Democracy for New Mexico

Petraeus Advisor Rejects Domenici-Backed Iraq Plan

Think Progress reports:

Stephen Biddle, a senior defense policy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, cautions against adopting “a politically moderate ‘Plan B’ that would split the difference between surge and withdrawal.” Biddle, an adviser to Gen. Petraeus who has cautioned that escalation is “likelier to fail than succeed,” says the Iraq debate should put aside “popular centrist options” embodied in the Iraq Study Group recommendations.

Biddle writes that the ISG’s call to “shift the mission” of U.S. troops while maintaining an occupation of Iraq would cause even greater problems. “Without a major U.S. combat effort to keep the violence down, the American training effort would face challenges even bigger than those our troops are confronting today. ... It is unrealistic to expect that we can pull back to some safe yet productive mission of training but not fighting — this would be neither safe nor productive.” he writes. ... middle-ground options leave us with the worst of both worlds: continuing casualties but even less chance of stability in exchange.

Repub Senate leaders still insist they will filibuster even the flawed and toothless Iraq Study Group legislation sponsored by Salazar-Alexander that's backed by Sen. Pete Domenici, along with anything meaningful that the Dems propose. Their strategy is to delay passage of anything that addresses the realities of the quagmire occupation until that magic day in September when Gen. Patraeus is supposed to deliver his report on the success of the "surge." Southern New Mexico's Repub Rep. Steve Pearce has rejected Domenici's stance and is sticking with Bush 100%, as usual.

Democrats are expected to rally around a Levin-Reed sponsored amendment to the massive defense spending bill that sets a withdrawal date to begin 120 days after passage and end by April 30, 2008. Sen. Jeff Bingaman supports the bill, saying that "Salazar's plan lacks specific requirements for troop withdrawal."

Meanwhile, Congressional Quarterly that House Dems will proceed with a bill that will set withdrawal timelines in the hopes of encouraging Senators to pass similar legislation:

The House bill (HR 2956), sponsored by Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., would require troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of the legislation. All troops would have to be redeployed from Iraq by April 1, 2008, with minor exceptions.

It's expected that Dem Rep. Tom Udal of Northern New Mexico will support Skelton's bill.

Yesterday, Bush said he would veto any defense spending bill that contained requirements for a withdrawal by “an arbitrary date.” I guess his arbitrary war full of arbitrary deaths doesn't bother him any. Close-minded zealots are like that.

Don't Bite on Domenici's Cosmetic Makeover on Iraq

Sen. Pete Domenici's sudden pubilc acknowledgement that there are serious problems with the Bush-Cheney strategy being employed in Iraq is, of course, noteworthy. After all, he's been zealously supportive of the BushCo line since before the invasion of Iraq, and among the true believers who felt entirely comfortable casting critics of Bush and the war as terrorists-lite. If nothing else, his newfound concern represents his handlers' realization that any candidate who continues to support the debacle will be in serious jeopardy of being tossed out in 2008.

However, if you actually read the so-called "Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act" (S 1545) that  Domenici is now supporting, you'll encounter a myriad of obstacles to troop withdrawal rather than effective, binding ways to get it done. In reality, the legislation is designed to keep our troops on the ground in Iraq while appearing to do otherwise -- it's nothing more than another example of the toothless sleight of hand we've seen in the past. To understand just how false and misleading the Salazar-Alexander bill is, check the analysis by AMERICAblog.

Bottom line: the bill would "keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. What's worse, they're claiming that the legislation implements the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Studgy Group, when in fact, the legislation codifies George Bush's current failed policies in Iraq ... Probably the most offensive thing about the legislation is that it outright calls for the continuation of the status quo policy of keeping US troops in Iraq until the day that Iraq is 100% ready to stand on its own - namely, never." More:

Specifically, the legislation buries a little nugget on page 18 of the bill. In a section entitled "Sense of Congress on Redeployment of United States Forces from Iraq," the legislation spells out the following preconditions to withdrawing US troops:

1. A massive list of suggested policies need to first be accomplished before the US withdraws. These include transferring the Iraqi National Police to the Ministry of Defense, reorganizing the Iraqi security forces, upgrading Iraq's police communications equipment, establishing courts, training judges, prosecutors and investigators, drafting oil legislation, implementing metering at the oil pipelines, reorganizing the entire Iraqi oil industry, and more. But that's not all that has to happen before our troops are permitted to withdraw from Iraq. Oh no. Read on.

