The Republicans are determined not to let their trumped up, clearly partisan-based outrage on the attack on the Benghazi consulate go down the memory hole, like so many of the Republican failures of the last dozen years. Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Rep Darrell Issa promised brand new information to CBS News on Benghazi attack.

So the CBS News breathlessly brings on Issa to deliver this new information which will implicate the Obama administration in this great conspiracy that will no doubt bring the presidency down.

Except...

This great new information? It's testimony from US deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks. The problem? Hicks wasn't in Benghazi at the time of the attacks and has no actual idea what happened. Everything he testified about was his suppositions based on reports. The same reports that have issued forth in the months after the attack.

"I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning," Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens - then the U.S. ambassador to Libya - and three other Americans.

When he appears this week before the committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Hicks is expected to offer testimony at odds with what some American officials were saying in public - and on "Face the Nation" - just five days after the attack. Benghazi whistleblowers have rallied attention to discrepancies among the administration's reaction to the attack, which The Weekly Standard suggests was frayed by ever-evolving talking points that sought to remove references to al Qaeda.

On Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice hit the media circuit, appearing on all five Sunday talk shows to dispel the notion that the strike was a premeditated terrorist act and to perpetuate the case that it began "spontaneously" out of protests in Egypt. Rice's spot on "Face the Nation" that day was preceded by the new President of Libya Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had "no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined."

"For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens's front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable," he said. "I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris - Chris's last report, if you want to say his final report - is, 'Greg, we are under attack.'

"...I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. "The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn't know what he's talking about. ....My jaw hit the floor as I watched this."

Though the White House has said it was in contact with officials in Libya the night of the attack, Hicks said in the days following, he was never consulted about the talking points. One day after Rice's Sunday show blitz, Hicks said he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department, and asked, "Why did Amb. Rice say that?" The tone of her answer - "I don't know," he said - indicated that "I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked."

The net impact of Rice's statements, Hicks said, was "immeasurable." On top of his personal belief that "the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows," he said, Magariaf lost face "in front of not only his own people, but the world" at a time of democratic transition in his country. He added, "I have heard from a friend who had dinner with President Magariaf in New York City that he was still angry at Amb. Rice well after the incident."

Notice anything particularly evidentiary about Hicks' testimony? It's "unbelievable" that Stevens didn't call in a demonstration? Rice's statements have caused "immeasurable" damage? Um, hearsay anyone? Why is Hicks' opinion any more compelling than anyone else not actually there?

You know what I noticed didn't get mentioned in Schieffer's interview of Issa? The seven other attacks on US consulates between the years of 2002 and 2008 that haven't got Republicans' collective knickers in a bunch:

Benghazi was not unique. There have been eights attacks on six different U.S. consulates in and around the Mideast since the 9/11 attack. They include:

1. Karachi, Pakistan, 2002, 2003, and 2006
2. Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2002
3. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 2004
4. Damascus, Syria, 2006
5. Sana’a, Yemen, 2008
6. Benghazi, Libya, 2012

And what role Congress itself played:

Congress also shares a portion of the blame for the fate of Ambassador Stevens and the three others killed:

The State Department is still reeling from deep cuts made by Senate and House appropriations panels to the Obama administration’s budget requests for next year, with some officials warning of national security risks. (2011-10-01)

The quote seems particular damning, but read the whole article. There was an 22% across the board cut, but a separate request for spending on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan was approved. Including the separate request the State Department budget was still down $3.5 billion from the prior year, a very short sighted move given that Arab Spring was only ten months old at the time the decision was made.

Three autocratic governments blown away, two countries sliding into sectarian conflict, two others facing massive protests, and four that were compeled to introduce reforms by their restive population. And the response from Congress to this seismic shift? Budget cuts.

But yes, let's all wring our hands over Gregory Hicks' feelings and assumptions. It's so much easier than taking an honest look at Benghazi.

The fiscal cliff once again dominated the Sunday morning talk shows (which isn't a surprise), and entitlement cuts were indeed a focal point by the lead bobblehead of each show. But what I found most offensive was that not one Villager or politician discussed cuts to defense spending as a solution for the Mayan Apocalypse of the federal deficit. In part, the reason the fiscal cliff is coming is because the sequester deal has massive cuts to defense spending, 2013 which is freaking out Republicans.

