Last month, GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain answered on live television that he would trade all the terrorism suspects at the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for U.S. hostages. “I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer,” he said. Within just a few hours, he was asked about it again, again on live television and this time during a primary debate, and he quickly recanted his original answer, explaining that he’d “misspoke.” A friendly source explained to a conservative website that Cain’s original answer “was the result of lack of sleep and doing too many media appearances.”

Now, after Cain’s inconsistent, rambling five-minute answer to a question posed by a newspaper editorial board as to whether he supported the Libya intervention, Cain’s campaign is again explaining away his bizzarre comments by blaming them on a lack of sleep. The Associated Press reports:

Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said Monday that Cain had four hours of sleep because of a busy campaign schedule when he sat for the interview. He said Cain took his time answering because the candidate wanted to make sure he was focusing on the right problem.

The Cain campaign also lashed out at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board, with Gordon alleging that the video of Cain’s answer to the simple question (“So you agree with President Obama on [intervening in] Libya, or not?“) was “out of context in some measure.” The editor of the Journal Sentinel, Martin Kaiser, shot back on CNN today: “Trying to spin it and say it was edited or handled some other way is just not accurate.” Noting that it was a “pleasant conversation” and not a grilling, Kaiser went on:

I have to admit, quite a few of us have been in the business a long time, been through a number of these kinds of interviews, and afterwards we were really sort of stunned.

Watch the CNN interview with Kaiser here:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) ripped Cain’s answer in an interview with Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin:

There are individual candidates that need to step up their game… Each candidate has to demonstrate for the public that they’re ready for the job. And no one expects a person who hasn’t been commander-in-chief before to know everything about every topic, but Libya? I think it’s fair to ask our candidates to articulate a position. Cain has got to convince people that he’s got the depth of knowledge [to be president].

Cain, who compared U.S. foreign policy to making pizza, has been beset by a series of gaffes and errors, despite declaring several times that he is now a foreign policy expert. Perhaps it is just the grueling campaign schedule, but what of the grueling schedule of a U.S. President?

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) does not want the U.S. military to leave Iraq. The Arizona senator feels so strongly about this position that he found it necessary to publicly disparage President Obama’s top military adviser today during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

McCain apparently did not appreciate that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey defended the president’s decision to order all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. When Dempsey — who reportedly opposed the 2007 surge in Iraq — credited the troop increase for bringing down violence, McCain thought he saw an opening to attack the chairman’s credibility:

MCCAIN: Since you brought up regrettably Gen. Dempsey 2003 and 2004. The fact is that you did not support the surge and said that it would fail. Secretary Panetta was part of the Iraq Study Group that recommended withdrawals from Iraq and opposed the surge and so we’re all responsible for the judgments that we make and obviously that affects the credibility of the judgments that we make now on Iraq. I regret that you have to bring that up Gen. Dempsey.

Watch it:

It’s unclear whether the influx of U.S. troops was the key catalyst that tipped the scales in Iraq, as the so-called Sunni “Awakening” had begun to ferment months before President Bush made the decision to send more troop. So whether Dempsey was right or wrong about opposing sending more troops to Iran in 2007 is difficult to prove.

But by his own measure — one’s past statements on Iraq effect the credibility of current ones — McCain’s authority on the Iraq issue is quite limited, if even non-existent. Here’s a run down of some of McCain’s greatest hits:

– “I believe that [the war in Iraq] will not be nearly as difficult as some allege.” [NBC, 9/22/02]

– “I think most Iraqis would greet the removal of Saddam Hussein with relief and pleasure.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

– “The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

– “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

– In April 2003, McCain said “It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” Eight months later he declared victory, “This is a mission accomplished.”

– In April, 2003, McCain said “we’ve got to de-Baathize Iraq.” Yet 4 years later he hoped the Iraqis would “pass a reverse de-Baathification law.”

– Iraq is “a peaceful and stable country now.” 8/28/08

The the list of McCain’s false predictions and bad judgment on Iraq is extensive. In taking his own advice, perhaps McCain would realize he is not the most credible voice on American policy in Iraq.

Last Friday, Veterans Day, anti-Muslim activists and politicians converged in a small town on the outskirts of Nashville, Tennessee to hold a convention. ThinkProgress attended the event, and spoke to a number of speakers involved. State Rep. Rick Womick (R-TN), a local politician from Murfreesboro already known for his inflammatory remarks about the Muslim religion, told us that he would like to purge the military of Muslims. ThinkProgress is now releasing more excerpts from our interview with Womick.