2. Additional Iraqi brigades need to deployed. Meaning, the exact same policy we have now under George Bush. No withdrawal until the Iraqi security forces are up to par. And our military people on the ground in Iraq say this could take 40 to 50 years, if ever.

3. The eventual withdrawal of US forces is "subject to unexpected development in the security situation on the ground." Meaning, if things don't get better, we don't leave. That's the current policy. And things aren't getting better.

The legislation then says that if ALL of those things I listed above are met, THEN we can possibly consider to maybe redeploy some of the troops next spring, 2008.

Are they kidding?

Oh but that's not all. The legislation also says that the Iraq Study Group never ever said that we should actually withdraw from Iraq by next year. And put aside the fact that the entire legislation is written as a "sense of the Congress" - meaning, it has the same legal weight as National Ice Cream Day.

What we're really seeing is the formation of a cowardly coalition of fearful, "moderate" Dems and dishonest Repubs who want to appear to be doing something meaningful to end the Iraq occupation when they're really just into treading water and donning masks. We all know that's not nearly enough and that in order to gain support for REAL CHANGE in Iraq, bogus bills like Salazar-Alexander will have to be defeated. We see through you, Pete.

Say What, Pete? NM Dem Party Chair Challenges Domenici to Clarify Confusing Iraq Stance(s)

Dick Knipfing of Albuquerque's KRQE News 13 interviewed Sen. Pete Domenici yesterday about his election season conversion on Bush's Iraq strategy. Click for video of the interview. In response, Democratic Party of New Mexico (DPNM) Chairman Brian S. Colón says he's disappointed by the senior senator’s confusing statements. According to Colón, Domenici’s main objective appears to be propping the door open for other vulnerable Republicans to distance themselves from previous positions.

“It’s about time Senator Domenici realized the error of his ways concerning Iraq, but his public statements sent so many mixed messages,” said Colón. “The more I think about what Senator Domenici is saying, the more confusing his position becomes.  New Mexicans deserve clarity on matters of conscience.”

When asked during a live interview yesterday on KRQE-TV, “what are you calling for and why?” New Mexico’s senior senator delivers a rambling hodge-podge of statements that never address the original question. Chairman Colón is asking Senator Domenici to clarify:

• What do you mean when you say the President “will never lose the war (in Iraq)”?
• What on earth makes you think that the new Secretary of Defense could become a hero as a result of the Bush Administration’s colossal failures in Iraq?
• What relevance is your feeling that President Bush “is a very close friend”?
• Besides blaming the Iraqis for their country’s misfortune, do you plan to take responsibility for facilitating the mismanaged war, the loss of over 3500 American lives and $440 billion, and the undermining of the nation’s domestic priorities (i.e. expanded health care access, improved education, and a safer and more secure environment)?

Will zealous Bush loyalists Rep. Heather Wilson and Rep. Steve Pearce be the next NM Republicans to try and spin a new, more politically palatable position on the Iraq occuation? Stay tuned. Anything's possible with Bush's approval ratings dipping lower than Nixon's during the Watergate era.

You can see and read other KRQE News coverage of Domenici's sudden awareness of the realities of the Iraq war here.

For our previous posts on Domenici and the 2008 Senate race in New Mexico, visit this archive.

NM Dem Response to Domenici Turnabout on Iraq

From the Democratic Party of New Mexico in response to Sen. Domenici's announcement today about his sudden change in position on Iraq (or at least the appearance of one):

Albuquerque – Today, Pete Domenici’s election season political makeover began in earnest at a press conference where Domenici argued that he is changing his position on the disastrous war in Iraq.

