DOWNLOADS: (192)

PLAYS: (2974)

Embed

I'm not sure what else Rep. Adam Smith expected to hear from host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday this weekend, since his network has been in full fake Benghazi outrage mode ever since the attacks in Libya, and taking the insanity to new heights ever since ABC helped legitimize the witch hunt last week -- but I was glad to see Wallace get some push back for continually parroting the GOP's talking points.

Wallace's response to some of Smith's criticisms was to say "I'm not a potted plant." That's always the case when he has a Democrat on the air. Every once in a while he decides to stop acting like one when a Republican is on.

Congressman Tears Into Fox News Host For Obsessing Over Benghazi Talking Points:

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) tore into Fox News’ Chris Wallace and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) for obsessing over the talking points U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used when talking to the media in the days following the attack in Benghazi, Libya rather than focusing on identifying the perpetrators of the killings. “I think the desire of the Republicans to create a scandal here has really undermined any ability to have a credible look at what actually happened,” Smith said during an appearance on Fox News Sunday alongside Rogers.

While acknowledging that the administration’s initial assessment of Bengazi did not reflect what officials later learned about the incident, Smith criticized Fox for suggesting that that Rice’s remarks on five Sunday news shows presented a definitive picture of the events of Sep. 11, 2012.

“[The administration] didn’t reach conclusions the way you just presented that was that by the Sunday afterwards that the administration said here is what happened, here is our conclusion,” Smith explained. “But the president never said, no terrorism, no Al Qaeda. There was a dispute about how soon to lead to specific conclusions that now is being made into Watergate and Iran-Contra.” Read on...

As they went onto explain, President Obama and Hillary Clinton did describe the attacks as terrorism. For anyone having trouble keeping track of the latest round of lies, Media Matters has updates here: The Truth About The Right's Latest Benghazi Attacks .

As Smith rightfully noted during his interview, it would be a lot more productive if they focused on what actually happened and finding those that perpetrated the attacks, rather than debating how a memo was put together. Instead, now it's not just Fox, but all of our corporate media has decided to turn this into the next big "scandal." It's disgusting to watch to put it mildly.

Transcript via Fox below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (21)

PLAYS: (65)

Embed

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) on Sunday insisted that "no one is calling for military action in Syria" even though several lawmakers have called for a strike on the country's air defenses to create a no-fly zone.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) if the United States should "stand by and watch the slaughter continue" without taking military action.

"I have met with [Department of Defense] officials, I have looked at what the options -- at what the way the civil war is going, at how fractured the opposition is, at how Al-Qaeda is a huge part of that opposition," Smith explained. "And it's not that I'm not sure. Right now, my position is, if we were to go in there and try to arm rebel groups, it would make the situation worse and there would be an enormous risk of us getting dragged into a war that we don't know the first thing about how it would come out."

"Nobody is calling for military action in Syria. No one," Rogers declared. "There are some great options... This is not something we should be arguing about."

In fact, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) suggested earlier this month that the U.S. should take out part of Syria's air defenses to create a no-fly zone.

"No one should think that the United States has to act alone, put boots on the ground, or destroy every Syrian air defense system to make a difference for the better in Syria," McCain explained. "We have more limited options at our disposal -- including limited military options -- that can make a positive impact on this crisis."

"We could use our precision strike capabilities to target Assad's aircraft and SCUD missile launchers on the ground without our pilots having to fly into the teeth of Syria's air defenses. Similar weapons could be used to selectively destroy artillery pieces and make Assad's forces think twice about remaining at their posts. We could also use Patriot missile batteries outside of Syria to help protect safe zones inside of Syria from Assad's aerial bombing and missile attacks."

DOWNLOADS: (315)

PLAYS: (5292)

Embed

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) couldn't help but laugh on Wednesday as he corrected the hosts of Fox & Friends for repeating incorrect Republican talking points about how President Barack Obama handled fiscal cliff negotiations.