ThinkProgress’ Eli Clifton asked Womick why no one at the conference had acknowledged Anders Breivik, the shooter in Norway who killed dozens of innocent people because of his fears of Muslim immigration and of policies he believed were too tolerant of Islam. Womick shot back that Muslims had executed innocent Americans, and then explained that we could never compare Islam with acts by people like Breivik, an outspoken Christian, because Allah is “a false God”:

WOMICK: Now you explain to me the more radical point. We have a whole culture who outright comes out and says, ‘we are authorized, we are commanded by a God, a false God, to kill everyone who won’t convert.’ Versus one nutjob over in Norway –

CLIFTON: Sorry, you said Allah is a false God?

WOMICH: Yep, absolutely. Absolutely he’s a false God. There’s only one God: Jehovah. And the son, Christ Jesus who died on the Cross. Now because I believe that, I have a Fatwa on my head. I will never convert to Islam. Allah is not a real God.

Watch it:

Womick also expressed various conspiracy theories during his interview with ThinkProgress. At one point, he told us about a multi-decade plan by Iranians to take over the world using Muslim immigration to the West. Womick said the “population jihad” has allowed Muslims to overtake much of Europe already, and implement Sharia law in parts of England. Watch it:

Since we published our first excerpts from the video, a host of civil rights groups have called on Womick to apologize for his remarks about purging Muslims from the military. Instead, he has doubled down. Gov. Bill Haslam (R-TN) has also refused to rebuke Womick.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) told reporters that he “would not at all be surprised that there may be a pre-emptive attack” by Israel against Iran — and he doesn’t think the U.S. could do anything about it. Savannah Now reports Chambliss said that, though he has “no indication of anything right now,” he could foresee a strike:

If Iran keeps moving down the road they’re moving on now, Israel has every reason in the world to [be] concerned about the future of its country and people. … I’m not sure there is anything the United States could do to stop Israel.

When news of an alleged plot by Iran to assassinate a foreign diplomat in the U.S. broke, right wingers pushed for war. At the time, Chambliss, who has a poor (at best) understanding of Iran, “urge(d) the administration to hold the Iranian regime accountable in a direct and meaningful way.”

But much of the U.S. security establishment — as represented in the periodic National Journal “National Security Insiders” poll — doesn’t agree with either a U.S. or Israeli strike. A slim majority of respondents said that “no military strike should be carried out,” no matter the circumstances. And none of those polled thought the U.S. should undertake the mission alone. Ninety-five percent of respondents also thought it was a bad idea for Israel to strike Iran. Here’re the results:

Respondents, who come from among the well-connected National Journal’s sources, said that an attack on Iran “would set in motion a conflagration, set back the Arab Spring, and destroy what little is left of U.S. credibility as an arbitrator of the Middle East peace process,” among other given reasons to not attack. Another respondent said: “It’s a dream for us to think that a strike will solve this problem.”

Today during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) chastised the Obama administration for failing to get an agreement with the Iraqis to maintain a U.S. troop presence there past 2011. Of course, much of the criticism coming from Iraq war dead-enders like McCain about President Obama’s decision has ignored entirely that the Iraqis also played a role in this outcome.

“The truth is that this administration was committed to the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and they made it happen,” McCain said, not hiding his displeasure. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta then had to remind McCain that Iraq is a democracy, it’s their country, and ultimately the decision wasn’t entirely the president’s and that the administration would not accept a deal in which U.S. troops staying past 2011 were not given legal immunity:

PANETTA: Senator McCain, that’s just simply not true. I guess you can believe that and I respect your beliefs…but that’s not how it happened. This is about negotiating with a sovereign country. An independent country, this was about their needs. This is not about us telling them what we’re going to do for them or what they’re going to have to do. … This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here. [...]

This is a country where you could very well be engaging in combat operations. If you’re going to engage in those kind of operations, you’re going to engage in CT operations, you absolutely have to have immunities and those immunities have to be granted by a SOFA agreement. I was not about to have our troops go there in place without those immunities.

Panetta also had to remind Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who expressed hope that the Iraqis would grant U.S. troops immunity before the withdrawal deadline. “Again I would stress to you Senator Lieberman,” Panetta said, “It’s got to be a two way street.” Later in the hearing, committee chair Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) tried to clear up all the confusion:

LEVIN: Did Iraq ever request U.S. trainers or other troops remain in Iraq after December 31 and if so in what number did they request and were they willing to grant legal protection, immunity to our troops?

PANETTA: There was no such request. …

Watch the clips: