Rachel Maddow and The Nation's Chris Hayes discuss Liz Cheney's hackery and her neocon pressure group Keep America Safe which was pretty well set up to give Cheney credibility she doesn't deserve, rewrite history for the Bush administration and attack President Obama on matters of national security. Of course that wouldn't work out so well for them if she and her cohort Bill Kristol weren't allowed to go on the air and spew bullcrap unchallenged by the hosts who allow them on their shows. As Rachel points out George Stephanopoulos did actually bother to point out an inaccuracy in Keep America Safe's recent ad, but then didn't challenge her when she didn't answer the question. Useless.

MADDOW: A remarkable political moment to share with you. You know that former Vice President Dick Cheney‘s daughter, Liz Cheney, has formed a neoconservative pressure group, right? That‘s the ostensible reason why she gets on TV so much these days. Remarkably, on one of those myriad TV appearances, someone actually confronted Liz Cheney about something she‘s been arguing for that makes no sense.

Amazing. Somebody confronted her. It finally happened!

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: I want to show our viewers a little bit of this ad you all are running in the wake of this, hitting the president for a tardy response to all of this. You show him playing golf, 24 hours later, the president coming out and finally saying something another day after that, 46 hours later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: But what already is apparent is that there was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Arguing that the responses were much better under President Bush, yet as many Democrats have also pointed out, President Bush waited I think six days before doing much about Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.

LIZ CHENEY, KEEPAMERICASAFE.COM: Well, I think you‘ve got to go back here and look at the way this president has dealt with terror since he‘s been in office. And the point of that ad was this notion that you cannot win a war if you‘re treating it as sort of an inconvenient sideline.

MADDOW (voice-over): Wow! What a rhetorical duck. It‘s like she didn‘t even hear the question. Let‘s see that again on the instant replay.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (621)

PLAYS: (3426)

The panel on This Week weighed in on this quote from the new book "Game Change" by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann:

Reid was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama, a 'light-skinned African-American' with 'no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as Reid said privately.

Liz Cheney among others was of course happy to make political hay of this and accuse Harry Reid of being a "liberal elite" racist and gets taken to task by George Will of all people.

CHENEY: But, you know, can I just point out that I think one of the things that makes the American people frustrated is when they see time and time again liberals excusing racism from other liberals. And I think that, you know, clearly, Senator Reid's comments were outrageous. And the notion that they're being excused...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But in a private conversation that he thought was off the record...

CHENEY: I don't think racism is OK, George, whether you're saying it in private or in public. And the excuse of it by liberals, you know, is -- is really inexcusable.

But I do think, frankly, you know, he's given the voters of Nevada yet one more reason to oust him this -- this next time around, and I suspect that's what they'll do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: George, you're shaking your head.

WILL: I don't think there's a scintilla of racism in what Harry Reid said. At long last, Harry Reid has said something that no one can disagree with, and he gets in trouble for it.

Continue reading »

Lawrence O'Donnell filling in for Keith Olbermann talks to Media Matters' Eric Burns about George Stephanopoulos' bit of stenography for Rudy Giuliani on Good Morning America. As Burns points out sadly what happened with Giuliani is more of a rule than the exception and thankfully we have organizations like Media Matters and the blogs holding the media accountable when they do these sort of things.

O`DONNELL: Let’s turn now to Eric Burns, president of Media Matters for America, which as you can imagine, has been all over this one today. Good evening, Eric.

ERIC BURNS: Good evening, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Now, we know that George Stephanopoulos knows that four teams of hijackers commandeered U.S. airliners on September 11th. He knows what happened. What is it that happened to a smart guy like George in a middle of an interview like that where Giuliani can just slip that by? Does it mean that Republicans like Giuliani are so accustomed to getting away with that move in these interviews like this that the media, in a sense, has internalized this notion that there were no domestic attacks during President Bush’s presidency?

BURNS: I think there’s no question that conservatives are used to getting away with this because we don’t have a culture of accountability in our media. And, you know, what happened today is a great example of accountability working the way it should. Our job at Media Matters is to hold journalists accountable.

When we documented this morning, other folks picked it up, PolitiFact picked it up. And by this afternoon, Mr. Stephanopoulos, to his credit, had accepted responsibility for not calling out Mr. Giuliani on his factually erroneous statement. And something we need to see more of in the media.

