DOWNLOADS: (129)

PLAYS: (1708)

Embed

A reporter at a press conference in D.C. with Grumpy John McCain, who still wants to rant about Benghazi even after it's become clear there's nobody out there on that lawn, asked a perfectly sensible question yesterday:

Q: Do you think there was potentially a greater national-security threat in apparently thousands of pages of classified documents ending up on the personal computer of a Tampa socialite who may have been a friend of the head of the CIA, of secret covert e-mail accounts involving the head of the CIA, and a top general in Afghanistan, and the fact that the FBI agent who was complained to stepped out of the chain of command and apparently went to a House Republican leader, rather than anybody upstairs. Do you think that there's potential -- you put all that together -- do you think that's a greater potential national security threat than what you're talking about?

You could watch the veins begin to bulge on Grumpy's neck and forehead as this question went along, and so naturally he burst like a festering pustule when it was done:

MCCAIN: Well, I say with great respect, that’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard. -- I’m answering your question. Do you want me to answer your question or do you want to interrupt? Which do you want? -- There are four dead Americans. The lives of other Americans were put in jeopardy.

This is a matter of four dead Americans. I think that the other issue raised is very serious, and I think it deserves a thorough and complete investigation — but it does not rise to the level of an attack on an American consulate that took four American lives.

OK, just so we're clear: Potential security threat created that exposes possible Republican chicanery? Never an issue. Tragic incident in which intelligence details remain unclear, so it can be endlessly exploited? Yeh, that's what gets Grumpy's attention.

DOWNLOADS: (156)

PLAYS: (1475)

Embed

From Tuesday's Rachel Maddow Show, it turns out that Mitt Romney, during a fundraiser in Montana on July 11th, told supporters of a conversation he had with Ronald Reagan's former Secretary of State James Baker. According to Romney, Baker told him how ... following a National Security Briefing on Latin America... The Gipper told Baker that he wanted "no more national security briefings for his first 100 days so that he could focus entirely on the economy."

Problem is, as the Conservative Weekly Standard and AEI point out, the story isn't true. Worse. Romney tells this story as if ignoring national security for the first three months of his presidency is something desirable (which should come as no surprise following his miserable performance in Debate-3 on National Security).

Not only can a president not "pick-n-choose" what parts of his job he can ignore for months on end, but the fact Romney was reciting this story as if it were something he might do should give us all pause.

DOWNLOADS: (142)

PLAYS: (898)

Embed

Oddly enough, there's been no mention this morning on Fox News (at least not that I have caught) of today's New York Times story about the Bush administration's manifest failure to heed a litany of warnings prior to the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001. Huh.

Oh, but they have been all over ex-Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen's WaPo op-ed claiming that President Obama has been skipping out on attending his Presidential Daily Briefings, the daily national-security rundown each president receives:

President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

Naturally, Dick Cheney was quick to chime in:

“If President Obama were participating in his intelligence briefings on a regular basis then perhaps he would understand why people are so offended at his efforts to take sole credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden,” Cheney told The Daily Caller in an email through a spokeswoman.

“Those who deserve the credit are the men and women in our military and intelligence communities who worked for many years to track him down. They are the ones who deserve the thanks of a grateful nation.”

Ironic, isn't it, that people from the Bush administration, of all people, should be pointing an accusatory finger about Presidential Daily Briefings on this day -- Sept. 11, the anniversary of the day when George W. Bush's failure to respond to the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB came home to roost in a horrifying way.

They seem to have conveniently forgotten all about it. Thiessen was on with Megyn Kelly on Fox this morning and for some strange reason, the subject was never mentioned.

It's doubly strange because today's front-page NYT piece focuses on that PDB and the warnings leading up to it:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (283)

PLAYS: (677)

Embed

For nearly three years, national security leaks were few and far between. There were leaks from the White House, but most of them centered around domestic policy. Then John Boehner appointed Michele Bachmann to the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Please, no snickering. For 2011, Bachmann was preoccupied with her primary run at the GOP nomination. Few national security leaks occurred, and none of consequence.

Now we come to 2012, and since Mitt Romney won the nomination for President, there have been several major national security leaks, which the press questioned President Obama about at last week's press conference, and to which Michele Bachmann has responded.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to ask you about another issue that came up at the president's press conference on Friday, those national security leaks. We have two investigations now being ordered by the attorney general.

And the president said that he was offended by any suggestion that these leaks were for political purposes by his White House aides. Michele Bachmann responded to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Of course the White House leaked it and of course they did it, to make Obama look like he was tough on terror. I am offended that he lied to the American people this afternoon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I see you smiling in response to Michele Bachmann. And I take the president's point that this was not for political…

AXELROD: As I often do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That this was not for political purposes. But if you look at these articles that were in The New York Times, on both the Stuxnet worm that went after the Iranian nuclear program, and the president's going over this so-called "kill list" for drones, in both cases they quote members of the president's national security team who were in the room.

So somebody who was in the room with the president was giving out some of this information or at least discussing classified information.

