Fact checking the GOP national security debate

Republican presidential candidates from left, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman stand for the National Anthem before a Republican presidential debate in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011. / AP Photo

WASHINGTON - Michele Bachmann did not intend to be taken literally when she told the Republican presidential debate Tuesday that civil-liberties activists have taken over the interrogation of terrorists from the CIA. But even as a rhetorical point, it didn't hold water.

Her hyperbole on the American Civil Liberties Union was one of the more notable stretches in the national security and foreign policy debate. A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the facts:

Republicans call for extension of Patriot Act at debate
Rick Santorum endorses Muslim profiling
Ron Paul: Israel can take care of itself

—-

BACHMANN: "This is one thing we know about Barack Obama: He has essentially handed over our interrogation of terrorists to the ACLU. He's outsourced it to them. Our CIA has no ability to have any form of interrogation for terrorists."

THE FACTS: The CIA still has the ability to interrogate terrorists. President Obama formed the High Value Interrogation Group, which includes the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon. It centralizes expertise so that when a terrorism suspect is caught, everyone with a stake in the issue is involved in the questioning. The CIA also can sit in on interrogations in other countries, asking questions directly or through officials of the host government.

Whether the policy on interrogating suspects should be tougher is a matter of authentic debate. But the CIA is hardly emasculated. The agency has dramatically expanded its on-the-ground operations worldwide since 2001, and the U.S. killing of a succession of al Qaeda figures in Pakistan — Osama bin Laden chief among them — demonstrates the potency of the hunt for terrorists. Moreover, the U.S. killing of an American citizen abroad — the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki — is well outside the range of action that would be condoned by civil liberties advocates.

—-

MITT ROMNEY: "What they're doing is cutting a trillion dollars out of the defense budget."

RON PAUL: "They're nibbling away at baseline budgeting. ... There's nothing cut against the military. And the people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because they're not going — the budget isn't going up as rapidly as they want it to."

THE FACTS: Paul was more accurate than Romney in describing what is happening with defense spending. Constraints in the military budget are much more modest than Romney suggested.

Both Romney and rival Rick Perry have been criticizing Obama for looming defense cuts that are triggered by the failure of the deficit supercommittee to act. But the cuts would only slow the rate of growth of Pentagon spending, which has been vastly increased because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now winding down. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the planned Pentagon budget for 2021 would be some $700 billion, an increase over the current level of about $520 billion. The cuts agreed to last summer plus the automatic reductions would trim the projected 2021 budget by about $110 billion.

Moreover, the spending cuts set in motion by the supercommittee's failure to reach an agreement are not to begin until January 2013, which gives lawmakers time to try again to produce a debt plan. That's what Obama has in mind — using the threat of defense cuts to push lawmakers to make a deal.

Romney's figure encompasses two sets of Pentagon spending cuts, only one of which was proposed by Obama. The president's budget called for $450 billion in savings from the defense budget; the rest is fallout from the supercommittee, a creature of Congress.

—-

RICK PERRY: "When you sanction the Iranian central bank, that will shut down that economy. ... This president refuses to do that, and it's another show of lack of leadership from the president of the United States."

THE FACTS: Obama, like George W. Bush before him, hasn't issued a blanket ban on dealings with Iran's central bank. Perry could try as president, but he'd find himself with some angry allies and perhaps some economic damage for the United States.

U.S. sanctions already severely restrict what contact American and foreign companies can have with Iranian banks. That has made the central bank the primary conduit for purchasing Iranian oil exports.

Blacklisting the central bank entirely would put energy companies and banks from places such as Japan in a dilemma: either find new oil sources, or risk punishment in the United States. The same applies for China, Russia, Turkey and other countries with investments in Iran — and the rush for new fuel providers could lead to a spike in gasoline prices that hampers the American economic recovery.

In reality, however, it's unlikely the U.S. would be prepared to blacklist Japan's banks for financial transactions with Iran's central bank. So the power of the sanction would be unclear.

—-

Perry's follow-up argument that a no-fly zone in Syria could help deter Iranian terrorism and save Israel wasn't clear. He seemed to be referring to Iranian and Syrian support for anti-Israel groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, neither of which has air power. Weapons smuggling also can occur by ground or sea.

Huntsman calls for Afghan troop withdrawal Gingrich willing to "take heat" for immigration stance
Republican debate: Winners and Losers Rick Perry: Panetta should resign in protest over supercommittee cuts

BACHMANN: "Almost every decision that the president has made since he came in has been one to put the United States in a position of unilateral disarmament, including the most recent decision he made to cancel the Keystone pipeline. That would have not only created jobs, but it would have helped us in energy independence."

