Morning Must Reads — Petraeus and Kagan dodge artfully

Petraeus repeated as often and ardently as he could that he supported — and agreed with — President Obama’s timetable for beginning the American drawdown in Afghanistan. That was the major concern of Democrats who are anxious that Obama’s recent remarks about the flexible definition of withdrawal and the decision to pick Petraeus for job may mean that he is softening up his timetable. But the general assured that he was all on board with the time-limited surge — unless things change.

That upsets Republicans, but Petraeus offered them the consolation that he is prepared to change the rules of engagement (previously approved by Petraeus) for the war that are designed to make Americans targets and simultaneously limit American use of force. With 100 NATO troops dead this month, the strategy seems to be working only too well.

Writer Elisabeth Bumiller explains:

“General McChrystal, who embraced the counterinsurgency doctrine, had faced rising complaints in recent months from troops who said they felt ‘handcuffed’ by the rules and that restrictions on airstrikes had prolonged battles and cost lives.

‘If confirmed, I would continue the emphasis on reducing loss of civilian life in the course of operations to an absolute minimum, while also ensuring that we provide whatever assets are necessary to ensure the safety’ of American, NATO and Afghan forces, General Petraeus said in a written answer to a question asked in advance by the Senate Armed Services Committee.”

New York Times — Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions

Elena Kagan was beyond evasive in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee – still a consummate politician.

As for what kind of jurist she will be, we get little idea from her testimony, except that she sees the power of the federal government in very broad terms, even declining to say that the Constitution would disallow federal dietary mandates for all Americans. As for her ban of Army recruiters while at Harvard, she says she was helping the military by pointing out a discriminatory situation and creating a boost in enlistments because of all the attention.

She joked, flattered and stonewalled her way through 9 hours of testimony. And, just as was the case before the day began, her confirmation will come down to whether or not Scott Brown or another New England Republican can be convinced to give her a 60th vote, which still seems very likely.

Writers Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg explain the irony:

“Ms. Kagan’s responses, during a long and sometimes tense day of parrying with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, were similar to those of Supreme Court nominees past. But unlike her predecessors, Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might ‘provide some kind of hints’ about her views on matters of legal controversy.

‘I think that that was wrong,’ she said. ‘I think that — in particular, that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases — you know, to grade cases — because those cases themselves might again come before the court.’”

Charleston Daily Mail — Officials review state election laws

So Robert Byrd’s seat might be filled by an election after all.

Facing a bit of a backlash for the secretary of state’s opinion that because Byrd died after the end of the primary season, Gov. Joe Manchin’s appointee would serve for 28 months, state Democrats are now discussing a special legislative session to force an election.

The backlash comes from the public understanding that it seems wrong to interpret a vague statute in a way that prevents people from voting. The quick action in the government comes from the fact that aside from not wanting to get caught looking anti-democratic, lawmakers wouldn’t mind the chance to move up in line themselves now that the dominant Democrat for two generations is no more.

The move is appealing for Gov. Joe Manchin because it might get him to the Senate sooner, and it prevents him from having to chose some factotum to serve years in the post, which looks bad and then would make Manchin responsible for everything they did in Washington.

The only question is, would his only apparent potential rival — Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito — step up and fight him for the seat? We haven’t heard from her on the subject, so Manchin may have a clear path to Washington.

The secretary of state is still standing by her decision, and Manchin (a former secretary of state himself) is standing by her. Bt the cogs are turning for a snap election. Manchin is gauging public support and will call a special session if the voters like the idea.

Even if that happens, though, Manchin will still need an interim appointee to hustle up to Washington to vote for all of the measures – especially the stalled bank bill – that Democrats have waiting for them.

Writer Ry Rivard explains how jockeying among the would-be replacements for Manchin if the guv goes to Washington has moved the discussion along:

“But Hughes said it is the attorney general’s office – not the secretary of state’s – that is charged with establishing the state’s legal opinions, unless a court weighs in. Hughes said she was ‘surprised’ [Secretary of State] Tennant did not seek the office’s advice.

‘I would consult with the chief legal officer,’ Hughes said. ‘That’s not commenting on her interpretation or the legality of what she said.’

Tennant said, in hindsight, she should have made a phone call.

‘When we have decisions like this we don’t customarily go to the attorney general’s office,’ Tennant said. ‘In hindsight, I should have given a courtesy call to [the attorney general].’”

Wall Street Journal — Putin Rips Russian Spy Bust

The New York Post says “Russian minx painted the town red” and everyone is fascinated by the double lives of the alleged Russian spies – especially the pretty ones – who the FBI brought down in a raid this week (check out Examiner colleague Mark Heid’s piece on the details of the Russians who lived just blocks away from where presidents Medvedev and Obama munched on burgers and fries last week).

Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who formerly led the country’s spy agency, had a meeting with Bill Clinton (!) at the Kremlin Tuesday and alternately dismissed the charges as false and then suggested that they were the result of hard-line political factions in the U.S. trying to undermine the new love match between Obama and Putin’s proxy, Medvedev and maybe even undermine the chances of the nuclear treaty pending in the Senate.

Writers Evan Perez and Richard Boudreaux report from Russia.

“Many Russian officials and analysts said they presumed that hawkish elements within the U.S. government had engineered and timed the arrests to embarrass President Obama and undermine the ‘reset.’ Mr. Putin echoed that concern during a meeting at his residence outside Moscow with former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

‘Back at your home, the police went out of control [and] are throwing people in jail,’ Mr. Putin said. ‘But that’s the kind of job they have,’ he added, drawing a laugh from Mr. Clinton when he heard the translation.

‘I hope that all the positive gains that have been achieved in our relationship will not be damaged by the recent event,’ Mr. Putin added.”

New York Times — Clinton Choice Shakes Up Colorado Race

Bill Clinton took time out of his recent world tour to lob a grenade into the Senate Democratic primary in Colorado, where the Obama administration is working so hard to keep appointed incumbent Michael Bennet in his seat.

Clinton picked the younger, more liberal challenger, Andrew Romanoff, who is running an anti-Washington campaign. Romanoff’s only major connection to Clinton Inc. seems to be his support for the former first lady in the 2008 run during the Colorado primary.

This is technically Clinton’s first primary endorsement and starts to give us the contours of what might become a proxy war.

Writer Jeff Zeleny passes on what I assume is an ironic quote from the Bennet campaign:

“‘The Clintons are known for their loyalty, so this doesn’t come as a huge surprise,’ said Trevor Kincaid, a spokesman for Mr. Bennet.”

–To get Morning Must Reads in your inbox every weekday click here.