Earlier this month, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said President Obama’s decision to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden “gutsy,” saying that “people don’t realize” what a tough call it was and not everyone would have made the same decision.

In an interview that aired last night, PBS’s Charlie Rose, noting what Gates had said, asked his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld if he agreed that it was a “gutsy” call. “I don’t,” a defiant Rumsfeld quickly shot back, adding that he would have done the same thing. “It seems to me that it is a 15-minute decision and the first 14 are for coffee,” he said. Rumsfeld then, just like President Bush had done, credited himself for the raid’s success:

RUMSFELD: You can’t imagine the difference in competence and capability and the investment we made and the talent of these people [U.S. special operations forces]. We doubled their authorities, we’ve improved their equipment, we’ve increased their numbers. They have gotten better and better and better, they’re the finest warriors on the face of the earth. [...]

We took the investment that the Obama administration benefited from. The capabilities they have were developed during their predecessors and each President –

ROSE: The predecessor meaning the Bush administration you served?

RUMSFELD: And, yes exactly.

Watch the clip:

The Obama-ordering-the-bin-Laden-raid-was-no-big-deal meme is standard fare for former Bush administration officials. Karl Rove said recently that it wasn’t an “epic achievement” despite the fact that he called it a “very tough decision” just one day after Obama announced the raid.

Rumsfeld says Obama’s decision was a no-brainer. But what would the former defense secretary have recommended? “I would have recommended what the President decided,” he told Rose last night. But would he have? The New York Times reported in 2007 that “[a] secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky.” Which top Bush official called off the raid? Donald Rumsfeld.

Among Israel’s former top security officials, a growing consensus has emerged over the past several months that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be counterproductive to Israeli interests. Yesterday, former Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan emphasized that point, telling an audience that “a strike could accelerate the procurement of the bomb” and “provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities.” But a new report by Ynet, suggests that the consensus opposing an Israeli attack on Iran extends all the way to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defense chiefs.

“[P]olitical sources told Ynet on Wednesday that IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo and several top section chiefs in the Mossad are against a strike at this time,” reads a report by Ynet. “Without Gantz’ support the chances of mounting a strike are slim,” an anonymous “political source” said.

Indeed, Gantz and Pardo have expressed reservations in the past about the effectiveness of an Israeli strike.

In December, Pardo warned that while Iran poses a threat to Israel, “The term existential threat is used too freely,” a view closely mirrored by former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy, Meir Dagan and a number of former high-ranking Israeli security officials.

And while hawks in the U.S. and Israel frequently misrepresent the intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program to portray an Iranian nuclear weapons as imminent, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz pushed back last month, telling Haaretz, “[Iran] hasn’t yet decided whether to go the extra mile.” That assessment is shared by U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Gantz also told Haaretz, “I don’t think [Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei] will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.”

Ynet looked at Netanyahu’s nine-minister security forum and concluded that Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman support an attack. But Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, Kadima Chairman Shaul Mofaz and ministers Dan Meridor, Benny Begin, Eli Yishai and Yuval Steinitz oppose a strike.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. However, intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy is in tatters. His “quite far to the right” advisers are divided. The candidate has a tendency to needlessly “hyperbolize” his rhetoric and his positions on national security issues are often confusing and incoherent — which may explain why some GOP foreign policy experts aren’t hurrying to endorse Romney or why the campaign “doesn’t really want to engage these issues.”

There’s also perhaps another reason. It doesn’t appear that Romney has any idea how to set himself apart from President Obama’s foreign policy, as the Los Angeles Times put it today:

Romney has roughed up Obama with a hawkish tone — at times bordering on belligerent. Yet for all his criticisms of the president, it has been difficult to tell exactly what Romney would do differently.

He has argued that reelecting Obama will result in Iran having a nuclear weapon — without explaining how. He has charged that Obama should have taken “more assertive steps” to force out the repressive regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad — but has said he is not “anxious to employ military action.” He accused Obama of tipping his hand to the Taliban by announcing a timeline for withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, but also accepts the 2014 timeline.

And it almost seems as if the Romney campaign is looking to Obama for guidance. Soon after a report surfaced that the the Obama administration is considering the approval of arms transfers to Syrian rebels via Arab allies, the former Massachusetts governor announced that he would do the same (however, Obama administration officials publicly oppose militarizing the conflict any further at this point).

The Times points out that one key difference has been on military spending. Obama pushed through nearly $500 billion in cuts over the next ten years (with Congress adding another $500 billion), although military spending will continue to grow in that same period. Romney, however, plans to (needlessly) increase defense spending by nearly $2 trillion with no plan on how he will pay for it.