“Bush's War in Iraq continues to be a colossal mistake based on misleading information and false pretenses.  Why did over 3500 American military servicemen and servicewoman, including more than 30 of New Mexico's own, need to die?  Why was $440 billion spent before Senator Domenici could acknowledge what Senator Bingaman and Congressman Udall realized more than four years ago?” asked Democratic Party of New Mexico Chairman Brian S. Colón.”

Chairman Colón continued, “I have another important question for Senator Domenici to add to the list of our concerns to which he has failed to respond in the past:  When the U.S. Senate reconvenes, will your rhetoric be backed by meaningful legislative action, or is this just another attempt at a re-election conversion in response to your lowest poll ratings in decades?"

The 75 year old Domenici, mired in a scandal resulting from the politically-motivated firing of the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, is facing the toughest re-election campaign in his lifetime.  He refuses to answer questions, is enduring a precipitous drop in his approval ratings, has hired a high-powered criminal lawyer to defend his actions before a U.S. Senate ethics investigation and is rumored to be considering retirement.

Pete Domenici has been a loyal rubberstamp of the Bush Administration and in issue after issue has voted for the misplaced Republican priorities over the interests of New Mexicans.

Editor's Note: See our previous post on this story.

Election Jitters? Domenici Backing Off Support for Iraq Occupation

Las Cruces blogger Heath Haussamen broke the story on Sen. Pete Domenici's partial change of heart on the Iraq occupation, which was revealed in an announcement by the NM Senator in Albuquerque this morning. Domenici has decided to sign on as a cosponsor of Sen. Ken Salazar's (D-CO) and Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R-TN) SB 1545, a bill to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

This seems to be the new fall back position for Republicans (and some "centrist" Dems) who are becoming increasingly jittery about their prospects and those of their party in the 2008 election due to the Iraq debacle. In recent days Repub defense heavy hitters Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) changed course and said they could no longer support waiting until September to see if the "surge" is working. Even Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has positive words about Lugar's statement.

KRQE News has the text of Domenici's press release. Excerpt:

"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward," Domenici said. "I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops.  But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

... The bill is intended to create conditions that could allow for a drawdown of American combat forces in Iraq by March 2008. Under S.1545, the U.S. military could maintain a long-term but more limited presence in Iraq-focused on protecting American personnel and interests, training and advising Iraqi forces, and carrying out counterterrorism and special operations missions.

Domenici indicated that the provisions in S.1545 could be debated as part of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Bill that the Senate will take up next week

Although Repubs were generally very critical of the Study Group's analysis and suggestions when they were released, more and more are apparently seeing it as a politcally useful tool -- one that can give them an out on the war and possibly increase their popularity given that two thirds of Americans want our troops out ASAP, and only hard core Bush loyalists still approve of the president and his Iraq strategy. It seems the Repub rats in Congress are starting to line up to abandon Bush's sinking ship. As we know, the devil will be in the details of any such bill on Iraq, but it seems clearer by the day that the momentum is growing for Repubs to distance themselves from the failed presidency and foreign policy of King George.

Back in April, Domenici's stated views on the occupation during the debate on the Iraq emergency supplemental bill included these quotes:

“It is irresponsible for Congress to operate this way. With the provisions in this bill, Congress is deserting our commitments to our military leaders and telling them that none of it matters, the war is over and your mission is done. Congress, with this bill, is reneging on the war and sending our men and women in uniform a demoralizing message. I am committed to giving our military, led by General Petraeus, time and resources to try to calm Baghdad.

“I understand the deep national unrest over the course of the war. I do not support an open-ended commitment in Iraq. The Iraqi government must do more. But effectively abandoning our military effort at this time poses a treacherous threat to the United States and the region. We should do right by our troops, give them the resources they need and work with the Iraqis toward solutions that will bring our Armed Forces home at an appropriate time,” Domenici said.

He's certainly changed his tune now that his latest approval rating is only 51% in New Mexico. I guess you could say he was for the Iraq quagmire based on lies before he was against it. I wonder what explanation he would offer the loved ones of our troops who have been killed or maimed since he refused to take action to get them out of harms way this Spring. And what he will tell those who will have to wait until next March or later to get the hell out of Iraq because of the foot dragging of Domenici and his fellow Bush followers.

