care reform on the backburner and focus on Afghanistan.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a trusted GOP voice on foreign policy matters, told CNN's "State of the Union" that in light of a forthcoming increase in troops to Afghanistan, Democrats should turn their attention to matters of war and money.

"[W]e're not going to do that debating health care and the Senate for three weeks through all sorts of strategies and so forth," said the Indiana Republican. "The war is terribly important. Jobs and our economy are terribly important. So this may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change and talk now about the essentials, the war and money."

The remark seemed to fit in well with an overarching Republican strategy of delaying health care reform talks. And Lugar received immediate pushback from his co-panelist, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

"Absolutely not," said the Rhode Island Democrat. "I think we're in the midst of probably the most significant debate and conclusion with legislation that we've ever had. And the health care debate is essential to our economic future. There are businesses and individuals each year pay more and more for health care, it's become unaffordable. We have to go ahead and conclude this debate. To stop now would be stopping on the edge, I think, of significant reform, which is so important for the country. And frankly, I think, it's ironic. Under the Bush administration, there was no serious debate about Afghanistan. That was relegated to the sidelines. There was no attempt to pay for it. And suddenly, now, that becomes a critical need that we put aside health care. I don't think so. I think we have to push forward."

The two panelists did find some common ground on the question of whether the escalation of war in Afghanistan needed to be fully and properly funded. Both suggested that raising taxes on the American public should, at the very least, be considered.

"I believe there will be a separate accounting," Lugar said. "I think we will have to pay for it. I would just make this suggestion: that in the three weeks of debate we still have ahead of us, we really ought to concentrate in Congress on the war, on the overall strategy of our country and the cost of it. And we ought to be on the budget, passing appropriation bills in a proper way. In the course of that, we may wish to break out that. We may wish to discuss higher taxes to pay for it."

With Additional Reporting By Julian Hattem

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean called on Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) to resign as chair of Senate Homeland Security Committee if he can't bring himself to oppose a Republican filibuster of health care reform legislation.

Appearing on "The Joe Scarborough Show" on WABC, Dean stressed that he had no problem with Lieberman opposing the bill on its philosophical merits, or lack thereof. But he insisted that it was irresponsible and unprincipled to not allow the legislation to come to an up-or-down vote.

"I think that [Lieberman] is a very complicated guy," said Dean. "He does [confuse me] because he says he's a principled guy but there's nothing principled about holding up a bill... If he was a principled guy he'd resign his chairmanship."

"If you are with a caucus you don't owe the leader any vote on any substance," Dean added. "I have no problem with him voting against the public option... You owe it to Harry Reid to allow him to run the Senate. And if you're not willing to do that the proper thing to do is to step aside."

Dean's remarks, which come after Lieberman renewed his pledge to filibuster health care reform that includes a public option, reflect an intense frustration among progressives over the ability of moderates to water down or stall legislation. They also suggest a growing demand for leadership to enforce institutional discipline and punish those who buck the party line. It was, after all, roughly one year ago that Dean applauded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and President-elect Obama for allowing Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanship and continue caucusing with the party.

Elsewhere in his Wednesday interview, the former DNC chairman urged the party to reconsider the use of reconciliation to pass aspects of reform. Such a parliamentary maneuver, he noted, would remove the "leverage" of the party's conservative members by allowing the bill an up-or-down vote.

"[Lieberman has] announced he's gong to be "stubborn" about this," said Dean, "and I think that means going to reconciliation. You can start it all over and that's going to take about six weeks, but there are a majority of senators who are not going to be in favor [a bill] without a public option."

The media is drastically overplaying former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's influence on the national political conversation, suggests a new study of the public's news-watching patterns.

The Pew Research Center released a public opinion survey on Wednesday showing that, of the recent news stories people followed most closely, the one-time vice presidential candidate and her book tour have garnered very little sustained interest.

Only two percent of respondents said that news of Palin and her new book, "Going Rogue," was the story they followed "most closely" this past week. Only ten percent said they were following it "very closely." Compare that to the 41 percent who said that the health care reform debate was their top story and 18 percent who said the same about the swine flu epidemic.