“A lot is made of Romney’s tough talk with respect to Russia and Iran and China, but even there it’s not like I see a dearth of toughness on the part of President Obama,” Cato Institute foreign policy expert Christopher Preble told the Times. “As a challenger, for someone like Mitt Romney, it really is incumbent on him to draw distinctions and differences. He doesn’t. It allows people to paint with a broad brush [what] they would guess … his response would be.”

Appearing on CNN last night, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice urged caution about arming the Syrian rebels. The Obama administration has already suggested it will help its Gulf Arab allies do so, but yesterday the Pentagon walked back the suggestion, with a spokesman telling reporters the U.S. focus “remains on economic and diplomatic pressure.”

Rice told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that the U.S. has less knowledge about the Syrian rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad than it did about Libyan rebels during that country’s uprising against the dictator Muammar Qaddafi. In the Libyan case, the U.S., through NATO, provided air support but didn’t directly arm the opposition. Reacting to a statement from Mitt Romney that suggested helping allies to arm the Syrian rebels, Rice said some advocates of arming the rebels had not thought through all of the consequences:

Wolf, even in Libya, we did not take the very exceptional decision to arm the opposition. And in Syria, we know much, much less about the nature of this opposition. It’s not coherent. There’s not a unified command and control. It’s a series of different groups in different cities. There’s, clearly, also an extremist element that is trying to infiltrate elements of the opposition.

So to argue that we ought to be arming the opposition is a very consequential statement. And I don’t think that those that are advocating that have fully thought through the consequences.

That would mean that we are conceding that the only option is to see the further militarization, to see an intensified regional war, which is hardly in our interests or in the interests of our allies and partners in that neighborhood.

Watch the video:

Rice’s words of caution were preceded by similar warnings yesterday from the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (MI), who told CNN: “I’m not sure arming is the right answer here, mainly because we’re just not exactly sure who the bad guys are and who the good guys are right now in Syria. So you don’t know who you’re giving weapons to.” Top U.S. officials have already acknowledged that they believe, for instance, that Al Qaeda in Iraq is behind some of the anti-government bombings in Damascus.

The proposed U.S. plan, which was at least publicly walked back by the Pentagon, called exactly for the U.S. to provide information on rebels who could be reliably armed. The original report on the U.S. plan, from the AP, said that “some intelligence analysts worry that there may be no suitable recipients of lethal aid in the Syria conflict.”

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) takes approximately 300,000 fingerprints per day from non-U.S. citizens crossing the border into the U.S. and collects biometrics from noncitizens applying for immigration. A report from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) and the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), both policy research foundations, warns that DHS biometric databases — which are increasingly interconnected with biometric data collected by state and local law enforcement officers who regularly collect fingerprints — DNA and even face prints and iris scans of people booked into local jails, could raise serious privacy concerns.

“Some people believe biometrics and databases are the silver-bullets that will solve the immigrant enforcement dilemma. But biometrics are not infallible, and databases contain errors. These problems can result in huge negative consequences for U.S. citizens and legal immigrants mistakenly identified,” said Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst at the IPC.

“Biometric data collection can lead to racial profiling and can disproportionately affect immigrants,” said EFF Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch. “It also gives the government a new way to find and track people throughout the United States.”

The EFF and IPC are urging the U.S. government to curb potential racial profiling and discrimination against immigrants by limiting unnecessary biometric collection and addressing the privacy issues that arise from growing and increasingly interconnected biometric databases.

Police use of biometrics has already emerged as a contentious political issue in New York. Earlier this month, the Obama administration expanded the Secure Communities Program, a federal fingerprinting program to identify illegal immigrants in Massachusetts and New York. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo objected to the program. “There are concerns about the implementation of the program as well as its impact on families, immigrant communities and law enforcement in New York,” wrote New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in a letter to DHS. “As a result, New York is suspending its participation in the program.”

While most Americans haven’t yet encountered law enforcement’s increasing use of biometrics data collection and biometrics databases, the Los Angeles Police Department are already using handheld devices to scan the fingerprints of day laborers standing on street corners who are not suspected of any criminal activity.

“While most of us would be really suspect if a police officer randomly asked us to submit to a fingerprint scan on the street,” Lynch told New America Media. “When you feel like you have little voice in society and you lack power to challenge authority, I think harassment like this is a big issue.”

The former chief of Israel’s vaunted Mossad spy agency, Meir Dagan, has already said that he thinks “an attack on Iran before you’re exploring all other approaches is not the right way to do it.” He has spelled out some of his objections clearly, noting that he doesn’t think Israel faces any “existential threat,” that an attack would “ignite… a regional war,” and that such a strike would only delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions — not halt them.