Perhaps most hypocritical is Domenici's claim that his abandonment of Bush's policy is due to his being swayed by recent talks with military families who want the troops to come home. Pete claims he hadn't heard that kind of plea previously. I wonder where's he's been all these months and years.

According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, SB 1545 includes these provisions:

* affirms that the ISG recommendations must be implemented as a comprehensive package in order for them to succeed;

* calls for the U.S. to make clear that it does not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and does not seek to control Iraq’s oil resources;

* stresses the central need to carry out the ISG’s “New Diplomatic Offensive” to deal with the problems of Iraq and of the region, including the need to engage directly with Iran and Syria, and build an “Iraq Support Group” composed of neighboring states and others;

* envisions an early transition of the U.S. military role from combat to training and states, as the ISG report did, that barring “unexpected developments in the security situation” most U.S. combat troops “could be redeployed from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008” except those needed for force protection, training, counterterrorism, and special operations;

* conditions continued U.S. political, military and economic support for the Iraqi government on progress in meeting national reconciliation benchmarks on constitutional reform, revising de-Baathification, equitably distributing oil revenues, holding provincial elections, and protecting the rights of women and minorities;

* encourages transparency in the oil sector by posting all oil contracts, volumes and prices on the Internet; and

* establishes significant congressional oversight by requiring the president to report every three months on actions taken to implement most of the provisions of the bill.

An identical bill, HR 2574, was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Mark Udall (D, CO-02) and has 57 cosponsors, including a number of "centrist" Dems.

Also see our later post with the response to Domenici's statement by Democratic Party of New Mexico Chair Brian Colón.

Wiviott Launches Campaign Website for Senate Run for Domenici Seat

Don Wiviott, who recently announced he intends to pursue the Democratic nomination to challenge New Mexico's incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Domenici in November 2008, has a new campaign website. The website provides a detailed bio, a news section, a link to an Act Blue donation page and this info on the latest polling on Domenici:

A new Survey U.S.A. poll sponsored by KOB-TV and released on June 19 found Domenici’s disapproval rating at an all-time high. The poll found that 51 percent of New Mexicans gave Domenici a positive job rating, while 42 percent of New Mexicans gave Domenici a negative job rating. As recently as February 2007, Domenici had a 64 percent -27 percent approval rating.

Wiviott is a Santa Fe developer who describes himself as "a leader in building environmentally-friendly live/work communities." He has been challenged by Jim Hannan, another Democratic candidate in the race, about a $2100 donation he made during the 2004 election cycle to former Santa Fe City Councilor David Pfeffer, a Dem turned Republican who was running against Dem incumbent Senator Jeff Bingaman. Wiviott explained his donation this way in a recent Santa Fe New Mexican article:

Wiviott said Friday that he shared little in common with Pfeffer’s political beliefs but described him as an “honest guy” and a friend. “David was struggling when he was running for office, and I helped a friend,” Wiviott said.

According to a recent article by Kate Nash in the Albuquerque Tribune, two others still thinking about entering the Senate race on the Dem side include former U.S. Attorney John Kelly and anti-choice Democrat Allen Sanchez, who's currently the executive director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops. Both Jim Hannan, who worked for former U.S. Rep. Morris “Mo” Udall, D-Ariz., and was finance director of the Santa Fe Community Housing Trust, and Leland Lehrman, peace activist and editor of the alternative newspaper The Sun News, have already declared their candidacies.

As to how the NM Democratic Party views the race against Domenici:

... Chairman Brian Colón said the party is intent on winning a seat it lost to Domenici in 1974.

"I think we're going to focus on this race probably like we haven't in 30 years," he said. "I think it's time to say, `Thanks for your service, but it's time to move on.' "

Click to read our previous post on Wiviott's entry into the Senate race, or to review all of our archived posts about the 2008 U.S. Senate race in New Mexico.

Guest Blog: Dem Senate Candidate Jim Hannan on Don Wiviott

This is a guest blog from Democratic Senate candidate Jim Hannan:

Don Wiviott has announced he wants to run against Pete Domenici for the US Senate as a Democrat. I've been talking to Don for several months about the race. I have a concern about Don. In 2006, Don contributed the maximum allowable, $2,100, to David Pfeffer. David Pfeffer was running as a Republican against Jeff Bingaman.

