Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton is one of the more outspoken Fox News pundits, nearly always advocating for U.S. and/or Israeli military action to stop Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. But appearing on Fox News today, Bolton, who still supports military action, admitted that military strikes might be incapable of breaking Iran’s control of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Indeed, the comments from Bolton fall in line with Bolton’s former colleague in the George W. Bush Administration, former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, who warned recently that bombing Iran may give Tehran an inducement to pursue a nuclear weapon. Bolton told Fox News this afternoon:

BOLTON: They [Israel] may attack now but not really break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle which is a very unfortunate circumstance. We’re running out of time. Israel’s running out of time. Nobody can calibrate exactly when Iran will get the bomb.

Watch it:

While Bolton and his fellow hawks are quick to refer to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions as a foregone conclusion, neither senior U.S. intelligence officials now the IAEA have concluded that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. The IAEA has expressed concerns over a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program and Director of National Intelligence Jame Clapper emphasized that U.S. intelligence sources believe Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not yet made a decision whether to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Last month, Clapper told Members of Congress that economic pressure from sanctions could effect Iran’s “cost-benefit analysis” and dissuade Tehran from taking the steps necessary for constructing a nuclear weapon.

Last week, Rick Santorum had to walk back his comment that he opposes women serving in combat because “of emotions that are involved” by saying it’s not that he’s against women serving in combat, he’s just concerned that men are emotionally unfit to serve alongside women.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association — an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group — picked up the ball for Santorum, saying outright that women aren’t capable of serving in combat:

FISCHER: If our national security is on the line, the defense of your children, your family, when that’s on the line, who do you want manning the Howitzers? Who do you want manning the M-16s. Who do you want manning the fighter planes? Do you want somebody who is characterized by sensitivity, warmth and apprehension? That is somebody who is sensitive, who is warm and who is easily spooked? Is that who you want defending your national security?

Or do you want somebody who is characterized by emotional stability, dominance, rule, consciousness and vigilance? Well if your answer is B, which I think any objective, logical, right thinking, clear-headed, non politically correct corrupted thinking person would think, clearly you have just said we ought to have men in combat. … Women are not wired, either by evolution or by God, whoever is responsible for this difference, they are not prepared by DNA and innate personality characteristics to be in those positions.

Watch the clip via Right Wing Watch:

Right Wing Watch adds that Fischer said in a column today that “the average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up.”

By Lawrence Korb and Alex Rothman

The Obama administration is reportedly considering major reductions in the size the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The administration has reportedly asked the Pentagon to evaluate three options for further cuts: to approximately 1100, 800, or 400 weapons. Any of these scenarios would take the United States well below the ceiling imposed by the New START treaty, which requires the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed weapons.

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the strategic value of the U.S. nuclear stockpile has declined significantly in the 21st century. Nuclear weapons have been useless in all of the U.S.’s recent military campaigns — Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. And they offer no protection against terrorist groups and subnational actors, two of the most significant threats facing the United States today.

In fact, the Pentagon’s own strategic thinkers have noted that the strategic landscape has changed and that the U.S.’s Cold War-sized arsenal may exceed the country’s current needs. The Defense Department’s strategic guidance document, released in early January, states that “it is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy.”

Moreover, according to strategists at the Air War College and the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, the U.S. could draw down its arsenal to 311 survivable reliable weapons and still maintain a credible deterrent.

Read more

A new national survey released today by Oxford Research International finds that while 75 percent of Libyans polled said that their lives are much or somewhat better compared to before the revolution that ousted Col. Muammar Qaddafi, just 15 percent said Libya should have a democratic government in 12 months time. Twenty-nine percent said they would prefer a “(single) strong Libyan leader.” But in 5 years, more Libyans said they’d rather see a democracy:

When asked “which country could serve as a model for Libya in the coming years,” nearly 38 percent said Libya does not need a model. But of the countries mentioned, more pointed to the non-democratic United Arab Emirates (21.8 percent) than democratic countries such as the United States (4.6 percent), Britain (3.3 percent) and France (3.2 percent).

