DOWNLOADS: (182)

PLAYS: (4428)

Embed

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told CBS News that Republican lawmakers who are blasting President Barack Obama's administration for failing to take military action during last September's surprise attacks in Benghazi have a "cartoonish" view of the military.

"I listened to the testimony of [Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta] and [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey]," Gates explained to CBS host Bob Schieffer in an interview that aired on Sunday. "And, frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were."

"We don't have a ready force standing by in the Middle East -- despite all the turmoil that's going on -- with planes on strip alert, troops ready to deploy at a moment's notice. And so, getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible."

He continued: "And, frankly, I've heard, 'Why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare them with the noise or something?' Well, given the number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libya dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances."

Gates pointed out that others had suggested that the military could have sent in Special Forces or some other small group.

"Based on everything I've read, people really didn't know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of Special Forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous," the former defense secretary observed. "And personally, I would not have approved that."

"It's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm's way. And there just wasn't time to do that."

DOWNLOADS: (124)

PLAYS: (347)

Embed

As Dave already noted, Sen. Lindsey Graham was back on the air this Sunday, still flogging their latest Benghazi "scandal" that somehow President Obama was disengaged during the embassy attacks on the anniversary of 9/11. I'm not sure just how much more hateful and nasty this man can manage to be before he starts getting called out for his behavior by members of the media, but Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer seemed pretty shocked and exhausted by the time Graham finished his rant here.

Sadly, however, he did not ask Graham what the hell was wrong with him or why the public should care about this drummed up non-scandal that he refuses to let die.

Lindsey Graham To Place Hold On National Security Nominees Over Benghazi Attacks:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is threatening to place a hold on key administration national security nominations unless President Obama explains how the White House reacted to the Benghazi attacks and who “changed” the talking points used by U.N. ambassador Susan Rice during back-to-back appearances on the Sunday political talk shows in September. Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation, Graham insisted that Republicans shouldn’t “allow Brennan to go forward for the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed to Secretary of Defense, until the White House gives us an accounting.” “Did the president ever pick up the pohne and call anyone in the Libyan government to help these folks,” Graham asked. “What did the president do?”

Since Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey testified before Congress last week, conservatives have seized on a portion of the testimony to argue that President Obama went “AWOL” the night of the Benghazi attack.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (142)

PLAYS: (777)

Embed

Never mind the latest disturbing and chilling news that the Obama administration believes they've got the right to be judge, jury and executioner with this drone program of theirs, all in the name of fighting this endless "war on terror." Sen. Lindsey Graham is just fine with that. Graham appeared on Sean Hannity's show on Fox to continue ranting and raving about their drummed up fake controversy over the attack in Benghazi. This horse was beaten to death a long time ago, but that didn't stop Hannity and Graham from declaring that "a major bombshell was revealed" during Panetta's testimony this Thursday.

Here's the way Fox covered this interview: Where Was President Obama During the Benghazi Attack? Hannity Discusses With Sen. Lindsey Graham:

On Capitol Hill yesterday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is looking into the Pentagon’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

The most revealing piece of information to come out of the testimony was when Panetta said that President Obama was absent on the night of the attack, in which four Americans were killed. Panetta and Dempsey said they briefed Obama during a pre-scheduled meeting at 5pm ET on that day, as events in Benghazi had just started to unfold. They said there was no communication with the president until after the attack was over more than eight hours later.

Last night, Sean Hannity discussed Obama’s absence with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who questioned Panetta at length about why the president was apparently not engaged as the attack unfolded.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (168)

PLAYS: (1209)

Embed

Fox News on Tuesday aired a discredited "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ad in response to reports that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was being considered as the next secretary of defense.

"This would be a remarkable brute insult to the men and women in uniform," Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters told host Megyn Kelly in reaction to a Monday Washington Post report that President Barack Obama was considering Kerry to replace Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. "To nominate for secretary of defense a man who made his military career trashing our military, criticizing it, who told lies about war crimes in Vietnam... and I don't want to hear, 'John Kerry's a combat veteran.' So is Benedict Arnold."

"Are you out of your mind?" shot back Michael Meehan, who served as senior communications advisor to Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. "John Kerry got the Silver Star for his service in Vietnam. He went twice -- signed up, volunteered twice to serve in the war. This is not about running for president and 'Swiftboating' people."

Without noting that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads were misleading, Kelly played a portion the commercial that was used to undermine Kerry's military credibility during the 2004 campaign.

"It was remarkable that veterans came out so vigorously against him because I'll tell you, vets stick together," Peters opined. "And for them to criticized John Kerry as vociferously and specifically as they did tells you a lot."