As you know, 2006 was a critical year for Democrats. We all worked hard to take back Congress. During that time period, I was contributing money to the DCCC, and walking door to door for Patricia Madrid.

David Pfeffer was running against Jeff Bingaman as a hard right conservative. He was a very vocal supporter of the invasion of Iraq. In 2006, the centerpiece of his campaign was to support the Minutemen camped out on the border of New Mexico and Arizona. 

I told Don that by supporting David, he had positioned himself to the right of Pete Domenici on the immigration issue.

I also raised my concern with Democratic Party of New Mexico Chair Brian Colon and the State Party's current Executive Director, Matt Farrauto.  I told Don Wiviott that he should talk about this issue with his campaign supporters. The fact that Don still decided to run means that they don't think it's an important issue. I guess I differ.   

Editor's Notes: This is a guest blog by Jim Hannan. Click to visit his campaign website. Guest blogs provide our readers with an opportunity to express their opinions on political issues, and they don't necessarily represent our views. If you'd like to submit a post for consideration as a guest blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link at the upper right-hand corner of our main page.

Click to read DFNM's earlier post on the candidacy of Don Wiviott.

Developer from Santa Fe Prepared to Self-Fund Run Against Domenici

We first mentioned Don Wiviott's name back in early May as a possible Democratic candidate when Pete Domenici's Senate seat comes into play in the 2008 election. That rumor has now been confirmed by Joe Monahan, who revealed today that Wiviott declared during a phone conversation that he is prepared to use his own money to mount a serious campaign against Domenici. And he has a lot of money.

Wiviott is the developer of The Lofts in Santa Fe, and formerly chairs the Santa Fe Economic Development Review Committee. He also served on Governor Richardson's Task Force on Our Communities. The political newcomer is known up North as an advocate of "smart growth," development that incorporates green design features and the creation of innovative live-work communities.

According to Monahan, Wiviott will put up $400,000 to kick off his Senate campaign and is ready, willing and able to spend up to a cool million, if necessary, to run a competitive challenge. He's also raising funds at Act Blue, where he's described as "an ardent environmentalist and successful small businessman who believes New Mexico, like the rest of our country, needs change in direction of leadership and priorities."

The main question circulating about Wiviott is whether or not he's really a placeholder for a late-entry run by Gov. Bill Richardson should his presidential ambitions bite the dust. As Monahan says:

Wiviott, who is married to Santa Fe real estate agent Kelley Owen, is moving quickly to assemble a campaign team, some of whom have ties to Big Bill, including the Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner polling firm and media consultant Doc Sweitzer. His fundraiser, Kim Scott, worked for President Clinton.

So it's evident that Wiviott will rely on a number of inside-the-Beltway types, some employed in the past by Richardson, to help run his campaign. Philadelphia-based Doc Sweitzer, by the way, was a media consultant for Dem Joe Sestak's successful campaign for Congress in Pennsylvania in 2006, and was an adviser to Richardson's 2002 campaign for governor. He's also been involved with the campaigns of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and many other Dems.

If he's serious about his run, let's hope Wiviott also hires some top-notch local folks knowlegeable about the unique dynamics that shape New Mexico politics. More than one campaign in the past has been derailed by the misguided advice of those with little or no experience in the state.

Wiviott joins two previously announced (and much more meagerly funded) Democratic candidates for the Senate seat -- Jim Hannan and Leland Lehrman. A few other names of possible Dem contenders have surfaced over the last few months, but no others have come out of the shadows to announce a run. At this point, it's difficult to know what Viviott's announcement is really all about, or what his views are regarding any number of issues. He has no real track record except in putting together lucrative developments in Santa Fe.

Albuquerque to Domenici: We Want the Truth - It's Time for You to Go

(Click on photos for larger versions)

At noon on Friday, June 1, demonstrators gathered in front of Sen. Pete Domenci's office to demand that he come clean about his actions pressuring U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to inject politics into indictments, and pushing the U.S. Justice Department and White House to fire Iglesias because he wouldn't play ball.