You know who else is privy to briefings like the ones about Stuxnet and the drone "kill list"? That's right. Michele Bachmann. Even Orange Man Boehner was concerned about her loose lips:

Bachmann may have justified Boehner’s faith in her abilities, but he wasn’t always so confident. When he appointed her to the committee last December, he made a special point of sitting Bachmann down to warn her that she could not let national secrets slip.

Which is why I find it interesting that Bachmann is the surrogate who pointed the finger in a direction away from her. It is far more likely that she or one of her staff would leak information like this, knowing it would infuriate people and embarrass the White House. From a timing standpoint, the pieces easily point to Bachmann as the leaker in the room, not the administration.

Crickets from George, of course. For him, it was all about pinning Axelrod down and casting doubt on President Obama's denial Friday.

The rest of the transcript after the jump.

Continue reading »

Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday night appointed two top prosecutors to lead a probe into recent leaks about classified national-security operations.

Ronald Machen, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and Rod Rosenstein, U.S. attorney for Maryland, will head the probe, Mr. Holder said Friday.

"I have every confidence in their abilities to doggedly follow the facts and the evidence in the pursuit of justice wherever it leads," Mr. Holder said.

He added, "The unauthorized disclosure of classified information can compromise the security of this country and all Americans, and it will not be tolerated."

Mr. Rosenstein was appointed by former president George W. Bush and asked to stay on by President Barack Obama. Mr. Machen is an Obama appointee.

The naming of the prosecutors follows publication a week ago of details about a U.S. cybersabotage program, including the use of a computer worm called Stuxnet, which Iran has acknowledged it found in its computers. The New York Times on June 1 published an account of the U.S. cyberattack operation in an excerpt from a forthcoming book by one of its reporters, David Sanger. He said he had been working on the book for a year. Other news organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, followed up with details about the program.

Earlier this week, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) said the leaks might have been "an attempt to further the president's political ambitions for the sake of his re-election at the expense of our national security." Some Democratic lawmakers also criticized the leaks but said they didn't believe they were politically motivated.

DOWNLOADS: (207)

PLAYS: (1233)

Embed

When last we heard from neo-McCarthyite and confirmed crazy person Allen West (R-FL), he was claiming that half of the Democratic caucus in the House were communists. Now, he's claiming the Muslim Brotherhood is pulling the strings at the Pentagon.

“We have to understand that when tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide,” West told "Fox and Friends" on Monday. “We should not allow the Muslim Brotherhood or associated groups to be influencing our national strategy.”

When asked if he believed those groups were influencing U.S. strategy, West responded, “Oh, absolutely,” and cited the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting report that didn’t mention the suspect’s Muslim faith as a potential motive for the killings.

So far, the Muslim Brotherhood has gotten Obama to surge in Afghanistan, increase Predator strikes in the entire region, send the Special Forces into Pakistan to kill bin Laden -- and launch an air war Libya. They're very sneaky!

What a nutball.

Oh, and I love that Faux News talking head said of West, "You're a guy who's trained to follow the law," when West was kicked out of the Army for breaking it.

Hmm. As I was just saying recently, imagine if we as a country defined national security as the health, well-being, education and gainful employment of our citizens, and not as the ability to deliver bombs on targets.

I'm not surprised that someone else came to the same obvious conclusion -- only that it's two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying so:

On Friday, April 8, as members of the U.S. Congress engaged in a last-minute game of chicken over the federal budget, the Pentagon quietly issued a report that received little initial attention: "A National Strategic Narrative." The report was issued under the pseudonym of "Mr. Y," a takeoff on George Kennan's 1946 "Long Telegram" from Moscow (published under the name "X" the following year in Foreign Affairs) that helped set containment as the cornerstone of U.S. strategy for dealing with the Soviet Union.

The piece was written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CAPT Wayne Porter, USN and Col Mark "Puck" Mykleby) in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without a measure of official approval. Its findings are revelatory, and they deserve to be read and appreciated not only by every lawmaker in Congress, but by every American citizen.

The narrative argues that the United States is fundamentally getting it wrong when it comes to setting its priorities, particularly with regard to the budget and how Americans as a nation use their resources more broadly. The report says Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism, underinvesting in their youth, and failing to embrace the sense of competition and opportunity that made America a world power. The United States has been increasingly consumed by seeing the world through the lens of threat, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness, and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world.

Courageously, the authors make the case that America continues to rely far too heavily on its military as the primary tool for how it engages the world. Instead of simply pumping more and more dollars into defense, the narrative argues:

By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in the education and training of young Americans -- the scientists, statesmen, industrialists, farmers, inventors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents, of tomorrow -- we are truly investing in our ability to successfully compete in, and influence, the strategic environment of the future. Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America's youth.

Please don't forget about our donation drive.