Defense Spending: This is an area where Republicans are likely to launch a major opposition campaign because defense programs would receive a 9.4 to 10 percent reduction from its 2013 budget of $580 billion, or about $55 billion. Although the president exempted military personnel pay and benefits, defense programs, including weapons and procurement programs, are subject to half of the automatic budget cuts, even though defense programs are about one-fifth of the federal budget. States that have a very large defense presence have been very vocal about opposing these cuts.

The fact that entitlement benefits aren't part of the sequester probably has Republicans really angry since they can't use that as leverage in this debate. But if pols and pinheads are so worried about the federal deficit, then why aren't defense cuts a top priority? What we hear instead is that severe cuts to federal spending, coupled with bad job growth and raised taxes, will result in a deep financial recession. While the president won on raising tax rates, that isn't the manna from heaven that will fix our economic problems if Obama includes benefit cuts to Medicare and Medicaid for a small raise in rates. Raising the retirement age doesn't do a thing to help lower federal deficits, so why exactly are Republicans asking for it -- and why does it appear that the president is willing to acquiesce to those demands? Since 'defense" makes up over almost 20% of the federal budget expenditures, why is it off limits in this discussion?

On Face The Nation, Bob Shieffer didn't bring up cuts in defense spending once and the only mention I see of it was by cranky ex-Sen. Simpson calling earned benefits/entitlements a 'destructive force" which would hurt defense spending

SCHIEFFER: So you think they've got to do that. But also, don't you think that the Democrats are going to have to agree to some entitlement reforms?

SIMPSON: ...But, yes, I mean, the bizarre thing, not touching the entitlements. The entitlements are the engine on the train driving us to the cliff. They were on automatic pilot. Health care, it doesn't matter what you call it, is on automatic pilot. And it's going to squeeze out all the discretionary budget -- defense, R&D research, all the things you love. Erskine and I always say, what do you love? And they'll name something and we say forget it because this is wiping everything. It's just a destructive force. And no cost containment till down the road..

What's destructive, Mr. Simpson, are austerity measures being forced upon the people during a recession and after an economic downturn.

On Meet The Press, defense spending was not mentioned once, but cuts to entitlements was at center stage, with the host of MTP seemingly negotiating with Republicans for 'big cuts" to entitlements

GREGORY: All right. Well, senator, let me just-- I want to pin you down on one point about Medicare. You say you want to basically put off this discussion until later. But bottom line, should the Medicare eligibility age go up? Should there be means testing to really get at the benefits side, if you’re going to shore this program up, because as you say, 12 years before it runs out of money?

The segment on the fiscal cliff went mostly like that and again, no mention if Republicans would accept big cuts in defense to fight off rate hikes.

On Fox News Sunday, neither Chris Wallace, Senators Corker or Schumer mentioned cutting defense spending when talking about a fiscal deal. They did, however, go large on entitlement cuts with Sen.Schumer actually agreeing that Corker's proposal was good for America.

Corker; So, and a lot of people are putting forth a theory and I actually think it has merit where you go ahead and give the president the 2 percent increase that he is talking about, the rate increase on the top 2 percent. And all of a sudden, the shift goes back to entitlements, and all of a sudden, once you give him the right on the top 2 percent, it's actually much lesser tax increase than what he has been talking about, the focus then shifts to entitlements and maybe it puts us in a place where we actually can do something that really saves the nation.

SCHUMER: Well, bottom line is, if Speaker Boehner ends up where Senator Corker has just said he is, we will get a large agreement. And -- but, Speaker Boehner has not said that. And so, we Democrats realize that there have to be two sides to this bargain.

Corker: The shift in focus and entitlements is where we need to go and, again, it is a shame that we're not just sitting down and solving this. But Republicans know that they have the debt ceiling that's coming up right around the corner, and, the leverage is going to shift, as soon as we get beyond this issue.

Wow. And finally ABC's THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos. And the guest stars were Senators Tom Coburn and Debbie Stabenow along with Congressman (D) Raul Grijalva and (R) Jeb Hensarling. How did they do with cuts to defense spending? Nada, nothing, zilch. Only three mentions of the word defense. Once when George set up what would happen if the sequester kicks in and twice more while talking about DOMA.