One protestor at the event was Evangeline Donkersly (above), a lifelong Albuquerquean who has grown disenchanted with Domenici. Donkersly, who worked on Domenici’s municipal campaigns in the 1960s, will not be voting to return the senator to Washington. “He’s not the same man he used to be,” said Donkersly. “He’s been in Washington too long and it’s time for him to come home to stay. We need someone else.”

Still unanswered is the letter sent to Sen. Domenici by Brian Colon, Chairman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico. The letter demands that Domenici provide detailed information about contacts by the Senator and his staff with Monica Goodling and other Justice Department officials, and with Karl Rove and his staff. You can read Colon's letter to Pete and learn more about what prompted it in our previous post.

You can see more photos from the demonstration here.

You can read all our archived posts on the 2008 New Mexico Senate races here.

Goodling Testimony Prompts DPNM Chair Colón to Query Domenici on U.S. Attorney Firings

An article in today's Albuquerque Tribune reports on the testimony by Monica Goodling at yesterday's House Judiciary Committee hearing on the U.S. Attorney firings. Bottom line: She doesn't remember much of anything either. Seems everyone at the Alberto Gonzales DOJ has amnesia. Amazing how not one person in the Department of Justice will take credit for putting the names on the U.S. Attorney firing list, even though the firings were, you know, just routine and based on poor job performance.

Goodling's testimony did raise more issues about Sen. Pete Domenici's involvement in the firings:

Goodling testified she did not know who put Iglesias on the list of U.S. attorneys fired Dec. 7. But she did reveal that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty covered up Domenici's involvement in a private briefing McNulty had with the Senate Judiciary Committee in January and in a public hearing Feb. 6.

"He thought the senator would prefer to address those concerns privately with his colleagues, and he wanted to give him (Domenici) the opportunity to do that," Goodling said.

At one staff meeting prior to the briefings, one official - she could not remember who - suggested to McNulty that somebody should call Domenici's chief of staff, Steve Bell, "and see if he wanted to address the concerns with his colleagues before the briefing took place."

Goodling did not say whether the call to Bell was made.

In response to Goodling's testimony, the new Chair of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, Brian Colón, asked Domenici and his chief of staff, Steve Bell, for some answers about their contacts with the DOJ and Rove. Click for page 1 and page 2 (pdf) of his letter to Senator Domenici. Excerpts:

This scandal has quickly spun into an indictment of the entire Department of Justice and its ability to fairly administer the nation's laws, and you stand squarely in the middle of the vortex. There is no longer any doubt that you were singularly responsible for Mr. Iglesias' firing - the only thing still in question is the manner in which you secured that firing and whether you crossed any ethical or legal lines in the process.

... The Senate Ethics Committee will weigh the legal questions surrounding your role, but in the meantime, you have a larger obligation to the people of New Mexico to finally explain your actions in detail. To that end, I request that you:

1. Detail any contacts between you and your staff, including your chief of staff Steve Bell, and Monica Goodling or other Department of Justice officials such as former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson.
2. Detail any contacts between you or your staff, including your chief of staff Steve Bell, and Karl Rove and his staff.

If there are emails between your staff and the Department of Justice or White House office of Political Affairs, you owe it to the public to release them. If your executive assistant maintains call logs, a common practice in Senate offices, please release any such call logs noting calls either from or to the Department of Justice or White House.

As reported in the Tribune article:

McNulty had told the senators that Iglesias and the other U.S. attorneys were fired for poor performance, prompting Iglesias to reveal the phone calls from Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, also a Albuquerque Republican, and leading to the subsequent admissions by Domenici that he had pressed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and McNulty to fire Iglesias.

During one meeting, Goodling said she wrote down that "Domenici says he doesn't move cases," presumably referring to Iglesias. She said she didn't remember who made the comment.

Committee member Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat, asked if that "referred to the Aragon investigation." Goodling said she only knew about the Aragon case from press reports.

"Certainly, I knew that Senator Domenici had concerns with public corruption cases," said Goodling.

For information on other aspects of Goodling's testimony, see these AP and Washington Post articles.