As David Sirota points out, here are some "objective, nonpartisan, non-ideological facts":

-- The 2010 Pentagon budget means "every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on (defense) programs and agencies next year," reports the Cato Institute. "By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

-- "(The Pentagon budget) dwarfs the combined defense budgets of U.S. allies and potential U.S. enemies alike," reports Hearst Newspapers.

-- "President (Obama) is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II," reports National Journal's Government Executive magazine.

-- In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost -- yes, lost -- $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion. To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal health care for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal health care plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package.

Obviously -- obviously! -- these points are no cause for alarm and certainly no cause for defense spending reductions, right? All they must prove is that the archconservative Cato Institute, William Randolph Hearst's newspaper chain, National Journal employees and Pentagon officials are secretly America-hating liberals. And -- obviously! -- so are two of the most aggressive neoconservative hawks ever to hold government office, Sen. John McCain and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. After all, they're the ones who issued those scathing statements about wasteful defense spending in the pop quiz above. That means they're actually terrorist-appeasing lefties, right?

Really, how could anyone other than traitorous communists see the data and then consider backing the mildest Pentagon spending cuts? I mean, come on -- in a country whose paranoid conservative movement now makes a dead-serious ideology out of Stephen Colbert wisecracks, how dare any red-blooded American even think of pondering basic budgetary facts?

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

DOWNLOADS: (879)

PLAYS: (849)

Sen. Lindsey Graham believes the US should shoulder the responsibility of attacking Iran if an attack is necessary. An attack by the US is preferable to an an attack by Israel, according to Graham.

"I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and they're not aligned now. It's too much pressure to put on Israel," Graham told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday.

He continued, "Military action should be the last resort anyone looks at, and I would rather our allies and us take military action if it's necessary."

But Graham doesn't think an attack should be limited to airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. "If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float," said Graham.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss agrees. "The problem with military action also is that you're probably not going to be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple airstrike. Lindsey's right. It's an all or nothing deal. And is it worth that at this point in time when we know they have the capability. We can slow them down, but a full-out military strike is what it would take," said Chambliss.

John Amato:

These warmongers are in their element in this clip. It's bad enough that members of Congress are talking about attacking Iran on national TV. Have they ever seen a country they wouldn't like to blow up? Not only do they want to strike the possible nuke sites, but want to engage in all out warfare regardless of how many civilians were to be killed. They forget to mention how the Arab world would feel about us if we were to strike Iran too. Do they think they would be putting America at risk for their Iran war fantasies? And do they honestly believe American would side with these Neocon war hawks that would actually put us in a third front?

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

DOWNLOADS: (1028)

PLAYS: (1519)

Syndicate columnist Charles Krauthammer appeared on Fox News Sunday with sharp criticism of President Barack Obama speech to the UN General Assembly. "I think he indulged himself in his speech at the General Assembly, which started out as sort of adolescent utopianism and went downhill. He started out saying things like no nation can dominate another. He said no group of nations ought to be above others," said Krauthammer.

"What do our allies think when they hear that and when they hear -- as we saw in the clip -- Obama denigrating his own country and presenting himself as the man who will redeem America from its wickedness and he said those of you who doubt that the character of America should look at what we -- meaning I -- have done in the last eight months, including joining the human rights council act at the U.N. which is a body which we should take no pride in being on. I thought it was a sorry performance. It did not advance our interest in the least," concluded Krauthammer.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1612)

PLAYS: (1235)

It's one thing for the Bernie Sanderses and Russ Feingolds to openly question the mission in Afghanistan. It's quite another for Dianne Feinstein to do so.

KING: Well Senator Feinstein, you're the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. To the question of where this ends, it is eight years after 9/11. We've paused and reflected on that just the other day. You see the things that we can't see, the intelligence. Are we winning in Afghanistan? Are we any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, and does the president have a clear strategy, in your view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I can tell you this. A lot of the leadership has been taken out of al Qaeda. I can say and I think you would agree that Afghanistan and the Pakistani border are still the major safe haven, the major safe haven for terrorists in the world. And these are people who will, if they can, come after us, not necessarily the Taliban, but certainly al Qaeda and other affiliated groups.

So we have to consider that. We have about 60,000 troops there, another 8,000 are moving in with our allies, it about equals the force that is in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, the president has had no request for additional troops up to this time. My view is that the mission has to be very clear. I don't believe --

KING: Has to be means it is not now?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is not now. I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan. I believe it will remain a tribal entity.

I do believe that clearing out Al Qaida, clearing out the Taliban is a bona fide part one of the mission. I do agree that training Afghan troops, Afghan -- Afghan police is an important piece of the mission.

I believe the mission should be time limited, that there should be no, well, we'll let you know in a year and a half, depending on how we do. I think the Congress is entitled to know, after Iraq, exactly how long are we going to be in Afghanistan.

Feinstein is actually more charitable about the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than the commanding general on the ground, Stanley McChrystal, who said this week that there are no signs of major Al Qaeda anywhere in the country.