Coburn was in rare form by saying we don't really need Medicare or Social Security, anyway.

"The fact is we are spending money we don't have on things we don't absolutely need," he concluded. "And there's no grownups in Washington that will say, 'Time out, stop the politics, let's have a compromise rather than play the game through the press and hurt the country.' We're already going to get another debt downgrade just from what's happening now because nobody in positions of power are willing to do what's important and necessary for our country."

Why do people even vote for these Republicans who want to take so much away from them for a crisis caused by crimes the people who will suffer most didn't commit?

DOWNLOADS: (207)

PLAYS: (4738)

Embed

The notion of Constitutional Separation of Powers has gotten muddied over the last ten years or so, thanks in great part to the Republicans and the wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing trillions in American blood and treasure. It appears that they agree with Nixon's declaration that it's not illegal if the President does it, at least when it comes to a Republican president.

A quick perusal of right wing outlets show a plethora of poutrage over what they perceive as President Obama's overreach as the Chief Executive of the nation. No later than ten minutes after Mitt Romney uttered these words, Lindsey Graham was reaching for his smelling salts over Obama's new immigration stance.

But we all know that overreach only applies when it's a Democratic president. That's why Mitt Romney can tell host Bob Schieffer point blank that he has the right to act unilaterally against Iran.

SCHIEFFER: Let me turn to foreign policy. Bill Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard this week, says we are reaching the time of consequence in our dealing with Iran on nuclear weapons. He says it is time for the President to go to the Congress and say, “I want you to authorize me to be able to use military force” if that becomes necessary. And he says if the President is not willing to do that, then the Congress should do it themselves. What's your take on that?

ROMNEY: Well, I can understand the reason for his recommendation and his concern. I think he's recognized that this president has communicated that in some respects, well, he might even be more worried about Israel taking direct military action than he is about Iran becoming nuclear. That's the opinion of some who watch this. And so he wants the President to take action that shows that a military Iran, that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

And I believe it's important for us to communicate that. I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The President has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the President indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable.

We cannot survive a course of action would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions. All those actions must be on the table.

Quick, can you name a nation that has acted aggressively against Iran and won? Didn't think so.

The Separation of Powers: it's not just for Democrats any more.

DOWNLOADS: (967)

PLAYS: (1663)

Embed

Speaking as a woman, I would appreciate it *right now* if the GOP candidates would kindly get out of my uterus, thankyouverymuch. Despite anything that crazy Michele Bachmann says, there is nothing remotely pro-woman about the increasingly more strident rhetoric coming out of the mouths of the Republican Party. And I'll be damned if it isn't the candidate who is the most skeptical of science and the most righteous in his sense of faith who is the most judgmental against women's reproductive health.

Current GOP frontrunner Rick Santorum told an incredulous Bob Schieffer that he is against pre-natal testing. Why? Because it enables women the information they desire to abort a pregnancy. To be fair, Schieffer incorrectly generalized it to "prenatal care" (a stance that would guarantee that not one woman will ever vote for Santorum) and Santorum's particular issue is with the amniocentesis procedure, not all prenatal testing.

For those unfamiliar with amniocentesis, a needle is inserted through the abdominal wall to extract amniotic fluid from a pregnant woman's womb, usually around the 16th week of pregnancy. This is a fairly standard practice for pregnant women over the age of 35. From that fluid, doctors can tell a wide variety of genetic markers of the fetus. In truth, it's offered to older mothers because of the exponentially higher odds of genetic anomaly of Trisomy 21, or Down Syndrome. But it also can test for other genetic disorders, like Tay-Sachs, hemophilia and cystic fibrosis.

It is true that the incidences of Down Syndrome in the US has dropped, because women are choosing to abort these pregnancies. Now, that may horrify you--as it clearly does Santorum--but I'm at a loss as to how Mr. Small Government reconciles the notion that the government can make this choice for a citizen and her family. The government now gets to tell you that you must continue with a pregnancy that may cause undue suffering of the rest of the family? While she does not have Down Syndrome, I do have a cousin who is developmentally disabled, the result of scarlet fever in infancy. I love my cousin and she's a wonderful part of our family. But her needs have not been small, nor inexpensive to my aunt and uncle. She and my family have been fortunate that they were and are emotionally, physically and financially prepared to handle the challenges that have come up and will continue to come up. My cousin will never be able to be fully independent and the eventuality that her parents will not be around to care for her has had to be considered. Sadly, there are few options that the government can provide there to help them be assured that she will be cared for after they've passed on.

