Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, reacted quickly to the Egyptian government’s recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party.

In an alarmist statement, she denounced the recognition and called for the U.S. to isolate the Brotherhood:

Given its radical and violent ideology, it is deeply disturbing that the Muslim Brotherhood would be recognized in any way as a legitimate political entity.

The Muslim Brotherhood is committed to violence and extremism. Neither freedom nor justice will be advanced by any political party established by the Muslim Brotherhood.

United States policy must reflect this reality, and the Administration must not engage the Muslim Brotherhood, or allow direct or indirect U.S. assistance to benefit that organization.

This is essentially a call to exclude some 15 percent of Egypt’s population who said, according to a recent Gallup poll, they support the organization. And as former Jordanian foreign minister and current Carnegie Endowment Vice President Marwan Muasher said on Sunday, when talk shows zoomed in on the Brotherhood, excluding the group is a surefire way to make them more popular:

The Muslim Brotherhood has been used for a long time a scare tactic. This is not to say that they don’t have designs. But in closed systems protest votes will only go to the Muslim Brotherhood. But in open, pluralistic systems, the Brotherhood will have to compete against many other alternatives and I think that is the way that all Arab countries should go to.

Of course, as actual experts will tell you, the Muslim Brotherhood is not “committed to violence” (“Since the 1970s, the group has not engaged in violent activity.”); they are not “radical” (“[T]his is a very conservative movement.”); and the U.S. should not be afraid of Brotherhood:

Living with it won’t be easy but it should not be seen as inevitably our enemy. We need not demonize it nor endorse it. In any case, Egyptians now will decide their fate and the role they want the [Muslim Brotherhood] to play in their future.

In the wake of President Obama’s May 19 speech on the Middle East and his statement that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” we’ve heard a lot about how Israel’s 1967 borders were/are supposedly “indefensible.” This trope featured prominently in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu various responses to President Obama’s speech, regardless of the fact that President Obama had not actually called for Israel to return to those borders, merely to recognize them as the basis of negotiations. As Noah Pollak of the neoconservative Emergency Committee for Israel acknowledged, there’s nothing new about this approach.

Further undermining the complaints about the 1967 borders, of course, is the fact that in the 1967 war, those borders were defended by Israel. As we’ve just passed the anniversary of that war, this led to some pretty humorous formulations by those trying to simultaneously trumpet Israel’s victory and hold the Israeli government line on how unacceptable those borders are.

“In six days,” wrote Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren in Foreign Policy, “Israel repelled” the Arab armies against whom it had launched a pre-emptive attack “and established secure boundaries”:

It drove the Egyptians from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, and the Syrians, who had also opened fire, from the Golan Heights. Most significantly, Israel replaced the indefensible armistice lines by reuniting Jerusalem and capturing the West Bank from Jordan.

Understand? The armistice lines were so indefensible that they were not only defended, but expanded in six days to include the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula.

Similarly, Cliff May of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, amidst a typical screed about how horrible and dishonest the Arabs are, describes “the 1967 borders” as “the lines at which five Arab armies were stopped in 1949.” Don’t look now, Cliff, but you’ve just described defensible borders.

I grant that all of this is somewhat beside the point, as President Obama has not suggested that Israel should withdraw to these borders. But, as Matt Yglesias wrote, “Israel needs defensible borders” is a much more sympathetic argument than “Israel wants to grab and keep as much Palestinian land as possible,” which is why, as long as borders are an issue, we’ll keep seeing self-contradicting claims about how indefensible the old borders were.

As the White House is gearing up for a major debate on the future of American military involvement in Afghanistan, the New York Times reported this week that the military is pushing back “against the prospect of a substantial withdrawal” of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. And the Washington Post reported last week that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and No. 2 U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez issued caution on withdrawal:

Adm. Mike Mullen warned that while no one knows yet how deep the initial cut will be, it must not erode the gains troops have made.

The No. 2 U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, said there should not be a drawdown so rapid that it outpaces the abilities of Afghan soldiers and police to handle security.

If that happens, the Taliban could regain a foothold, Rodriguez said.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been particularly vocal against a big withdrawal recently, saying a “rush to the exits” would jeopardize military progress.

But Gates, Mullen, and other military leaders were telling President Obama something different when he made the decision in November 2009 to send a “surge” of 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan as part of his wider counterinsurgency strategy and begin withdrawing them in July 2011.

Journalist Jonathan Alter reported last year that Obama told Vice President Biden that “the new policy of beginning a significant withdrawal in 2011 was a direct presidential order that couldn’t be countermanded by the military.” And the president reportedly met with the top military officials, including Gates, Mullen, and Gen. David Petraeus, to reiterate that policy and all agreed that they could get the job done in 18 months:

Inside the Oval Office, Obama asked Petraeus, “David, tell me now. I want you to be honest with me. You can do this in 18 months?”

“Sir, I’m confident we can train and hand over to the ANA [Afghan National Army] in that time frame,” Petraeus replied.

“Good. No problem,” the president said. “If you can’t do the things you say you can in 18 months, then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?”

“Yes, sir, in agreement,” Petraeus said.

“Yes, sir,” Mullen said.