But, unfortunately, Lawrence, the media is lazy, you know? And it’s something we just see every day, but it’s bad for the county, it’s bad for America, it’s bad for our political discourse. Media’s got to do a better job. They can’t be carrying right-wing talking points, especially when they’re wrong.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (444)

PLAYS: (2083)

Rudy Giuliani went on ABC's Good Morning America and had the balls to say that America never had a domestic terrorist attack under George Bush. 9/11 was the most heinous attack on US soil since pearl Harbor and to think that Giuliani was the mayor of the city that was attacked only illustrates how despicable the conservative movement is. New Yorkers should be outraged by his behavior on ABC. Almost as lame: George Stephanopoulos didn't even correct him on the air.

I spoke to the former mayor of New York City this morning on GMA, who assailed the Obama administration’s decisions on national security.

“What he [Obama] should be doing is following the right things that Bush did -- one of the right things he did was treat this as a war on terror. We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We’ve had one under Obama,” Giuliani said. “Number two, he should correct the things that Bush didn’t do right. Sending people to Yemen was wrong, not getting this whole intelligence thing corrected.” Giuliani seems to have forgotten about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and shoe bomber Richard Reid.

We also had the anthrax attacks as well. Watching the video you can see Stephanapoulos either was asleep at the wheel or didn't want to confront Rudy on his outrageous lie. What good is writing a post correcting him when he was right in front of his face. Bloggers are fact checking him as usual.

Rudy's persona since the attacks has been about terrorism and 9/11. His whole presidential campaign was built on 9/11. And his speech to the RNC before the 2004 election was littered with references to 9/11.
And remember this part:

Thank God George Bush is our President."

It's Jay Rosen time. How should the media handle Rudy going forward? Does he need to be banned from TV for 90 days?

UPDATE: Giuliani tried to clarify his remarks after he got criticized, but he's still wrong of course.

Giuliani this afternoon:

The Mayor’s spokesman says that the remark “didn't come across as it was intended” and that Giuliani was “clearly talking post-9/11 with regards to Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.”

No, the shoe bomber, which took place three months after September 11, was Al Qaeda. So if you count that attempted Al Qaeda plane bombing, then you also count the one attempted Al Qaeda plane bombing under Obama. So it's one to one, not zero to one. Of course, the underwear bomber attack did not occur on our soil, so even that's wrong. Stephanopoulos, who reported Giuliani's correction, apologized for not catching Giuliani on this this morning. But he shouldn't just repeat the spokesman's new lie, unchallenged.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (576)

PLAYS: (602)

From This Week With(out) George Stephanopoulos, national security advisor John Brennan talks about the loss of seven CIA officers in the recent Afghanistan suicide bombing:

MORAN: This has been a hard week for the CIA. There were seven CIA officers killed in a suicide bombing on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. What can you tell us about how that attack occurred, and how badly will it impact U.S. intelligence gathering in Afghanistan?

BRENNAN: Well, first of all, I think the tragic deaths of those seven CIA officers just underscores the tremendous bravery and the risk that these men and women of the CIA put themselves at every day. I think this nation owes them a tremendous debt of gratitude.

CIA is looking very carefully at the circumstances surrounding that attack and trying to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The CIA is on the front line, right along that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As you point out, it is going to take a toll as far as the people that are there, the expertise that we have. But the CIA is a tremendously resilient organization. I had the privilege to serve there for 25 years. It has some of the most dedicated men and women in this United States, and so therefore we're confident that the CIA is going to be able to rebound from this and be able to continue to prosecute this war against Al Qaida.

MORAN: Should they be out on the front line like that?

BRENNAN: Yes. This is a very, very dangerous threat that Al Qaida poses to us. We have to take those risks. We have to do it prudently, and that's why we have to learn from the attack, just like the attack on the 25th of December, the attack against the base in Khost. But we need to take those risks, because we're -- we need to be able to find out sort of who these individuals are, what they're planning and what their next steps are.

In the meantime, details are still murky:

A CIA investigation is under way into how the bomber was able to circumvent security at the base, apparently passing unchecked through an outer perimeter manned by Afghan contractors to enter the gym and detonate his explosive vest. He was said to be wearing Afghan army uniform, but the Afghan Ministry of Defence has denied he was a member of the security forces.

What is clear, given the number of CIA agents at the meeting, is that he was considered an important informant. One agent had flown in specially from Kabul.