But Rick Santorum wants to deny Americans that right to make that choice. He and his wife, faced with the reality due to prenatal testing that their daughter Bella would be born with Trisomy 18, opted to continue the pregnancy. Of course, the Santorums have a net worth of $4.2 million, so they've had less concern about her care than the average American.

I think it's important to acknowledge, no woman thinks of abortion as the most positive outcome. It is simply an option when the alternative is too difficult to consider. But let's not have the "Christian" unfairly judging these women and families who know that they do not have what it takes to care for a disabled child.

DOWNLOADS: (183)

PLAYS: (826)

Embed

More proof that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail:

Arizona Senator John McCain on Sunday warned that the situation in Iraq is "unraveling" due to recent U.S. foreign policy actions there - and that a "very chaotic situation" could give way to a rise in Iranian influence in the region.

McCain, speaking to Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation," argued that the recent U.S. military drawdown from Iraq is creating a dire situation in that country.

"It's unraveling because we didn't keep residual force there, because the President of the United States pledged to get out of Iraq," McCain said. "We could have kept a residual force there and kept some stability. And instead it's unraveling, and Iran's influence is increasing and there's every possibility you could see a very chaotic situation there."

Oh for crying out loud. That president who pledged to get us out? That was George W. Bush in 2008, you bonehead. If you had won the 2008 election (God forbid), it would have been you that would have overseen the final drawdown of troops.

There's no question that chaos still remains in Iraq. One day after the last troops left Iraq, an arrest warrant was issued for Sunni VP Tariq Al-Hashemi and just this Thursday, 73 Iraqi civilians were killed by bombs. However, I'm at a loss as to how continuing American troop involvement would mitigate that.

Worse, this just looks like yet another front to make Iran the next bogeyman to fear. George Galloway published an op-ed this week warning on just such an attempt:

Obama has officially announced what has long been known to be the new military doctrine — to draw down as many forces as possible in Europe and the Middle East and to redeploy into a more aggressive posture encircling China.

Hence the withdrawal from Iraq and the doomed attempt to exert influence there from an absurdly named “embassy” of 16,000 people including 5,000 mercenaries, which means that the private sector picks up the bill for their pensions, missing body parts and so on.

This is precisely the point. For decade after decade the US state could provide guns as well as butter in the form of rising living standards and economic growth. Now it can provide no butter. But it has every intention of providing guns.

According to its own warped logic it has no alternative.

Facing a growing China and shifting balance in the world economy, the one thing that US capitalists have is a super-abundance of guns which can be used to extract other people’s butter.

So don’t imagine that financial strictures and the strains of shifting the military balance to the Pacific mean that there is more likelihood of the US, with its allies, accepting Iran as a major, independent regional power in the Gulf — the most important oil-producing area on the planet.

The opposite is the case. It is more likely to lead them to calculate that it is better to “take down” Iran now, which is why they are concerned about Syria, in order not to leave a gigantic problem as they are forced to refocus elsewhere.

Last weekend, Bob Schieffer plays the the now classic "journalist" defense on non-answers from politicians. It's all the consultants' fault, doncha know?

In this age of sophisticated information management and consultant-driven politics where everyone has a media coach and a strategy guru, it is all the vogue in public relations to tell your client, "Here are a couple of answers. No matter what you're asked, just give these answers."

Well, I hate to hurt your feelings, candidates, but you're paying good money for bad advice.

I don't give advice myself, but here is a news bulletin: Our viewers are pretty smart. When you don't answer a question, they know it, and they don't like it. They think you're slick (at best), evasive and even oily.

Bulletin number two: No one ever got elected because people thought they were evasive.

As a rule, I never ask the same question more than twice. I don't have to. A non-answer becomes an answer, and it never reflects well on the non-answerer ...