Pushing the point a bit further, Pew discovered that: "Most Americans (52%) say they have been hearing too much about Palin, while 26% say they have been hearing the right amount and 13% say they have been hearing too little about her. Far more say they are hearing too much about Palin now than in July, after her surprise resignation as Alaska's governor (38%)."

The findings reflect just how far apart the public and the press are when it comes to news coverage. Certainly there seems to be a greater appetite out there for substantive reporting on health care -- as well as less interest in wall-to-wall Palin coverage -- than conventional wisdom dictates.

That said, the numbers should be taken with some qualifiers. For starters, not all substantive news was of public interest. Only four percent of respondents said that President Obama's trip to Asia was their top story (though time differences may have had something to do with that).

Moreover, the findings are likely to be tilted by the fact that those surveyed may be more inclined to say they follow serious news rather than the tabloid-like material on Palin. Certainly, it has been widely documented that coverage of the conservative firebrand is doing wonders for the traffic of various news websites.

Six years ago, when then-President George W. Bush requested an additional $87 billion from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, several prominent Democrats called his bluff. If Bush wanted to continue funding the wars, he'd have to find a way to pay for it.

Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced a joint amendment to the emergency war supplemental in September 2003 that would have funded Bush's $87 billion request by suspending the high-end portion of the tax cuts he had enacted two years earlier.

The pair said it was smart politics and policy -- something to satisfy both deficit and war hawks alike. "We can either pass on to our grandchildren the cost of meeting our security needs, we can cut deeper into the services middle-class taxpayers count on or we can face our obligations squarely and pay for them," Biden said at the time.

"What this is about is called fundamental fairness," said Kerry. "Is it fair in America to suggest that you can add to the deficit -- which it will this year -- to suggest all of the figures of this administration, which have been wrong, can be wiped away on the backs of the average American so that the wealthiest people in the country can keep their tax cut? That is the question. It is a pretty simple fundamental question."

Six years later, the notion of levying a tax on the wealthiest Americans to pay for an escalation of troops in Afghanistan is once again being considered. And the list of supporters includes some prominent House Democrats: Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) and Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.). On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hinted she might join the chorus when she said there was growing "unrest" in the Democratic Caucus over whether the country could "afford this war."

There is no word yet as to whether the proposal has wider support in Congress. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has refused to comment on what it deems a hypothetical matter -- noting that the president has yet to announce a policy that reportedly includes a deployment of an additional 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan.

"I'm not going to get into how one funds a decision that's yet to be made," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Monday. "I don't doubt we'll have some time to do that."

Nevertheless, as the debate makes its way into the Senate and the White House, both Biden and Kerry find themselves in more powerful positions to affect the conversation than in 2003. Certainly, as vice president and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, their stance on a war surtax could go a long way towards determining its passage as well as providing another barometer of the Biden's influence within the administration.

Both offices declined comment for this article. But observers say that while there are parallels between 2003 and 2009, the politics are different.

"There is some relationship between the [then and now]," said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "But I don't think the Democrats then were wanting to stop the war then so much as they were eager to go after the Bush tax cuts. They were aiming to make a point as opposed to pass legislation. Which is what Obey is trying to do. No one expects his approach to win even if it gets a vote."

Of course, both Biden and Kerry came up short in 2003. With the GOP controlling Congress and Bush in the White House, their amendment was defeated 57 to 42. Weeks later, the Senate passed an emergency supplemental that was not deficit-neutral. Biden voted for the measure; Kerry, along with 10 other Democrats, was in opposition. During the 2004 election, the Massachusetts Democrat famously argued that he was for the bill (when it was paid for by repealing elements of the Bush tax cuts) before he was against it. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Despite mounting pressure to pass health care legislation through a parliamentary maneuver that would allow portions to be considered by an up-or-down vote, Democratic leadership in Congress insists that its best option remains regular order.

After several conservative Democrats in the Senate signaled their support for a Republican filibuster of reform that includes a public option for insurance coverage, a growing chorus of progressives called on Majority Leader Harry Reid to use reconciliation to get the provision passed.