From Barefoot and Progressive, more words of wisdom from wunderkind Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

Rand Paul then decided to play some Tea Party History. You know Tea Party History, right? How the Founding Fathers ended slavery, Sputnik brought down the Soviet Union, Reagan never raised taxes, so on and so on. Rand Paul's been known to play this before with Hitler-flation, and played with Henry Clay in his opening speech on the Senate floor. And here's what he had to say about the Iraq/Iran War in the 80's:

"During the Iran/Iraq war from 1980-88, there were F-14's on both sides, you know, we're bombing each other with planes that we paid for on both sides because we got them for the Shah, and then we were supporting Sadam Hussein at the time."

That would be a great point, if it actually had any basis in reality. The United States didn't sell or give any aircraft to Iraq. Iraq never had F-14's. I get the "point" he's making here, but this once more shows either an incredible lack of understanding of history, or a willingness to make stuff up in order score political points.

Reality in the Republican World does have a different bend. It helps them make serious decisions about taxes and budgets and such. But even with these words of wisdom, I'll bet he and other Repubs don't think there's anything wrong with arming both Egypt and Israel, past enemies, with US military weapon systems. It's all good business for them, and they have no illusions about retaining the military-industrial complex.

But it is kind of weird to see M1 Abrams tanks facing off from the Egyptian protestors, isn't it? And F16s flying over Cairo? (Hat tip to Prof Farley)

UPDATE: Ron/Rand/Ryan typo corrected. Apologies.

At the NRO corner, Sarah Palin (or her ghostwriter) takes a moment to rally the Republican Senators against the evil that is New START. "It's a trap!" she screams. "Run away!"

New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons – a position the Russians have sought for years.  Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses.  This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty.  The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty?  At the height of the Cold War, President Reagan pursued missile defense while also pursuing verifiable arms control with the then-Soviet Union.  That position was right in the 1980’s, and it is still right today.  We cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population – whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else. I fought the Obama administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska while I was Governor, and I will continue to speak out for missile defenses that will protect our people and our allies.

It would be too easy to rebut her many incorrect assumptions and faulty logic, especially about the actions she may or may not have taken during her half-term as governor. It's not as bad as Romney's tirade against New START, but it's damned close in the level of stupidity and backwardness. Fortunately, there's a writer who has presented a counter-argument in The American Conservative magazine, of all places.

This is one thing in the treaty debate that has never made much sense. Treaty opponents are overwhelmingly drawn from the ranks of people who viscerally dislike and distrust the Russian government, but they ought to be among the first to want to put Russia under a verification regime. As it stands, they are working very hard to prevent the re-establishment of any verification regime. Whether or not they claim to want some ideally superior means of verification, they are taking the position that the regime established by this treaty should not be implemented.

Despite the best efforts of some hawkish interventionists to pretend that arms control is a relic of the past and irrelevant to today’s problems, they are the ones most likely to portray Russia as an existing or emerging threat to its neighbors. They should be the ones most eager to limit and constrain Russia through treaty obligations. Even if they don’t believe that Russia will comply with the treaty, it is hawks who should want to impose obligations and limits on Russia’s arsenal. Instead, it is the most anti-Russian and hawkish figures who are effectively enabling Russian power. What is remarkable about this is that these are the same people who could not stop haranguing the administration for betraying Poland and the Czech Republic when there was no betrayal, and they are the ones who remain convinced that it is the administration that is giving in to Russian demands when Russia has obtained virtually nothing tangible from the “reset.” Now that they are presented with an opportunity to side with European allies in support of greater U.S. and European security, they have opted instead for a rejectionist position that would keep the U.S. largely blind to Russian activities, increase uncertainty about Russia’s arsenal, and add to allied anxieties about potential Russian threats.

It's a no-brainer. Moderate Republicans should support New START because it does in fact limit Russian nuclear weapons and it sets up the opportunity to re-engage them on other issues, such as tactical nuclear missiles. The hard-right Republicans just want Russia to portray a symbol of unending threat, so it justifies spending lots of money on defense programs. The latter don't need arms control treaties to make their argument; the former recognize the need, but have to drum up the courage to stand up to their colleagues. We'll see who wins this round, sanity or madness.

Sarah Palin should stick to issues she understands, like shooting moose or wolves from planes, rather than addressing serious national security issues of which she has no comprehension. At the least, reflexively going against an arms control initiative because the Bush-initiated agreement might be completed under Obama's term, while every former Secretary of State and all of the active duty general officer is for it, is really not a great idea.

I suppose I'm suffering from Greenwald Syndrome -- yes, Obama's done some good things, but I just can't get past the civil liberties horrors of the Bush era that he not only defends, his policies embrace:

The victims of the Bush administration's programme of "extraordinary rendition" will not be able to sue the private company which transported them to foreign countries for torture by the CIA, after the present White House stepped in to squash their lawsuit on the grounds of national security.

A California court has sided with the Obama administration, which argued that a case led by the British resident Binyam Mohamed against the aerospace giant Boeing was bound to reveal state secrets and sensitive intelligence information.

Legal supporters of Mr Mohamed raised uproar at the decision, which the judge in charge of the case said had presented a "painful conflict between human rights and national security".

Ben Wizner, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, called it "a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about our nation's reputation in the world", and vowed to appeal to the US Supreme Court. "To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture programme has had his day in court," the attorney said.