Well, I'd agree with Schieffer with one caveat: these so-called journalists NEVER call out the politicians with their evasiveness. Schieffer never confronts the politicians with facts or context that belie their carefully crafted talking points. It's nice that he thinks his audience is smart enough to figure the issue out on their own, but when you have only one in four Americans believing in evolution, 60% of Republicans still believe Obama is a Muslim, and one in five believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, that's a really, really optimistic outlook.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (241)

PLAYS: (2541)

Embed

I love Newt Gingrich's campaign strategy of demanding that the media only hold him accountable for how great he is *right now*. Ignore all those ethical issues in his past tenure as Speaker of the House, he's *now* the only one with leadership skills. Ignore all those infidelities in the past, he loves his wife *now*. Ignore what he said last week about Paul Ryan's budget, he thinks it's the best thing for America *now*. Likewise, *right now* Newt knows exactly how to get us out of the economic crisis we're in because he's debt-free and frugal, just ignore the fact that his own financial dealings have been less than cut and dried.

Bob Schieffer brings up this week's revelation that Callista Gingrich disclosed five years ago an outstanding debt to Tiffany's Jewelers in the six figures. Callista claimed the debt (of somewhere between $250,000 and 500,000) was her husband's. Now, I don't know about you, but I think it's hard to claim understanding the financial concerns of most Americans when you're floating a six figure debt to Tiffany's, but Newt wants you to know that *right now* he and Callista are living frugally and debt-free.

Whew! I'm relieved to know that, aren't you? Except...

Newt's "small businesses" actually owed back taxes just a short time ago:

Companies run by Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich have faced overdue tax bills in four states worth more than $6,000, according to records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The tax liens, which generally allow governments to seize assets or property to settle tax bills, ranged in size from a $195 property tax bill in the Atlanta suburbs to $1,969 in unpaid Missouri taxes. Most of the liens were paid shortly after tax authorities filed them.

One exception was in Pennsylvania, where Gingrich Holdings Inc. last week paid off a $1,599 lien for unpaid corporate income taxes just days before Gingrich formally announced he would run against Democratic incumbent Barack Obama. Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler said Gingrich and his firms were unaware of most of the tax liens until being contacted this week by the AP.

And on the subject of being debt free...Newt never really has ever explained where he came up with the money to pay his ethics violation charges. Initially, he said he'd pay it via a $300K loan from Bob Dole, but then the outrage made him back down and offer to pay for it himself. Where that money came from is anyone's guess. Then-wife Marianne Gingrich (Callista was only a little something something on the side) said that the Gingriches were extremely cash-poor in those days and Newt's plan to write a book to cover expenses fell apart.

So where did the money come from? We know that Citizens United donated money to Newt's production company and we know he's raking in cash (some $14 million according to some sources) from donations to various foundations.

Maybe Gingrich ought to release his tax filings so we can see just how frugal and debt-free he is.

Mediaite picked up on this little exchange with Reagan/Teddy Roosevelt biographer Edmund Morris and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. Unfortunately, their focus was less on the content and more on the adolescent giggling over the use of a naughty word on the part of Morris:

Although the clip below from CBS’s Face The Nation is not as confrontational as the title to this post might suggest, it’s actually much funnier. Bob Schieffer annually hosts a roundtable in an attempt to bring together for an intellectual conversation four authors who wrote serious historical or political books. This year authors Ron Chernow (Washington: A Life), Arianna Huffington (Third World America), Edmund Morris (Colonel Roosevelt), and Bob Woodward (Obama’s Wars) participated in the thoughtful and sedate conversation, that is until a sound rarely, if ever, heard on a Sunday morning news show caught all viewers by surprise: a censor bleeping.

Earlier in the show, Schieffer probed Theodore Roosevelt biographer Morris about what Roosevelt would think of the Tea Party movement. Morris bristled at the idea of attempting to do the impossible and predict what a dead President would think of current events. However, that did not stop Schieffer from trying again with this exchange:

Schieffer: What would Teddy Roosevelt think of today’s politics, Edmund?

Morris: You keep asking these presentist questions Bob. As the immortal Marisa Tomei said in My Cousin Vinny, ‘that’s a bullshit question!’ because you cannot pluck people out of the past and expect them to comment on what’s happening today.

Not only was the expletive jarring, but so was hearing the erudite author change the tone of his voice in an attempt to mimic Tomei’s movie accent.