THE FACTS: Obama didn't cancel the Canadian oil pipeline. Instead, his administration delayed the decision in order to explore an alternative route to avoid areas of Nebraska that include wetlands and an aquifer providing water crucial to huge swaths of U.S. cropland. Bachmann also overlooked that the delay came under pressure from Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican. When the pipeline was delayed, Heineman hailed the decision and called it "an exceptional moment for Nebraskans."

—-

PERRY: "When you put the no-fly zone above Syria, it obviously gives those dissidents and gives the military the opportunity to maybe disband."

ROMNEY: "They have 5,000 tanks in Syria. A no-fly zone wouldn't be the right military action — maybe a no-drive zone. ... I mean, this is a nation which is not bombing its people at this point, and the right course is not military."

PERRY: "I think you need to leave it on the table to make sure, because this is not just about Syria. This is about Iran and those two as a partnership, and exporting terrorism around the world. And if we're going to be serious about saving Israel, we better get serious about Syria and Iran, and we better get serious right now."

THE FACTS: As Romney suggested, a no-fly zone by itself wouldn't do much to stop Syrian tanks and bullets from killing civilians. Unlike in Libya, where Moammar Gadhafi used his air force to fire on cities, President Bashar Assad's government has by and large stuck to ground forces. There have been a few cases of helicopters allegedly used, but they are exceptions.

Bachmann: Perry "naive" on Pakistan policy Ron Paul: Israel can take care of itself Rick Santorum endorses Muslim profiling Republicans call for extension of Patriot Act at debate Fact checking the GOP national security debate

[PattyFromTexas]

I would like to point out that both parties are guilty of overspending, promoting unnecessary wars, endangering our standing with the world by allowing torture, our aggressive foreign policies, that do nothing but encourage ill will towards us. Both parties are equally guilty of feeding their corporate sponsors, both parties are equally guilty of feeding the military industrial complex, both parties are guilty of perpetrating the mortgage fraud, and bailouts and the patriot act and I could go on and on, but you get the idea. It's time to take a close look at our policies and see if perhaps we might want to change them and see what happens. Maybe we can stop invading other countries, and supporting dictators, and supporting other aggressive countries? I support Congressman Ron Paul because his life long record both personal and politically tell me he can't be bought.

[moretruthnow]

President Obama has proven just how determined he has been to complete missions like taking down bin Laden and several other top terrorists of Al Qaeda. He took just the right option in Libya to make sure that civilians had a fair chance and weren't killed by the hundreds. President Obama has had real concern for Americans and is ending our Iraq mission. Soon we will be out of Afghanistan if we stick with President Obama who is not a war monger. President Obama has accomplished so much in spite of the anti-America tactics of the republicans in Congress. I support President Obama and will definitely vote for him again.

[ForLiberty12]

It's despicable that nearly every comment on here does nothing more than criticize the debate last night, so much of what the candidates, besides Ron Paul, are claiming to do if they get elected is no different what Obama is doing right now!

President Obama is a spineless wimp and this is why - Our economy is on the brink of collapse, so he decides -" I'm going to delegate a group to figure out this economical mess, and I'm going to direct them that the only think on the table for discussion is limiting the amount of budget increases". They do not even have the option of actually cutting any budget out. While this so called "super" committee is working on this problem with their hands tied behind their back - President Obama thinks it would be a great idea to go to Hawaii and refer to it as Asia, then fly off to Australia and talk about why countries in Asia need our help and why we are going to station thousands of troops there.

China has absolutely no plan to attack us, there is NO reason to start patrolling the waters. All the while the 'super' committee FAILS as expected, and Obama doesn't even have the courage to suggest an alternative solution - he has the loudest pulpit in the world and he chooses to say that he will VETO any attempt to limit the military budget because he has hard on for more American troops in another country?!!!?!?!

Don't tell me you believe there is actually a threat to our national security in Asia because there is not. President Obama had a chance to lead and that is not what he has done. He's a sniveling mouthpiece that doesn't have what it takes to make VERY difficult economic decisions. Ron Paul has a vision and has never wavered in his beliefs. He has thousands of independent voters who voted for Obama 4 years ago because Paul will actually end these foreign occupations and current wars. Every day that Obama's base corrodes is one day closer to getting Ron Paul in the white house, and I cannot wait for it - neither should you.