When the CIA is used specificially to circumvent legal restrictions on the military, history shows their operations usually create more problems than they solve (i.e. Vietnam, Thailand, El Salvador). Maybe it's time we had a frank discussion about that:

The C.I.A. has always had a paramilitary branch known as the Special Activities Division, which secretly engaged in the kinds of operations more routinely carried out by Special Operations troops. But the branch was a small — and seldom used — part of its operations.

That changed after Sept. 11, 2001, when President George W. Bush gave the agency expanded authority to capture or kill Qaeda operatives around the world. Since then, Washington has relied much more on the Special Activities Division because battling suspected terrorists does not involve fighting other armies. Rather, it involves secretly moving in and out of countries like Pakistan and Somalia where the American military is not legally allowed to operate.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (556)

PLAYS: (1012)

George Will quotes free-trader Milton Friedman to trash the idea of "shovel-ready" projects while continuing his defense of George Bush's economic policies. I'm guessing that George Will has refused to go within fifty feet of Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine since he holds Friedman in such high regard.

And Ed Gillespie, when even Murdoch's Wall Street Journal disagrees with your assertions, you're in trouble. From Jan. 2009--Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record.

PODESTA: I want to come back to Eric Cantor, which is no cost, no jobs, no ideas. I mean, it seems to me that the Republican Party on the Hill has become the party of no.

Maybe I'd say that it looks, a little bit from his defense of no regulation that it's become the party of Bush, that we've seen how that movie played out. It ended in the in financial meltdown and the great recession. It seems that...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is Ed Gillespie right that it's no risk?

WILL: What?

STEPHANOPOULOS: This strategy?

WILL: I think there is no risk at this point because I think the American people understand that the greatest job creation machine in the history of the world is a reasonably lightly taxed and lightly regulated economy. But one idea, John, that, happily, we're not hearing. When we began this year with...

PODESTA: George Bush had the lowest job creation since World War II, lightly taxed, lightly regulated...

GILLESPIE: Fifty-two months of uninterrupted job creation, the longest in the history of the United States of America.

PODESTA: ... major recession.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What's the one idea?

WILL: The one idea that we seem to have dropped, happily so -- remember the phrase was "shovel-ready"? We were going to create government jobs.

It put me in mind of a great story Milton Friedman used to tell. He went to Asia in the 1960s and was proudly taken by the government to see a public works project. They were building a canal. He was struck everyone was digging the canal with shovels. Friedman says, why no heavy earth-moving equipment?

They said, oh, this is a jobs program. So Friedman says, why don't you give them spoons instead of shovels? I think we understand, now, the sterility of government trying to create jobs.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (523)

PLAYS: (878)

Isn't that great news? He also told George Stephanopoulos on This Week there will be "growth in the spring." (Just like Chauncy Gardiner in "Being There.")

But it isn't true. The recession isn't over until jobs increase, and that's not really happening. Summers is saying we "only" lost 11,000 jobs last month, and that's not exactly true. The numbers were brought down by a number of factors, including the large numbers of people who have given up and stopped looking for work.

Nonetheless, everyone agrees Larry Summers is a Very Serious Person, so I will take his word for it and just sit here, waiting for my pony.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Mr. Summers, let me begin with you, and let's start with just the overall economic situation right now, especially on jobs. We saw that drop in unemployment in November, but private economists predict that unemployment is likely to head back up. Mark Zandi sees it peaking at about 10.6 percent next year. Others say it could go up to 11 percent. Is that in line with your forecast?

SUMMERS: George, here is what I know. We were talking about depression, we were talking about the financial system collapsing. Today, everybody agrees that the recession is over, and the question is what the pace of the expansion is going to be. These things happen in stages. First, GDP goes up. That has happened. Then, hours that are worked by workers who already have jobs go up. That's starting to happen. Then employment goes up. We got very close to that this year, this month, with only 11,000 jobs lost. And then unemployment starts to come down. So these problems weren't made in a month or a year, and they are going to take a substantial time to solve. But what we can take satisfaction from is that we've walked back from the brink. And you know, forget what we say. Most professional forecasters are now looking for a return to job growth by spring.

Now, when job growth starts, more people are going to be looking for work, so it will take a little longer for the unemployment statistics to come down, but make no mistake, we were losing 700,000 a month when President Bush turned the economy over to President Obama. The number last month was 11,000.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me pin you down on that, though. You believe the economy is actually going to be creating jobs in the spring.

SUMMERS: That is the judgment of most professional forecasters. That's right, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So given that...

SUMMERS: If you look at the employment statistics, they will show employment growth. They were showing losing 700,000 a month. Last month, they showed losing 11,000 jobs. They will bounce from month to month, but I believe that, as do most professional forecasters, that by spring, employment growth will start to be turning positive.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So given that, we saw the president allowed some job creation ideas earlier this week. What is the upper limit on what he will sign into law in terms of new job creation measures early next year? $100 billion?

SUMMERS: The president is going to work with Congress to do what's necessary. George, it's a bit of a Washington thing to put this in terms of price tags. For example, the president is doing a whole set of things, working with other...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the American people want to...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not a Washington thing.

SUMMERS: To promote our exports. That doesn't have a -- that does not have a direct cost. But the president has talked about doing things for infrastructure. It doesn't cost anything to encourage banks, as the president will be doing, to meet their responsibilities and expand the flow of credit to small business.

We're in a very different -- we are in a very special kind of economic situation, and frankly, jobs have to be the top priority, and every bill is going to be a jobs bill going forward. We hope we can find common ground. We emphasize support for small businesses, repairing the nation's infrastructure. These ought to be things that everybody can agree on.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let me just pin you down, though, one more time on that. You did lay out a number of ideas that don't cost money, but extending unemployment costs money. Aid to states and local governments costs more money. Investing in infrastructure costs money. So what is the upper limit on what President Obama will sign?

SUMMERS: The president is going to do what's necessary to respond to this crisis. He's put a figure of $50 billion on the infrastructure support that he proposes. His proposals on unemployment insurance are primarily a continuation of the legislation that the Congress has already passed and that has been put in place. And he recognizes that when we take new steps, we have to do it in the context of a framework that is fiscally responsible. We can't just look in isolation at one measure. We've got to look at the $8 trillion in deficit over the next 10 years that the president inherited, and start making progress with respect to those deficits. That's what the president did in his budget. That's what the health care bill does with the most consequential set of health care reforms that have ever been put forward, and they are now on the brink of passage.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (694)

PLAYS: (2363)

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the lone liberal voice during the panel discussion on This Week pointed out the obvious about our war on terror and what we're doing in Afghanistan.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... let me put the counter… and let me put it, the question, to you this way. If they see us leave Afghanistan, wouldn't the Pakistanis say, "We're next. They're going to abandon us again"?

VANDEN HEUVEL: No, I think it's much more complicated, and our occupation of Afghanistan is going to deepen divisions in Pakistan and destabilize an already fragile civilian government.

I mean, we are already engaged in a secret war in Pakistan. The Nation's cover story this week, based on multiple sources, shows that Blackwater is working with the Joint Special Operations Command, planning targeting assassinations and drone campaigns. This is fundamentally destabilizing. We need another policy.

The larger overlay of all of this, in my view, is our overreaction to the terrible, horrible tragedy of 9/11 has led us to wage war against terrorism. You cannot wage a conventional war, which we are doing in Afghanistan, against an odious, horrifying set of ideas or tactics. And until we end that, we are, as an American people, going to have a de facto policy of permanent warfare. Do we want that in our country?

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (505)

PLAYS: (913)

Russ Feingold reiterated what he’s been saying all week, that our troop escalation in Afghanistan doesn’t make any sense and will only increase instability in the region and Pakistan. When asked if there was anything that could be done to stop this now Feingold said this:

FEINGOLD: Well, that's difficult. And what's going to happen here is that it's probably going to be difficult to stop it now. We'll do whatever we can. We're already working with members of both parties in both houses to question whether this funding should be approved. We're going to fight any attempts to use sort of accounting gimmicks to allow it to be funded. If there's an attempt to have an emergency supplemental, I think that's something we're going to oppose, not only on the grounds of it being an unwise policy, but also being fiscally irresponsible.

Full transcript via ABC News.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard Secretary Gates there. Even though you've called the president's decision an expensive gamble, he says the United States must escalate because this is the epicenter of extremist jihad, and that's why our vital national security interests are at stake.