The logic is simple: because the public option affects the budget it can be considered under reconciliation, which allows legislation to pass by a 51-vote majority.

The politics, however, are more complex. A Democratic Senate aide, speaking more candidly about strategy on condition of anonymity, said that the party still thinks its best shot to pass health care reform -- and, to a lesser extent, a public option -- remains through the use of normal parliamentary procedures.

For starters, leadership believes that more senators will be persuaded to vote for an entire health care package rather than individual bits and pieces. If Reid settles on the route of reconciliation, it would mean separating other aspects of reform, including caps on insurance premiums, the promotion of health and wellness and the elimination of pre-existing conditions as a reason for denying coverage.

"Right now the best thing we can do is to do everything at once, score everything at once, and build momentum for the bill," said the aide.

Maybe so. But such reasoning doesn't fly for advocates of reconciliation who argue that splitting up the health care bill actually makes political sense. The public option, after all, is the most hotly-contested part of the legislation. So an up-or-down vote may be the one avenue to ensure its passage. The private industry reforms, meanwhile, are largely non-controversial. So putting those provisions in a separate bill and passing them through regular order shouldn't be too difficult.

Again, however, aides insist that the devil is in the details. "The parliamentarian might tell us that, even if we have data on the public option being a budget utility, they might say we can't do it," warned the Senate Democratic aide. "Because you still have to create the exchange, you still have to have the force of law. And you may have to scale the public plan back for it to qualify."

There are other complications, added the aide. The House of Representatives, for instance, would have to go back to the drawing board after passing a full health care bill several weeks ago. And the concern on the Senate side of the aisle is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi could lose votes if she has to split up the legislation (though, if it meant ultimate passage, this seems unlikely).

The calendar presents another challenge. The White House has been pushing to get a bill to the president's desk before the new year. But reconciliation would likely push that time line back weeks, if not months, interfering with efforts to take up climate change and regulatory reform, running into the start of the 2010 campaign. "Where is the Senate floor time?" the aide asked.

Finally, the aide says, there is a question of votes. While leadership would have the flexibility to let ten Democratic senators vote against health care reform considered via reconciliation, there is enough parliamentary purism within the party to put its passage in doubt. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has repeatedly spoken out against the use of reconciliation. On Tuesday, meanwhile, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told MSNBC that his preference was for regular order. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), one of the party's foremost champions of progressive reform, has stated a similar preference. Though, an aide tells the Huffington Post, "he has not made any statements about how he would vote on the bill if that were the case."

Most important of all, Reid himself has said rather definitively that he is "not using reconciliation." And an aide says that leadership has not had conversations with the Senate parliamentarian "in a while" to discuss what it can and can't do through reconciliation.

And yet, for all the hurdles, the push for Reid to go down this path just won't die. Jane Hamsher, a progressive health care activist who runs the site, FireDogLake, has put heavy pressure on the Majority Leader in recent days, writing: "It comes down to a simple question: will Harry Reid allow for majority rule? Or will he let corrupt members of his own caucus block a majority of the public and Congress who want a public option?"

Meanwhile, in an interview on Monday with the Huffington Post, Howard Dean insisted that, with the public option debate at a veritable stalemate, the use of reconciliation "looks better every time."

"Someone has to say, at some point, we need to pass a bill," concluded the former DNC Chair.

The Louisiana Democratic Party, in a rather humorous and bold press release on Tuesday, called for Senator David Vitter (R-La.) to denounce conservatives who have called his fellow Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) a prostitute for her support of health care reform.

Vitter, of course, has his own sordid history with ladies of the night. So the chance to tie him to recent claims from the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh that Landrieu was whoring out her health care vote was just too inviting to pass up.

Landrieu was able to secure $100 million in federal Medicaid subsidies for her state, ostensibly in exchange for agreeing to allow health care legislation to come to the floor of the Senate. Glenn Beck called the senator a "high-class prostitute ... She may be easy, but she ain't cheap."

Rush Limbaugh echoed Beck's comment, calling Landrieu "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitutes."