But as far as the wariness of the viability of Constitutional democracy in Afghanistan, you need only look to their recent election, into which the opposition leader is now seeking a criminal investigation. He has accused Hamid Karzai of treason and "state-engineered fraud". Despite this, Karzai will probably win election on the first ballot, and a vote that has been horribly compromised will be made official. We saw in Iran how this can lead to violence and chaos, and Afghanistan is not nearly as stable. Without a viable partner in the government, as Feinstein says we cannot expect an endless commitment. Yet because Karzai is Pashtun the US will likely back him in this fight, alienating the other ethnic groups in the region. Kalashnikovs are flying off the shelves in the Tajik areas. Civil war is not an unlikely scenario at this point.

This further limits the mission, away from state-building and toward dealing with the elements in the country willing to deal. Otherwise we set ourselves up for a decade-long slog that will only end with more dead and more treasure squandered, to little effect. And yes, as Sen. Feinstein says, that process should have an end date.

(h/t Heather)

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

DOWNLOADS: (1261)

PLAYS: (2721)

Sen. John McCain disagrees with former Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that enhanced interrogation techniques helped keep the country safe. "I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan," McCain told CBS' Bob Schieffer Sunday.

"I think these interrogations, once publicized, helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq... I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed. And I believe that information, according go the FBI and others, could have been gained through other members," said McCain.

McCain disagreed with Attorney General Holder's decision to probe interrogation techniques that went beyond legal recommendations.

I know this broke the other day, but I needed to hit it. William the Bloody Kristol passed on his wisdom for the American people and tells his Republican allies to hurt American families.

With Obamacare on the ropes, there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on their criticism, and to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible. There will be a tendency to want to let the Democrats' plans sink of their own weight, to emphasize that the critics have been pushing sound reform ideas all along and suggest it's not too late for a bipartisan compromise over the next couple of weeks or months.

My advice, for what it's worth: Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill...read on

What a shock. I've was wondering what took him so long.

Ezra Klein responds:

Yawn. This is like saying that Keith Richards still can't get no satisfaction, or that the much-missed Rodney Dangerfield would appreciate a bit more respect. It's useful to remember here that Kristol is less a pundit than an operative. His job isn't to give his opinion. It's to give this opinion.
--
Bill Kristol is right that defeating Obama's health-care plan is a first step for Republicans who want to pick off vulnerable Democrats in the 2010 midterms. But the converse is also true: Passing health-care reform is the first step for vulnerable Democrats who want to save their seats.

I always remember what our own Nicole Belle said on 12/11/08:

Bill Kristol is NEVER right. And even Foreign Policy Magazine agrees with me, as they list the worst predictions of 2008 and who else but our favorite war-mongering chickenhawk neocon, William "The Bloody" Kristol

We have learned that Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL) has a favorite Puerto Rican jurist -- Jose Cabranes. Sessions demanded to know why Judge Sotomayor did not follow Judge Cabranes' lead

Interestingly, Sessions was very critical of Judge Sotomayor's involvement, as a member of the Board of Directors, of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Sessions seemed not to know that his favorite Boricua judge, Cabranes, was also a member of the Board of the PRDLEF. Now right wing groups allied with Sessions and following his lead are running an ad attacking Sotomayor as a "terrorist."

The question needs to be asked of Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL) (the KKK sympathizer; the person who said the NAACP was a "commie" group and who berated a white lawyer who worked for civil rights as a "disgrace to his race"), what do he and his allies make of the fact that their favorite Puerto Rican jurist, Jose Cabranes, was also a member of the "terrorist" group - the PRLDEF?

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

DOWNLOADS: 1077

PLAYS: 1765

(For many, it really was the Longest Day)

Shortly after midnight (Eastern War Time) on June 6, 1944, the first trickle of news reports regarding the invasion of Europe began. The reports were initially from German news sources and so weren't given credibility. But shortly after, word from Supreme Allied Headquarters in London revealed that in fact, the invasion of Europe was underway.

June 6, 2009 marks the 65th anniversary of that turning point in World War 2. The largest invasion force ever assembled landed on the coast of France and began the long siege that eventually brought the demise of the Axis powers in 1945.

I've assembled excerpts of the first 12 or so hours of the invasion story, from the initial bulletins and reported by the people who witnessed it and by the ones who breathlessly relayed the much anticipated news to all the Radio Networks throughout the world.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1749)

PLAYS: (2728)

Rep. John Boehner got a little honest today when he admitted that we used "torture."

Boehner: Last week, they released these memos outlining torture techniques and that was clearly a political decision and ignored the advice of their Director of National Intelligence and their CIA director.

As the Huff Post notes:

Boehner said at a press conference in the Capitol.

The techniques discussed include waterboarding, slamming detainees into walls, and depriving them of sleep for up to 11 days.

Boehner argued that a discussion of such torture techniques was "inappropriate," as it could tip off U.S. enemies to the tactics used and "denigrate" the United States and its allies. Torture is illegal under U.S. and international law.

Now here come Michael Steel to clean up Boehner's mess.

Regarding his use of the T-word, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel writes, "It is clear from the context that Boehner was simply using liberals' verbiage to describe these interrogation techniques. The United States does not torture."

Hahaha...