Kenyan-born Morris may have difficulty contorting his mouth to sound like the Brooklynite Mona Lisa Vito, but the point of his response is apt. Why does the media keep seeking to legitimize the tea partiers as a political movement by looking for historical validation? Here's one of the country's leading authorities on Teddy Roosevelt, who faced his own set of political issues and faced them soundly, establishing himself as one of the greatest American presidents, and you want to know what he'd think about a bunch of yokels who don't even realize they're doing the bidding of corporate forces like Dick Armey's FreedomWorks? Mediaite goes further to be outraged at Morris for slamming Americans for not being intellectually curious enough to know or care about anything outside their insular world.

The moment got even stranger as just seconds later the American film buff launched a devastatingly serious critique about what he sees as unattractive about the American people today:

I see an insular people who are insensitive to foreign sensibilities, who are lazy, obese, complacent and increasingly perplexed as to why [Americans] are losing our place in the world to people who are more dynamic than us and more disciplined.

Wow tell us how you really feel Morris. Maybe if America gave him a sequel to My Cousin Vinny he would be happier with our country?

Yeah, that's what Morris is looking for. Honestly, has Mediaite writer Matt Schneider not been paying attention? Americans ARE intellectually incurious and too wrapped up in their own lives to see how the country is falling behind. I promise, a couple of hours at a mall during Black Friday ought to convince anyone of that. Of course, instead of following up on that notion and perhaps leading the panel into a substantive discussion (that would include the delusions of the tea parties), Schieffer immediately goes to commercial. Because, you know, we wouldn't want to shock Schieffer's viewers out of their complacency.

UPDATE: Scott Brown told Schieffer that he hasn't heard anything about jobs since he's been in the Senate, but Steve Benen reminds him that he voted on a couple of jobs bills already. What a nitwit. He's lying only a couple of months into his new gig. Welcome to the House of Lords.

Scott Brown made his first appearance on Face the Nation Sunday, and while he distanced himself from Sarah Palin and wouldn't answer Bob Schieffer's question asking him if he would have appeared with her if he wasn't working, he gave an awfully good impression of her by not including any substance in his answers to Bob's questions -- only right wing talking points.

I found it rather bizarre that since he has been part of the legislative process in Boston before he became Senator, his performance made it sound like he had zero knowledge on what's wrong with the financial reform bill other than saying that President Obama is now putting his political arm in the debate so he's going to filibuster the bill.

Here's the way the segment went.

Transcript via CBS.

SENATOR SCOTT BROWN (R-Massachusetts): Well, I think the President's political arm is now taking over this debate. And it's unfortunate because I, like many others in my state and throughout the country, want banks to be banks. They don't want them to be casinos. They don't want them to take risky bets on our money. And, I think that this is an issue that we can clearly come to common ground and just solve the problem. Where there're problems, we should fix them. But the regulation and the-- the bill that's being proposed by the banking chairman dramatically affects businesses-- mutual-- for example, Liberty Mutual, MassMutual. These folks are-- are caught in that-- that-- that regulation as well. It's going to cost potentially twenty-five to thirty-five thousand jobs. And--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Well, now, wait a minute, Senator. How-- how can you say that?

SENATOR SCOTT BROWN: Well, I-- I can say it very clearly because the-- the regulations that are-- they're trying to reel in with some of the risky he-- hedging-- that bets are doing also affects companies like-- like I just described in Massachusetts. It's-- it's very clear. And-- and speaking with Secretary Geithner the other day I-- I certainly noted the-- the President's comments. But, Secretary Geithner has some of the same criticisms of the bill. In that, it doesn't end the bailout mentality of the big bank--the too-big-to-fail concept. And, in addition, there are a lot of things in the Dodd bill that-- that are just bad for business, small businesses in particular. And we should do better. And, I've-- I called the President out the other day and the administration to do better and stop politicizing these issues and just start solving problems.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But don't you think that Senator McConnell might be a little bit guilty of politicizing when he-- he comes out and just says flatly, "No, we're against it?"

SENATOR SCOTT BROWN: He's not saying-- he's not saying no to financial reform unless I'm mistaken because that's never the impression I've gotten in the seventy-three days since I've been there. Throughout our caucuses, that issue has been in the forefront with the teams that are negotiating with the banking chairman to try to find common sense reforms and-- and address situations like the one that I just pointed out with-- where companies are-- are caught in the big web. And, when you have government interfering in-- in-- in businesses-- small businesses' lives and just throwing-- like a-- a one-size-fits-all approach just to score political points, it's-- it's sad. We should be looking at real issues-- I'm sorry, real solutions to these

problems. And, to politicize, it is clear what they're with, you know, trying to score points and he should do better.