In an interview following the passage of the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012,” Smith told the Fox News hosts that he had voted no because the bill made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent and did not address sequestration cuts to the military and other programs.

"It's great that you're worried about spending and taxes but, you know, there are a lot of people who are watching this and they see the president and he really took no leadership when it comes to cutting spending with the budget and with this latest crisis," co-host Steve Doocy asserted. "So, it seems like you're at odds with the president."

"I don't actually agree with that," Smith insisted. "The president put on the table cuts to entitlements. He put on the table the chained CPI issue and a variety of other issues."

"But that was a non-starter for a lot of people in your party," Doocy interrupted, evoking laughter from the Washington Democrat.

"Well, no, here's the thing," Smith explained. "You can say, 'Well, he's not showing leadership.' But now what you're saying is, 'He showed leadership, but nobody else was willing to.' So, it's really hard to blame the president. As long as we're talking about the president, let me also make the point, Speaker [John] Boehner and the Republicans, what have they put on the table in terms of specific spending cuts?"

"Look at the Ryan plan," co-host Brian Kilmeade suggested, pointing to a controversial budget proposal authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

"Well, the Ryan plan was not specific spending cuts," Smith schooled. "A budget is not an appropriations bill, Brian. The budget said, 'Across the board, we will cut 10 percent. We're not going to tell you what, we're not going to tell you where, we're just going to imagine that it's going to happen.' In terms of specific spending cuts, the president has actually put more on the table during this last negotiation than the so-called fiscal conservatives leading the House."

"Really?" Kilmeade replied. "Because I don't know anything that he wanted to cut besides defense."

"I just told you. Entitlements," Smith insisted. "Again, if you want to say he's having trouble getting the country behind a fiscally-responsible approach, that's one thing. If you want to say he hasn't shown leadership, well, that's different. He said, 'Here's some ideas, here's some things I'm willing to do.' And it wasn't just Democrats who were running away from those ideas."

(h/t: Think Progress)

DOWNLOADS: (161)

PLAYS: (1313)

Embed

An Arizona man has been fired as the as the chief financial officer and treasurer of a medical equipment manufacturer in Tucson after he posted video of himself telling a Chick-fil-A drive-thru employee that she worked for a "horrible company."

In a statement released on Thursday, Vante said that it respected "the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions," but it was firing CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith anyway.

On Wednesday, Smith had protested "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" by filming himself ordering a free water.

"You know why I'm getting my free water, right?" he asked the woman at the drive-true. "Because Chick-fil-A is a hateful corporation."

"I disagree," the employee replied. "We don't treat any of our customers differently."

"I know, but the corporation gives money to hate groups. Hate groups. Just because people want to kiss another guy," Smith insisted. "I don't believe corporations should be giving money to hateful groups. I'll take my water."

"It's my pleasure to serve you, always," the employee said.

"Oh, of course I'm glad that I can take a little bit of money from Chick-fil-A, and maybe less money to hate groups," Smith continued. "I don't know how you live with yourself and work here. I don't understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better."

Before pulling away from the drive-thru, Smith added, "I'm a nice guy, by the way. And I'm totally heterosexual, not a gay in me. I just can't stand the hate, you know? It's got to stop, guys."

After conservative websites labeled Smith as a "bully," Vante issued a press release saying that he was no longer employed by the company.

"Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A," the company wrote. "The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others."

"We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith's actions against Vante and its employees," Vante said.

But Tucson Citizen blogger Tip O'Neil argued that he couldn't find any "bullying" in the video.

"We all know that the chick fil a appreciation day is all about supporting 'the first amendment' and 'free speech,'" O'Neil noted. "As long as the speech is anti-gay, of course. Otherwise it’s free speech for me but not for thee, at least at the Tucson company Vante."