FEINGOLD: Well, Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter, although Al Qaeda is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That's not next door to Waziristan. So I'm wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Continue reading »

Sara Bareilles - Many the Miles

How far do I have to go, to get some truth? Many the miles...many the miles. Obviously, the news this Sunday revolves around Obama's decision to send a surge to Afghanistan: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will be on no less than three of the bobblehead programs. Maybe on one of them, someone will ask them how we can justify $1,000,000 per year per troop to hunt down the less than 100 al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. At least soon-to-be GMA host George Stephanopoulos will have on Russ Feingold, who has been openly questioning the wisdom of the surge. And I know you've been missing him...John McCain back for his 878,967,543rd appearance on the Sunday shows. Will anyone ask him about his hypocrisy on his cozy relationship with big PhRMA lobbyists, despite decrying them on the Senate floor yesterday. Or judging by the Meter Questions on The Chris Matthews Show, maybe it doesn't matter, and the chance for health care reform has slipped by.

ABC's "This Week" - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Clinton; Gates.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Clinton; Gates; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: John Heilemann, Katty Kay, Gloria Borger, Michael Duffy. Topics: Can Obama Do Anything Big Enough and Fast Enough to Help Unemployment? The Fame Game Behind the Grifters Who Crashed the White House State Dinner. Meter Questions: Will Obama Push A Big Jobs Bill Next Year? YES: 6 NO: 6; Will President Obama Sign a Health Care Reform Bill This Year? YES: 5 No: 7.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Gen. Jim Jones, national security adviser to President Barack Obama; Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Afghanistan: what will happen now that the president has announced a surge of troops? Fareed speaks with Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's Special Representative to the region, and Thomas Friedman. Plus, Mohamed ElBaradei -- who just left his post as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency - on whether we are reaching a dead end with Iran.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai on President Obama's new military strategy in Afghanistan.

"Fox News Sunday" - Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command; Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and John Cornyn, R-Texas.

So what's catching your eye this morning?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1992)

PLAYS: (7402)

Looks like George Will is at it again. This time carrying some water for James Inhofe on the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia. Paul Krugman reminds Will that there was no "smoking gun" in those emails and also asks Will why he hates the free market so much with his opposition to cap and trade.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, he is also going to be dealing with health care, right now on the floor of the Senate. He announced this week to Copenhagen to deal with climate change. And it comes at a time when the politics seem to be changing a little bit in this.

Let me show our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. It shows whether people believe global warming is occurring. That number is going down. July 2008, 80 percent of the public; down to 72 percent now. And there's been a sort of a real partisanship. Look at Republicans, 74 percent believed global warming was occurring back in 2008. Now, a 20-point drop to 54 percent.

George, there has been a partinizing of this issue, and let me turn to one more complication we've had over the last week. This Climate Research Institute at East Anglia University, someone hacked into their e-mail account and showed a bunch of emails between scientists, which opponents of climate change legislation said proves that they are rigging the science and trying to hide information that runs counter to their theories.

WILL: It raises the question of -- we're being asked to wage trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven. And the consensus far from being as solid as they say it is, and the debate as over as they say it is. The e-mails indicate people are very nervous about suppressing criticism, gaming the peer review process for scholarly works and all the rest. One of the e-mails said it is a travesty, his word, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the fact that global warming has stopped. Well, they shouldn't be embarrassed about that. It's a complicated business, and that's why we shouldn't be (inaudible).

KRUGMAN: All those e-mails -- people have never seen what academic discussion looks like. There's not a single smoking gun in there. There's nothing in there. And the travesty is that people are not able to explain why the fact that 1988 was a very warm year doesn't actually mean that global warming has stopped. I mean, that's loose wording. Right? Everything is about -- we're really in the same situation as if there was one extremely warm day in April. And then people are saying, well, you see, May is cooler than April, there's no trend here. And that's what -- the travesty is how hard it has been to explain...

WILL: One of the emails, Paul, said he wished he could delete, get rid of the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years...

KRUGMAN: It's not -- read -- this has all been explained. What he meant is they want to put a start on it. We have an end to it, we don't have a start on it. There's a lot of loose use of language when you're just talking among each other. And what the deleting really meant, the deleting would be meant that, you know, we don't know when this thing started, because we don't have very good data back then. There weren't any weather stations. And that's what the context was.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1510)

PLAYS: (2335)

Sen. Bernie Sanders hasn't heard President Barack Obama's proposal for how to move forward with the war in Afghanistan but he's already saying that he will have a "real problem" supporting an increase of 30,000 or more troops. "You have to put Afghanistan into the context of what's happening in America today. What's happening now, not only a trillion-dollar national debt, we're in the mid midst of the worst recession since the great depression," Sanders told ABC's George Stephanopoulos Sunday.