The BBC reports that Oxford University’s Dr. Christoph Sahm said the survey suggested Libyans lacked the knowledge of how democracy works. “This survey also reveals there is potential for future instability as a significant minority have indicated that they would be prepared to take up arms,” he said.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called for completely eliminating foreign aid on a conservative radio show over the weekend, arguing that doing so would help fix the budget deficit.

Appearing on the Rusty Humphries Show, Paul bemoaned the fact that Republicans “are still divided on [eliminating] foreign aid.” The Kentucky senator continued that Republicans have to get “on the same page on eliminating wasteful things like foreign aid.”

PAUL: But you need to eliminate some things. Republicans are still divided on foreign aid. Some Republicans still want to send foreign aid. We send foreign aid to China. We send economic development assistance to China. We’ve got to get Republicans on the same page on eliminating wasteful things like foreign aid, sending the Department of Education back to the states, greatly downsizing if not eliminating the Department of Energy, all of these things we do up here.

Listen to it:

There are two problems with Paul’s goal of getting rid of foreign aid. First, it would do almost nothing to balance the federal budget. Though polls show Americans think it accounts for anywhere from 10 percent to one-third of the budget, in fact, less than one percent of federal spending goes towards foreign aid.

Second, zeroing out foreign aid would be a disaster for both those living in dire poverty around the world and the United States’ foreign policy interests. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) ripped his own party on the issue last month, saying that eliminating foreign aid would be “outrightly foolish” and “un-Christian.” “I resent the idea that the conservative viewpoint somehow is at odds with the idea of strategic investment in countries around the globe,” Huckabee said in South Carolina. Helping lift people around the globe out of poverty also benefits our own economic and national security interests.

Unfortunately, Paul’s position has found much more favor in the Republican Party of late than Huckabee’s. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul have all called for zeroing out foreign aid during the presidential primary campaign. Rick Santorum is the only presidential candidate willing to defend foreign aid, calling his opponents’ opposition a “lowlight.”

A former FBI agent who has said a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee has no legal right to exist will be training the county sheriff’s department about Muslim culture and terrorism threats. John Guandolo, vice president of the Strategic Engagement Group, will lead the training for Rutherford County officers at the World Outreach Church in Murfressboro.

Speaking at another Tennessee church in November, Guandolo said local mosques are front organizations for the Muslim Brotherhood. “They do not have a First Amendment right to do anything,” Guandolo said then. And the pastor at World Outreach Church, the Rev. Allen Jackson, urged the Rutherfod County Commission to not allow a mosque to be built in Murfreesboro. “I would submit to you that we have a duty here at home to understand thoroughly the nature, the intent, the funding of any group that is being invited into our community under that general banner (of Islam),” Jackson told the commission in July 2010.

Rutherford Sheriff Robert Arnold defended the training, saying his department only wants to find out more about Islam. “There are not many classes out there for anything when it comes to Muslims … but this training isn’t just about that, it has many other components to it,” he told the Tennessean. “My stance is and my office’s stance is, we are not here to pick sides. I am here to protect the people of this county, and I am never going to waiver from that.” But local Muslims said they weren’t asked to join the training:

Saleh Sbenaty, a member of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, said the sheriff’s office never asked local Muslims to participate in the training. He said the department is supposed to protect the rights of citizens no matter what their faith.

Using a trainer who thinks Muslims have no civil rights doesn’t make sense, he said.

“This training is hate training,” Sbenaty said. “It is not training to keep our whole community safe.”

On Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim civil rights group, asked the Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Director Brian Grisham to “investigate the appropriateness” of the week-long training. CAIR points out that the Rutherford Sheriff’s Department “is responsible for investigating an arson and repeated acts of vandalism at the construction site of a planned mosque in Murfreesboro that has faced fierce opposition since it was first proposed.”

Previously, the FBI has come under fire for teaching counterterrorism trainees about Islam using anti-Muslim materials. Spencer Ackerman reports that an internal investigation at the bureau so far has purged hundreds of pages of material about Muslims — some characterizing them as prone to violence or terrorism — from presentations given to agents.