(h/t: Joe My God)

DOWNLOADS: (599)

PLAYS: (1322)

Embed

During Monday night's Florida NBC GOP primary debate, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was asked by the Tampa Bay Times Adam Smith about his call for Congressional intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, who as our readers here know was the subject of a court battle between Schiavo's husband and her parents as to whether she should remain on a feeding tube even after the courts had ruled that she was in a vegetative state.

As The New York Times noted on their blog, The Caucus tonight, Santorum was allowed to tell a big whopper during his response and was not called on it by any of the moderators.

Santorum and Terri Schiavo:

Tonight, Mr. Santorum said he “didn’t call for Congressional intervention, I called for a judicial hearing” to review a case in which the parents, who were constituents of his from Pennsylvania, and Ms. Schiavo’s husband were on different sides.

But a New York Times Magazine article in May 2005 about Mr. Santorum said he “not only pushed the Senate to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, but he also traveled to Florida and prayed with her parents.”

John Amato wrote about Rick Santorum's interference in the case back in 2005 here -- Santorum the Weather Man.

DOWNLOADS: (296)

PLAYS: (715)

Embed

During the Florida debate for the US Senate on CNN's State of the Union, the two Republicans in the race both carried some water for the Bush administration and agreed that the United States is better off because of our invasion of Iraq. I wonder if the Iraqis think they're better off boys?

SMITH: Mr. Rubio, is -- is America safer and better off for having gone to war in Iraq?

RUBIO: I think the answer ultimately is yes. First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge in Iraq. And I think we have to remind ourselves of that, is that the world is a better and safer place because Saddam Hussein no longer is in charge of that country.

Let's understand one thing. Right now, we are worried about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. Well, if Saddam Hussein was still there, and you know the relationship and the long history between Iraq and Iran, you'd have two nations in a full-blown arms war, the way you've seen, for example, between Pakistan and India.

So the world is a better and safer place, and not to mention the Iraqi people are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein. There's no doubt that Iraq has a long way to go. You know, there are a lot of issues that that society and that that nation-state faces. But it is better off today than it was when Saddam Hussein...

SMITH: Mr. Meek, same question.

MEEK Well, I would tell you this. There was a no-fly zone prior to going into Iraq. It was a war that was brought about based on falsehoods and not on fact. And also, there are a number of American lives that have lost -- have been lost.

Saying that, those sacrifices that have been made, I think it's very, very important to note that the international community must continue to stay involved in Iraq. The biggest embassy in the world, the U.S. embassy, is in Iraq right now because of the Bush doctrine. I think it's important to note that I understand the situation as it relates to the world being safer because we went into Iraq. I couldn't necessarily give you that overall blanket "yes" on that because it was a lot of...

SMITH: You think we'd be better off if we hadn't gone in?

MEEK: Well, I think we would have been better off if we would have looked at diplomatic solutions and wouldn't have been lied to by the Bush administration. I think it's -- I think a number of American lives could have been saved and this could have been a different world if we would have gave diplomacy an opportunity.

CRIST: I think the world is a safer place because of the action we took in Iraq. And I also think it's right of the administration to do what we're doing right now in Afghanistan.

And one of the best things and the best parts of that policy is the appointment of General David Petraeus to lead our troops on the ground in this conflict.

The number one function of our government is to have safety and security for the people of our country, to make sure that we're safe on our shores, that we do what's right to maintain order in our society.

And I think that the administration is on a path to try to do that, and General Petraeus is exactly the right guy to lead us there. So I compliment the commander in chief for doing so.

But we've got to keep our eye on Iran. The speaker is right. I agree that we have to be sure that we're monitoring what's happening there. I am very proud, as governor of Florida, that we signed the first divestment act, as it relates to Iran, divesting any investments in companies that would invest in Iran, because we support Israel so strongly here in this state and this country.

We have a unique, unbreakable bond with the state of Israel, between the state of Florida and our country. It's why my first trade mission was to Israel, as governor of Florida. And I went there with Robert Wexler, whose support I'm proud to have in this race for the U.S. Senate, a great former congressman from South Florida.