[PattyFromTexas]

I could not agree with you more ForLiberty12. I do not like Obama the Nobel Peace Prize winner who has started more overseas conflicts. I believe that Congressman Ron Paul will get us out of all these needless foreign wars. I believe he will also institute some real cuts. He has the constitutional authority to call home all our troops, he has the authority to veto any bill, and would have to be overcome by a 2/3 majority. He can do alot to promote peace and monetary sanity.

[alinrodneyvil]

Republican Debates are just Dog and Pony Shows with the contestants spouting off Fact Free Anti-Obama slogans to see who can get the biggest applause from the Rabid Right Wing Radicals that make up the hand picked audience. They haven't proposed any realistic solutions to anything.They are just live attack ads.

[moretruthnow]

So right you are. The rabid right wing radicals applaud things like extreme executions, brave gay military members, lies about President Obama and anything that is spiteful and evil that comes out of Bachmann's mouth.

[margroks]

Bachmann is a moron; that makes no sense at all. The CIA has no trouble conducting interrogations of terrorists. Perhaps they should interrogate Bachman to see if they can find out where she put her brain during the debate.

[notyrants]

Whenever I talk about tax brackets I'm attacked by right-wingers who say I don't understand, that high taxes discourage job creators. They'll say things like "You hippies just don't get it! If taxes are too high rich people will stop working and investing. The Job Creators will go away!"

Well, I do get it. When I was spent a student year in Great Britain the top marginal tax rate was 102%. Once a person reached a certain level of income, they had to pay more in taxes than they earned. And a few years before that, George Harrison made a compelling case against the 95 percent tax bracket on the Revolver album by singing "Taxman." (The line is "that's one for you, nineteen for me." I make that a 95 percent marginal tax rate, but you can check my math if you like.)

So I'll come right out and admit it: Taxes can be too high. But that doesn't answer the biggest question of all: What's the ideal top tax bracket? Where can we set the percentage so that it provides the most revenue for the Federal government without discouraging high earners from making more money?

Thanks to a new and very thoughtful paper by economists Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, we have the answer: 76 percent. That's right. The most effective top tax bracket in this country, the one that will provide the most revenue for the Federal government, is 76 percent. Know what that means, ladies and gentleman of Washington DC ? That's the rate that will cut the deficit the fastest.

Richard RJ Eskow

[2happy2ride]

Want a fact, that will explain our abysmal economy? Here is the percentage of each president's cabinet WITH business experience:
Roosevelt & Truman 50%, Eisenhower 57%, Kennedy 30%, Carter 32%, Reagan 56%, GH Bush 51%, Clinton 39%, GW Bush 55%....................
OBAMA 8%.
ONLY 8% of obama's cabinet has had ANY business or REAL economic experience, merely a sad lot of ideologues shoving stuff down our throats.

[notyrants]

Experience as a global non-democratic corporate feudal overlord does NOT make one worthy to serve the people of the United States of America.

[notyrants]

Conservatives say they want to "bring back" the old USA, the one that existed during those decades of the twentieth century they only seem to see through a gauzy golden haze. Whatever its problems, that country was a place where Republicans and Democrats agreed on two simple principles: That the most fortunate among us should pay their fair share, and that our government must invest in the nation and its future.

When Rick Perry says he wants to bring back "the America I where I grew up," he's talking about the era when Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican President, built the Federal highway system. One of the reasons Eisenhower was able to do that is that the top tax rate was much higher than it is today. While today's highest marginal today is 35 percent and capital gains are taxed at only 15 percent, the highest tax bracket was 91 percent the year Rick Perry was born.

[stevex47]

tea birthers have no use for facts...hence, their WMD lies, lies about Iraq nukes and yellow cake.

birthers believe only fox propganda, hence the birth certificate psychosis.

[Socialization]

I will vote for anyone but Obama. These past (3) years under his presidency have been a disaster. I cannot imagine what he will try and do if he is re-elected, knowing he does not have to worry about another reelection after 2012.

ABO (Anybody But Obama)

[notyrants]

That in and of itself is idiocy. Vote for Pole Pot, vote for mussolini, vote for Hitler, vote for Pablo Escobar, vote for anyone but Obama? Obama has done poorly by retaining the anti-regulators of the Clinton/Bush era but there is NOT one of these wholly owned non-democratic corporate government servants the republican party has put forward worthy of a vote from a true United States of American citizen who believes in a government of for and by ALL the people.