The full press release:

Today, the Louisiana Democratic Party called on U.S. Senator David Vitter to publicly denounce comments from some conservative commentators referring to Louisiana's senior Senator as a "prostitute" for securing crucial federal funding needed to fill a gap in Louisiana's budget.

"David Vitter should immediately and publicly denounce the offensive accusations conservative commentators are making about our state's senior Senator," said Louisiana Democratic Party Communications Director Natalie Naquin Harvey.

As a looming budget crisis threatens to bankrupt Louisiana's state government, Senator Mary Landrieu announced Saturday from the Senate floor that she had secured $300 million in federal funding to help make up for shortfalls in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), a formula used to determine the federal government's share in providing medical care to the poor and uninsured. A temporary spike in per capita income following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could lead to a loss of $500 million in federal funding, according the Jindal Administration.

"David Vitter supported the FMAP fix, but it was Senator Landrieu who secured the much needed funds to help solve a looming budget crisis that threatens to bankrupt our state," Harvey said. "The least David Vitter can do is stand up for her when members of his own party call her a prostitute."

On his radio program yesterday, Glenn Beck referred to Senator Landrieu as a "high-class prostitute." "She may be easy, but she ain't cheap," Beck said.

Rush Limbaugh later echoed Beck's charge on his widely syndicated show, calling Louisiana's senior Senator "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitutes."

To date, Senator David Vitter has been silent on Beck and Limbaugh's outlandish and offensive insults of Senator Landrieu.

A controversial criminal defense lawyer from New York City, Scott L. Fenstermaker was thrust into the national spotlight on Monday after he announced that his client, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali -- one of the five September 11th suspects being brought to trial in federal court in New York -- would use his court case as a platform to express political views and religious beliefs.

The story, first reported by The New York Times was quickly held up by conservatives as confirmation of their fears about the Justice Department decision to bring terrorist suspects to civilian courts.

In conversations with the Huffington Post, however, several prominent national security lawyers cautioned that Fenstermaker's interpretation of his client's intentions may be, in part, his own wishful thinking. Indeed, Fenstermaker himself told the Huffington Post on Monday that he "would like" the trials "to become more of a forum for the war on terror," specifically including detention policies and torture.

But there is context to consider. For starters, Fenstermaker isn't actually representing Ali in his upcoming criminal trial -- rather, he is representing him in a wholly separate, habeas case being considered in federal court in Washington D.C. challenging the basis of the suspect's detention. Ali, the nephew of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, may try to turn his upcoming criminal trial into a referendum on American foreign policy, but it won't be with Fenstermaker at his side.

The New York City defense lawyer has long been a particularly zealous critic of the Bush administration -- and now Obama White House's -- policies on suspected terrorist detention and trial. His protests have usually been in the form of legal activism. In 2005, Fenstermaker filed lawsuit in the Southern District of New York challenging the legality of the use of military commissions to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It was ultimately dismissed. But "through this lawsuit," he said, "detainees found out about me and were appreciative."

But for all the vigor he brought to the cause, Fenstermaker faced practical limitations. In 2007, a federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a petition he filed on behalf of a group of detainees on grounds that he had not spoken with the suspects and wasn't "truly dedicated" to their interests. Fenstermaker appealed the ruling.

A year later, the Office of Military Commissions suspended from the Pool of Qualified Civilian Defense Counsel on grounds that his actions were "counterproductive to the mission" of the Office of the Chief Defense Counse, and that he had not been "forthright" about his representation of certain detainees.

An employee with an NGO working on national security issues, who had knowledge of the dismissal, explained that some of the top-notch defense lawyers who were representing 9/11 suspects at the time "were saying that Fenstermaker was causing a lot of trouble and was in no way qualified to be representing these guys but had managed to set up a relationship with these detainees."

Fenstermaker would ultimately challenge his suspension. In contemporaneous letters he provided to the Huffington Post, he argued that he had not seen evidence of his misconduct or a proper chance to defend himself.

In March 2009, the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel would lift the ban to allow Fenstermaker to act as the defense of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried on U.S. soil. But by June 2009, Judge Lewis Kaplan, who was overseeing the trial in New York, had Fenstermaker removed from his position after Ghailani asked to be represented by two military lawyers.