"That ad was taken out of context," Meehan disagreed. "He was reading a report about what was happening in war and war is not pretty. It's unfair to sort of rerun that and say it's all the truth without pushing back that he was at that testimony in the 70s, he was reading what others were writing about what was happening in war. So, I don't find that to be a fair charge."

Peters, however, insisted that Kerry had "never been interested in our military except to trash it. So please, don't insult our troops, don't nominate this guy for secretary of defense."

In 2006, Steve Hayes, an early member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, broke with the group and lamented twisting Kerry's record.

"The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,'" Hayes said a the time. "It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."

DOWNLOADS: (289)

PLAYS: (789)

Embed

As Think Progress reported this Monday morning, Senators John McCain and Kelly Ayotte are out there raising fears about the pending cuts to the military budget which are coming as part of the sequestration plan passed by Congress during the debt ceiling debacle, but they had some trouble making a legitimate case on CNN as to just how those cuts would be "devastating."

McCain Can’t Explain Why Military Spending Cuts Would Be ‘Devastating’:

In their current campaign against automatic military spending cuts, Republican Senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Kelly Ayotte (NH) claim the reductions will be “devastating” to the U.S. military. But when asked to provide specifics on that claim on CNN this morning, McCain came up empty: [...]

Panetta does repeatedly say the military spending sequester would be “devastating” to the U.S. military but he has also failed to explain why. Panetta’s most specific remark on this point has been to say that the U.S. would have to reduce its presence in Latin America and Africa — i.e. hardly a “devastating” blow to the military or U.S. security. Moreover, a recent non-partisan Congressional Budget Office report found that the automatic spending cuts would bring the Pentagon’s budget back to what it spent in 2006.

As for McCain’s jobs argument, defense industry CEOs and other experts have said warnings that the military spending cuts will damage the economy and cause massive layoffs are “overblown.” And if you’re going to argue that federal spending is necessary to create jobs — a concept Republicans are now embracing in order to protect the nation’s bloated military budget — it’s probably better to, as one study has found, try to direct those dollars away from the Pentagon toward other domestic priorities.

Neither of them did a good job of explaining why we need a military budget, as O'Brien pointed out, five to eleven times larger than China, Russia or Britain. And McCain just completely brushed off the fact that his party is protecting the wealthy by refusing to raise taxes on the richest among us. And sadly neither of them were really challenged on any of their assertions by O'Brien. Another softball interview where politicians are allowed to spew their talking points unchallenged from CNN. It doesn't do much good to ask the right questions and then refuse to do any follow up when those questions aren't answered or answered with lies.

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (166)

PLAYS: (628)

Embed

Another Sunday, another gazillionth appearance by Sen. John McCain on a Sunday show. And he's calling for more military intervention by the United States in Syria. What a shock. Can anyone think of a time this man was ever calling for restraint, instead of beating the war drums at every opportunity?

Even House Speaker John Boehner said he disagrees with McCain earlier this week: Boehner Sides With Obama Over McCain On Syria Intervention:

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (OH) said his positions on whether or not to intervene militarily in Syria were closer to the Obama administration’s than to fellow Congressional Republicans.

While the Obama administration has reportedly given some support to regional allies’ efforts to arm rebels, as well as some other support, the U.S. has eschewed direct military involvement in the intensifying civil war. Right-wing hawks in Congress, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), have called on the administration to directly arm rebels and even carry out U.S. air strikes. [...]

Boehners position puts him in line with U.S. public opinion. A CNN poll last month found that, overall, six in ten Americans don’t want to get militarily involved in the civil war. According to those results, Boehner is also in line with adherents of his own party. 58 percent of Republicans agreed that the U.S. shouldn’t get involved.

That didn't deter McCain one iota: McCain blasts Obama handling of Syria, warns of chemical weapons threat:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blasted the Obama administration Sunday for failing to do more to help rebel fighters in Syria.

McCain urged the president to move swiftly to provide U.S. arms and equipment to rebels.

“We need to get some equipment to them, we need to establish a buffer zone,” McCain said on CNN’s “State of the Union”.

He warned the Obama administration’s decision not to intervene more actively could allow Hezbollah to acquire chemical weapons or lead to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad using such weapons against his own people.

He said Israeli security officials are particularly concerned about the prospect of Hezbollah obtaining chemical weapons as a result of the conflict.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (820)

PLAYS: (511)

Embed

Diplomacy and sanctions won't stop Iran from building a nuclear warhead, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"There has only been one time that Iran actually stopped the program," Netanyahu told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday. "That was when it feared U.S. military action."

