You can hear the tape of Larry Craig's police interview here. He says over and over that he disagrees with the officer's recounting of the events that took place but that he wouldn't fight them in court. Obviously, he was afraid of society's homophobia and sexophobia crashing down on his head. It should be noted that he helped to foster those two things, so maybe it's some poetic justice.
But even though I think he was cruising that bathroom based not just on the police report but also on Craig's lame excuses afterwards (he repeats the "wide stance" defense), I can't help but think that in this dispute between him and the officer that he had no power and the officer had it all. Each time he disagrees with the officer's retelling of the events, he reassures the officer that he's not going to fight this in court. He has every reason not to and every reason to try to make it go away. While he probably was soliciting in the bathroom, considering that he really had no real chance to contest this in court, and since the court would just ditto the officer anyway, I can't see how due process was served here. In spirit, not in letter.
Towards the end of the tape, after Craig has already talked about his wide stance and how he was just picking up a piece of paper off the floor and said that he's going to enter a guilty plea, the officer starts browbeating Craig, saying that it's now about the guilty plea or the fine, that he just wants Craig to admit what he did, that it's about "respect". You've got to wonder how much this officer was enjoying it, knowing that he can say that he's "disappointed" that Craig wouldn't agree with his story. What was the point in trying to get Craig to go further than a guilty plea?