"You have not in fact formed a close relationship with the defendant, and I think the defense department will authorize Colonel Colwell to defend Mr Ghailani," the judge said.

Nevertheless, Fenstermaker remained committed to being at the legal frontlines of the detainee issue. He said that when he first got word that Attorney General Eric Holder would be trying five 9/11 suspects in criminal court, he jumped on the first flight to Guantanamo Bay to talk to detainees. The decision ended up being announced on Friday, Nov. 13. Fenstermaker was on the ground by Monday and interviewing inmates on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Shortly thereafter, he relayed his conversations to The New York Times and provided them with a letter written by Ali, his uncle KSM and a third 9/11 defendant. The letter called President Barack Obama a "liar," warned of the "black ages of Barack" and denounced the use of torture as well as U.S. policy to the Middle East.

In an interview with HuffPost, the NGO source expressed concern that Fenstermaker's outspoken politics would potentially overshadow the serious debate finally being waged over how the United States should legally handle detainees.

But Fenstermaker insists that he is uniquely suited for the job -- untainted by the policies of past and current administrations and with close relationships to many of the suspects.

"The real problem here is an issue of trust," he said. "I can't imagine that these guys are going to voluntarily take any American lawyer other than me because of what is going on at Gitmo. The behavior and conduct of the military and civilian attorneys representing the detainees has been atrocious."

Longtime Republican media strategist Alex Castellanos will continue to serve as an on-air personality for CNN despite recently taking on a consulting role for the Republican National Committee, the network confirms.

On Monday, it was reported that Castellanos, who has served as a media consultant for many Republican presidential candidates as well as an advisor for the private health insurance industry, will play an expanded role at the RNC after the committee parted ways with its communications director, Trevor Francis.

The move will not preclude Castellanos from appearing regularly on cable news. A spokesperson for CNN tells the Huffington Post that Castellanos will not be paid for his RNC gig and, therefore, will be treated in the same vein as other partisan commentators who advise campaign committees, such as longtime Democrats, Donna Brazile and Paul Begala.

"CNN has political strategists that provide unpaid advice to both sides of the aisle, and Alex will remain as a CNN contributor," said Edie Emery, a CNN spokeswoman. "CNN will continue to be vigilant in disclosing contributor affiliations and their profiles."

Castellanos, in an email to the Huffington Post, said reports of his RNC gig were overstated. He is "not replacing anyone" at the committee, "just helping out... as a senior advisor."

"Few things in life are permanent but I'm permanently a Republican," Castellanos said, when asked if the RNC post was long-term. "And [I'm] happy to serve as a senior advisor to the chairman whenever he asks."

While the RNC gig may simply consist of a consulting gig, it could have major ramifications when placed in the context of the frantic debate over the future of the Republican Party. Castellanos just recently slammed two major GOP officials: Florida governor and U.S. senatorial candidate Charlie Crist and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Moreover, he has established a firm reputation for favoring highly personal political attacks -- a trait he seems likely to bring to an RNC desperate to produce major electoral gains in the 2010 elections.

In her short time on the public stage, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has proven to be an enormously polarizing figure both in her own runs for office and other Republican campaigns.

Now, she's being pulled into a Democratic primary as well.

On Monday, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn) released a web advertisement tying his opponent, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn), to the provocative former vice presidential candidate. Titled "Going Rogue's Missing Chapter," the spot accuses Specter of campaigning "hard" for Palin during the 2008 election, appearing with her at rallies in Pennsylvania, donating to the McCain campaign and telling the national media she had the potential to be president herself.

"That kind of loyalty deserves a place in the former Alaska Republican Governor's new bestseller," reads the accompanying description of the ad.

Set during the height of Palin's book-tour buzz, the spot is a cost-effective way of reminding Pennsylvania voters just where Specter stood politically one year ago. It will also provide a test of sorts for two key 2010 election questions: how effective will Specter be at whitewashing his Republican past and what role will Palin play in the upcoming campaigns -- including, in this case, a Democratic primary?