The interview went on like this for about thirteen minutes or so. He wouldn't answer any of Bob's questions and just repeated prepared lines that fell flat. He was unimpressive and appeared to be just like another political hack who's going to vote with the Democrats whenever he can so he'll be able to say he's a true independent voice for the people of Massachusetts to get reelected to the Senate. It's fine to be prepared, we all do it before we go on TV, but I thought he would be able just list a few reasons why he's against the Dodd bill instead of flatly rejecting it like Frank Luntz has instructed them to.

In the CBS report on this segment, they only repeated what was bantered around, but in the end they agreed with me by saying:

He didn't offer specifics about what he thinks should be in a financial reform bill, but said he'd filibuster the current bill rather than let it come to the Senate floor.

Bob didn't bother to push him on anything either except when it came to Palin. I can see that Scott Brown is a bit shaky about Our Lady from Alaska.

BOB SCHIEFFER: well, would you have, for example, gone to the rally in Boston and appeared with Sarah Palin had the Senate not been in session?

SENATOR SCOTT BROWN: Well, I’ve been to rallies before. I spoke a couple of years-- last year at two rallies in Worcester, before I was elected. And, you know, my role now is, as an elected official, is to do my job. And that’s not-- that wasn’t-- those weren’t the circumstances. And I have great respect for-- for Sarah and what she’s doing. She’s got a lot on her plate. And, she’s plays a role in-- in-- in that movement, and-- and-- and just the-- the-- the Republican Party. And-- and--

Notice how he referred to the Tea Parties as "that movement?" He also had a hard time with Shieffer's question about whether Obama is a socialist.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But, do you decline to answer my question: is he pushing the country towards socialism?

SENATOR SCOTT BROWN: I don’t think he’s making proper choices when it comes to dealing with the-- the free market and free enterprise and allowing businesses to-- to really run themselves and create jobs. And as a result, larger government is happening and we’re creating

jobs but they're all government jobs. And the private sector is definitely-- definitely suffering.

This interview was about as softball as it comes and what I came away from it was that Scott Brown is a political fly weight. Not knowing, but speaking "Luntz" is the new "in," people.

Oh, and did you know his daughter got a job on CBS? I'm not saying she didn't deserve the job because you know, American Idol really prepares oneself for political reporting.

DOWNLOADS: (1367)

PLAYS: (2429)

Embed

Will any media member ask Dick Cheney why HE never released any memos when he was in power? is that too much to ask. He's playing games right now and trying to suck the media and the American people in.

Dick Cheney was having a grand old time defending torture, saying that he wasn't in the torture business, but hey, we waterboarded a few people because his buddies at the OLC helped him out. He was spinning his web and telling us that the OLC and the Bush administration acted within the law when they starting waterboarding prisoners on Face the Nation. He denies that they ever used torture. Cheney also said George Bush knew and approved everything they did. I guess when he said we didn't use torture his was misleading America.

He also used the GOP talking point that we used the same techniques on our own troops in the SERE program so it ain't torture. His daughter (Liz Cheney) learned a lot from him because she used the same defense to Norah O'Donnell which didn't even pass her smell test.

He absolutely wouldn't change a thing and still wants more memos released. When will journalists ask Cheney why he didn't released these documents when he was in power? Bush was taking a tremendous amount of heat over the torture issue at the time.

Schieffer was asking him if he would allow himself to be questioned about these topics and go "under oath." Cheney dodged the question by saying he'd have to look into it legally and see what precedent he would set , but he's talking now. He WILL NEVER go under oath.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?

CHENEY: I'd have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn't be out here today if I didn't feel comfortable talking about what we're doing publicly. I think it's very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done.

He's just trying to justify torture and he's using TV to promote his views. Let's see if he'll go on with Lawrence O'Donnell and face some real questions. If Cheney will never appear with another guest or interviewer that uses facts to question him with, what makes you think he'll go in front of Leahy?

CBS has the full transcript and you can read more below the fold:

Continue reading »