Cost estimates put the cost of escalation at $1 million per soldier each year.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (57)

PLAYS: (176)

From This Week with George Stephanopoulos Nov. 29, 2009, Sen. Lindsey Graham let's us know where his spending priorities are. Forget health care or stimulus spending, we need more money for Afghanistan. Sen. Bernie Sanders reminds us all what is so terribly wrong with that line of thinking.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, how about this question of cost, as Senator Sanders raised? It looks like the cost is going to be about $1 million per year for each additional service member, and a lot of Democrats, like the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey, talked to our Jon Karl this week, said we ought to pay for it. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBEY: If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well.

JON KARL, ABC NEWS: How?

OBEY: By having a new war surtax. The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people who have been asked to sacrifice are military families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does he have a point there, Senator Graham? If we're going to fight a war, shouldn't the American people pay for it?

GRAHAM: Well, I'd like to see an endeavor to see if we can cut current spending and find some dollars that we're spending today to pay for the war, and prioritize American spending. Where does our national security rate in terms of spending? Are there things that we can do in the stimulus package? Can we trim up the health care bill and other big-ticket items to pay for a war that we can't afford to lose?

So I welcome a debate about how to control government spending and pay for the war. I do want to let Bernie and anyone else listening know that from my point of view, the president is correct in assessing that Afghanistan is a war that must be won because the national security implications of what happens in Afghanistan will follow this country for decades, so I intend to support the president.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (65)

PLAYS: (203)

Boy, this is some hard-hitting journalism by George Stephanopoulos here isn't it? Anyone think Tom Coburn would have gotten this type of softball from Rachel Maddow?

Shorter George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So Senator, is there anything else we should know about you arranging a bribe for your C-Street buddy that you can tell us in ten seconds or less?

COBURN: Nope.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, nothing to see here. Move along. Thanks for coming in everybody.

Let's hope his network's interview with Doug Hampton yields just a tad more information than Georgie-boy decided to try to elicit from Coburn on This Week. Really pathetic George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm going to have to -- I'm going to have to stop this right now. And, Senator, before you go -- and I know this is your least favorite subject -- but Doug Hampton, Senator Ensign's chief of staff, has given an interview to "Nightline" which is going to air tomorrow night, where he says that you were an intermediary between him and Senator Ensign, and I want to show that for a second.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAMPTON: Tom Coburn said, "What I would do, Doug, if I was you is I would have them buy your home, give you $1 million bucks so you could get started over, and that's what I'm willing to help you negotiate."

(UNKNOWN): And what happened?

HAMPTON: John said, "No can do. Not going to happen."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is he telling the truth?

COBURN: No.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Flat no?

COBURN: No.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You did not serve as an intermediary?

COBURN: Oh, I did. No, there's no question. Look, my whole goal in this thing was to bring two families to a closure of a very painful episode. And there's no question that Doug called me and said, "Will you talk to John about solving a problem?" And so I called John Ensign and said, "Do you want me to talk to him?" He said, "Yes."

But, you know, the -- the question that's worrisome is, what is the motivation now for -- for this? Doug obviously asked to have some remuneration for the injury that he had. And on private sector, that happens all the time. But there -- there was no negotiation. There was, "I'll pass it along," or, "Yes, I won't."

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, thanks very much.

Thank you all very much.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1255)

PLAYS: (1327)

George Stephanopoulos just had to give Liz Cheney some more air time on his bobblehead show in another of his "fair and balanced" panels. Sorry Liz but what's "inexcusable" is your daddy helping to get us into this quagmire in the first place. I still want to know when she's signing up for the military if she wants to keep beating those war drums.

WILL: The danger is that the president is going to be seen as escalating this war. He’ll do it half-heartedly with his heart not in it, he will lose his party, and he’ll be supported by Republicans of the stripe of Liz Cheney, and that’s not a sustainable path.

CHENEY: Well, let me just say that what I will support is the strategy that actually will win in Afghanistan, a strategy that’s the one that was laid out by General McChrystal, and I think it’s just completely inexcusable that we’ve now had month after month after month of photo-op out of the White House and no decision.

The president is very fond of saying, “Before I commit troops, I’m going to think very carefully about it.” Somebody in the White House needs to remind him: He’s already committed troops. We’ve got American men and women in Afghanistan today, because we’ve got to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven for Al Qaida. The cost of walking away, the cost of defeat, the cost of retreat is huge. They’re fighting there today, and they’re fighting without the kind of resources and reinforcements that he needs -- that they need.