President Obama is not planning to increase (or, for that matter, decrease) his involvement in the health care debate even as legislation enters a pivotal moment in the United States Senate.

Just days after the Senate passed a historic measure, allowing health care reform to come to the floor for amending and debate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs essentially stuck to the maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," when describing the administration's upcoming approach.

"I think the president will continue to play the role that he and his team have played [so far]," Gibbs said. "I don't think we would be at this point if the president and his team hadn't played roles in getting this process to the point of where it is."

"I can assure you, the president will continue to talk to legislatures about the importance of getting this done," Gibbs added.

Gibbs did not provide more details beyond stressing that it remained the president's goal to sign a bill into law before the end of the year. And he did not address -- nor was he asked about -- the obvious legislative obstacles that stand in the way. Four moderate Democrats in the Senate have said they would join a Republican filibuster of a bill that includes a public option for insurance coverage -- a provision that the president supports. A handful of progressive lawmakers, meanwhile, have hinted that they would walk away from any legislation that doesn't include a public plan.

Gibbs was asked during the briefing about the horse-trading taking place behind the scenes to secure some of these conservative Democratic votes -- including $100 million in federal Medicaid subsidies to Louisiana for that state's Senator Mary Landrieu. In his reply, he basically took a pass.

"I have not talked to [Obama] about that," said Gibbs. "I think that is a better question for members on Capitol Hill... We are happy that progress was made... again I think that question is better directed to the Senate."

One of the leading progressive champions of health care reform is pessimistic about the state of the debate in the Senate, saying he sees virtually no path to passing strong legislation and predicting potential congressional losses for Democrats as a consequence.

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean told the Huffington Post on Monday that Senate Democratic leadership was "in deep trouble" on health care, even after Majority Leader Harry Reid cobbled together over the weekend the 60 votes needed to get legislation to the floor. The problem was as much about politics as policy.

"I think if you passed the Senate bill tomorrow it would be OK. But then the problem is they don't have any defense for their members in 2010," Dean said, noting that the public option would not become operational until 2014. "On the other hand, if they drop the public option [to placate moderate members], I think they lose seats."

"So this is really tough. I didn't anticipate being in this position. I thought it would pass. Maybe Harry has some magic up his sleeve. But I don't see how he gets those four votes [Sens. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.)] without compromising the bill," Dean concluded.

The former Vermont governor warned that if the party allowed the four moderates to further water down the bill (or defeat it altogether) it could lead to primary challenges or a drop in fundraising from the party's base.

"If you have members refusing to vote for Reid on procedural issues you will have a revolt in the party," Dean said. "What is the point of having a 60-vote margin? This is going to be death for the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] and the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee]. Why would anyone donate to them if they're supporting candidates who defeat the Democratic agenda?"

There was, he insisted, an out clause. Reconciliation -- the budgetary maneuver that would allow portions of reform to be considered by an up or down vote -- "looks better every time," Dean said. "Someone has to say, at some point, we need to pass a bill." Reid has hinted that reconciliation is an increasingly unlikely proposition.

One of the loudest champions of a public plan, Dean has rarely expressed such pessimism about the state of play in the Senate. But even aides on the Hill admit that the path forward to gathering the 60 votes needed to stop a Republican filibuster is immensely challenging.

That said, Dean wasn't ready to read health care reform its final rites. And others who work on the progressive side of the debate said they are more bullish about the prospects of passing strong legislation. Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, said he noted that progressives in the Senate have been remarkably united in asserting their positions to Reid and indicating "that they won't be rolled by their more conservative members."

"Reconciliation is one of those things that is always there," Kirsch added. "It might not be the topic of conversation now. But it might go that way if four senators decide to wag the tail of the dog."

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has worked with HCAN and others on health care reform, was similarly upbeat. The goal, she said, was to keep the ball moving, pass legislation out of the Senate and then improve on its policy prescriptions once in conference committee with the House.

"The issue is to ensure that something is decent," said Lake. "I think the other thing is we need the president to weigh in, and I suspect he will weigh in very heavily in the conference committee."