Alter reported that Obama then turned directly to Gates. “Bob, you have any problems?” Obama asked, to which Alter reported that Gates “said he was fine with it.” Obama then reiterated his policy — “in quickly, out quickly, focus on Al Qaeda, and build the Afghan Army” — and said to Mullen and Petraeus, “If you don’t agree with me that we can execute this, say so now.” “Fully support, sir,” Mullen said. “Ditto,” Petraeus said.

At the Senate confirmation hearing for Leon Panetta, President Obama’s Defense Secretary nominee, reliable neocon Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) wanted to make sure that Panetta has a plan for attacking Iran:

LIEBERMAN: As President Obama has said, all options have to remain on the table. I wanted to ask you whether, as secretary of defense, you will consider it one of your responsibilities to have credible military plans to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities if the President as commander-in-chief decides it is necessary to use that option?

As if to humor the Senator from Connecticut, Panetta noted that President Obama has said that all options are on the table, and “that would obviously require appropriate planning.” Watch it:

In September, Lieberman delivered a major foreign policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations where he re-hashed the same arguments he used to push for the Iraq war and then glossed over the negative impact of the invasion and occupation. Lieberman’s argument at the time was to get over talking about “options” and do some real threatening. “It’s time to send a message,” Lieberman said. “We will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability — by peaceful means if we possibly can, but with military force if we absolutely must.”

Lieberman also teamed up with group of senators last winter to send a letter to Obama urging him against making any deal with Iran that would allow continued nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil. The position renders negotiations with Iran moot, since domestic enrichment is considered a right by Iran, an overwhelmingly popular stance even across sharply-divided political factions.

Aside from all the negative consequences of attacking Iran, IPS reported yesterday that former CentCom commander Retired Adm. William Fallon criticized the kind of rhetoric Lieberman is espousing, saying it serves as an obstacle to engagement with Iran. “The problem was and still is…this incessant focus on conflict, conflict, conflict,” he said, adding, “We ought to be working pretty hard to focus on other things that would put us in a different place.”

Today, the Senate is holding hearings over the confirmation of former CIA chief Leon Panetta as the new Secretary of Defense. Panetta is being probed about a variety of issues, from his views on Libya to his stance on procurement.

At one point during the hearing today, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) asked Panetta if he agrees with the view of outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the defense budget is not a serious factor in the U.S. budget deficit. Panetta responded that he agreed with this view and said the department’s budget is not the cause of the deficits that we’re incurring today:

CORNYN: It’s important to me and it’s important to you to make financial management reform one of your priorities. I would just ask you the straight up question do you agree with Secretary Gates when he said that the defense budget no matter how large it may be is not the cause of the fiscal woes?

PANETTA: I agree with that. It is by no means the cause of the huge deficits we are incurring today.

Watch it:

While it’s true that the defense budget alone is not the only cause of our deficits — the Bush tax cuts, recession, and wars are all larger short-term deficit-drivers — it’s also true that defense spending currently makes up a lion’s share of our discretionary spending, as this chart from the National Priorities Project depicting FY2010 spending shows:

U.S. defense spending dwarfs over one hundred countries’ GDPs, and 2009 spending is over $500 billion more than what China reportedly budgets, the world’s next highest military spender. Defense spending has accounted for 65 percent of the discretionary spending increase since 2001, making it a key factor in the growth of the U.S. budget deficit since then. Any serious effort at reducing the U.S. budget deficit must recognize that the Department of Defense is a huge part of the problem. (HT: @deviatar)

In a long meandering YouTube video released last week, American-born al Qaeda spokesman Adam Yahiye Gadahn urged the terrorist group’s followers to exploit lax gun laws in the United States — particularly the private sale gun show loophole — to obtain weapons to murder Americans. But as Rachel Maddow noted this week, there’s a bit more to the story:

MADDOW: Even harder to believe than that, I submit is the fact that if you have been put on the terrorist watch list by the United States of America, you may not be able to board a commercial flight in this country — after all, you’re on the terrorist watch list. But you can legally still buy guns.

It’s also important to point out, as Media Matters’ Chris Brown noted, that because of this private sale loophole, “terrorists that are currently prohibited from purchasing guns can buy guns at gun shows from private sellers because the sellers don’t have to run background checks.”

The National Rifle Association opposes closing this so-called “terror gap,” and it also opposes eliminating the private sale gun show loophole. In fact, one day before al Qaeda released the Gadahn video, the NRA urged its supporters to contact state lawmakers in Delaware to defeat state legislation that would ban private sales at gun shows in Delaware. The NRA claimed that “the true intent of this legislation is to move towards an ultimate ban on all private sales — even those between family and friends – regardless of where they occur.”

So given that the NRA came out forcefully against this bill in Delaware, ThinkProgress asked the powerful gun lobby to comment on Gadahn’s video. Yet the NRA appears reluctant to say anything.

On Tuesday, ThinkProgress called the NRA’s press office to get a statement and an NRA official said someone there would respond. After receiving no response, we called the same office again on Wednesday and received the same reply.

ThinkProgress then emailed NRA spokesperson Rachel Parsons. Parsons said she was in a meeting and would respond later. Five hours later, we emailed Parsons again to see if she would comment on the Gadahn video. We are still waiting for a response.