The prime minister agreed with CIA Director Leon Panetta that sanctions would "probably not" stop the Iranians.

But Netanyahu wouldn't say whether he had discussed military action with President Barack Obama.

"I'm not going to get into the confidential discussions, and I'm not confirming anything of the sort but I am saying that the president's position that all options are on the table might actually have the only real effect on Iran if they think it's true," he said.

The prime minister was also cold to the idea of participating in an U.N. conference on a nuclear-free Middle East.

"As far as a nuclear weapons free zone, you know, when the lion lies down with the lamb, and you don't need a new lamb every day to satisfy the lion, then we might have this kind of transformation in the Middle East. But so far, you know who has been violating the nuclear non-proliferation pact, those who signed it. Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Iran violates it while calling for Israel's destruction and racing to develop atomic weapons to that end. So I think we should stay focused on the real problem in the Middle East. It's not Israel," said Netanyahu.

DOWNLOADS: (918)

PLAYS: (812)

Embed

How can a company allegedly responsible for killing 17 unarmed civilians in Baghdad in 2007 continue to get State Department and CIA contracts? CIA Director Leon Panetta says there is "not much choice" because few companies have the capabilities of Blackwater.

"Since I have become director, I have asked our agency to review every contract we have had with Blackwater and whatever their new name is now, Xe, to ensure first and foremost that we have no contract in which they are engaged in any CIA operations. We're doing our own operations. That's important that we not contract that out to anybody," Panetta told ABC's Jake Tapper Sunday.

"I have to tell you that in the war zone, we continue to have needs for security. You've got a lot of forward bases. You've got a lot of attacks on some of those bases. We've got to have security. Unfortunately, there are few companies that provide that kind of security," Panetta continued.

"State Department relies on them. We rely on them to a certain extent. So, we've bid out some of those contracts. They provided a bid that underbid everyone else by about $26 million and a panel that we had said that they can do the job, that they've shaped up their act," he said.

"There was really not much choice but to accept that contract," said Panetta.

"But having said that, I will tell you that I continue to be very cautious about any of those contracts and we're reviewing all of the bids that we have with that company," he concluded.

DOWNLOADS: (224)

PLAYS: (481)

Embed

From The Ed Schultz Show, Jerrold Nadler says the appointment of a Special Prosecutor doesn't go far enough and that the law is that when torture occurs under American jurisdiction there must be an investigation of everyone who may have been involved and if warranted prosecutions. Nadler expressed concern that we aren't being aggressive enough and limiting the investigations too much. He also adds this:

Nadler: We are well into territory already, where because of the pardon of Nixon after Watergate and the people around him, because of in the Iran Contra, we're getting into territory where it becomes taken for granted that high officials can violate the law and get away with it.

Schultz: Yep.

Nadler: If high officials violated the law here, if Cheney did, if Rice did, etc., they've got to be prosecuted to show that no one is above the law.

I agree with his point that no one is above the law. I disagree that we're "getting into territory" where high officials take it for granted that they will never be held accountable for their law breaking. We're well past that point now.

DOWNLOADS: (146)

PLAYS: (555)

Embed

Rachel came to the same conclusion I did when first hearing about this story and trying to make some sense of it. Since it was public information that the CIA was going after al Qaeda terrorists, what made CIA Director Leon Panetta feel the need to come running to Congress as soon as he knew about this program, and to stop it immediately? Something isn't adding up here.

MADDOW: It has now been five full days since we first got news that the CIA had been operating some sort of secret program that it was actively hiding from the Congress. It‘s been three days since that allegation that the CIA was hiding that program at the direction of former Vice President Dick Cheney—in what would appear to be a direct violation of federal law.

Since the story broke, there has been lots of speculation about what the secret program was that Cheney didn‘t want Congress to know about. And while all the speculation is really titillating and makes for great headlines, it does seem—when you start to look more closely at it—that there‘s something not quite right here, at least something is yet unexplained.

Here‘s what we‘ve seen: “Newsweek” says, “CIA squads to track and kill al Qaeda terrorists.” “The Wall Street Journal” says, the program “was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.” “New York Times” says, “CIA Had Planned to Assassinate al Qaeda Leaders.” Liz Cheney, her own very special voice of America, described the program as “ways that we could capture or kill al Qaeda leaders.”

The reason that doesn‘t make sense is because this strategy of capturing and killing top leaders of al Qaeda, it‘s not exactly classified. It‘s not exactly a secret plan. That‘s the war on terror. That‘s the war on terror strategy we heard articulated again and again and again by the Bush administration.

Continue reading »