But today, during a conference at an Israeli think tank closely associated with the country’s security establishment, Dagan further explained his opposition to a strike. He told the audience there — in line with previous U.S., U.N. and Israeli estimates that Iran has not yet made a decision to produce a weapon — that attacking Iran would spur the Islamic Republic into accelerating its nuclear program and push for a bomb. Dagan said:

A strike could accelerate the procurement of the bomb. An attack isn’t enough to stop the project. …

We would provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities for military purposes.

In a sign of a consensus emerging among former top Israeli security officials, Dagan shares the newly expressed view — that attacking Iran would give the Islamic Republic every reason to boot out U.N. nuclear inspectors, make a “dash” for a weapon, and rally its population to that goal — with other former security chiefs. Former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence head Shlomo Gazit and former internal security chief Yuval Diskin have expressed nearly identical sentiments. In addition, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Thomas Pickering has expressed such views as well.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and consequences of a strike — not least the one raised by Dagan today — have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis. Perhaps Dagan’s latest comments will lead to a broader discussion about the possible consequences of an attack on Iran.

The Pentagon wants to move toward a greener military, one that relies more on renewable energy and less on fossil fuels. Why? It would save lives. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey made that case last October and a recent Army study found that “[a] fighting force that isn’t restricted by the reach of a tanker truck or weighted down by heavy batteries is more nimble and, as a result, more lethal.”

So in theory, Congress should have no problem passing legislation to provide the funds to make this a reality. However, there are a few hurdles standing in the way: Republicans. The House GOP included a measure in the defense authorization bill this month prohibiting the Defense Department from buying alternative fuels if they cost more than “traditional fossil fuel.” And the Senate Armed Services Committee last week followed suit with an “even tougher” provision mirroring the House version but also exempts DOD from clean energy standards.

Why are the Republicans doing this? VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz pointed out yesterday that they get a lot of money from the oil and gas industry:

In short, Republicans would be forcing the military to go back to using the same fuels that hampered it from doing its job — and the same fuels that have resulted in the deaths of so many Americans.

Why? That’s the question that must be asked. And the answer is pretty simple. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Oil and Gas interests have donated 88 percent of their political contributions to Republicans this cycle — nearly $18 million. That’s the highest percentage they’ve given to Republicans since at least 1990.

And, boy, are Republicans delivering for them. Even if it means forcing the Pentagon to stop developing programs that could make our military more effective. Even if it means banning programs that would save the lives of our troops. There is nothing, it seems, that they value more than delivering for their dirty oil campaign donors.

Two Senate Democrats, Jim Webb (VA) and Joe Manchin (WV) joined the Armed Services Committee Republicans in voting for the measure. However, the amendment may have failed had Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who voted against a similar amendment, been present for the vote. The Hill reported last week that “[a] Collins spokesman said she had to miss the vote to speak with the commander of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine after the USS Miami fire. He said Collins would support biofuels if the issue comes up on the Senate floor.”

“While we all love the environment and want to be good stewards of the earth,” Soltz added, “the military isn’t on some kind of ecological mission when it comes to renewables. They’re trying to help ensure men and women come home to their loved ones.”

The congregants of a planned Murfreesboro, Tennessee, mosque must have felt a sense of relief last fall when they broke ground on an expansion of their house or worship without any incident. Leading up to the planned expansion, the congregation faced an arson attack and accusations by the mosque expansion’s legal challengers that the practice of Islam was “pure sedition.”

What’s worse, Tennessee officialdom and national political figurues had flirted with some of the bigoted arguments against the construction. Tennessee’s Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R) suggested Islam might be “cult,” and the country sheriff brought in Islamophobic speakers on the topic. Then-GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain declared that “this isn’t an innocent mosque,” arguing with his usual befuddling logic that the construction was “an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion,” and that Americans “have a right” to deny other people the right to build places of worship.

But with the groundbreaking in September, the controversy seemed to have passed. Until yesterday, that is. That’s when further construction was thrown into question by a ruling from a local judge that the mosque’s building permits were not valid because notifications about a public hearing on the construction did not reach a wide enough audience. That, wrote the judge, Chancellor Robert Corlew, violated a state law requiring “adequate public notice.” He wrote in his ruling:

Without publication of the issues of business to be discussed at an otherwise routine meeting, citizens may be lulled into the mind set that only routine matters will be raised at a meeting, when suddenly a matter which is to them of earthshaking importance suddenly comes forth.

But county attorney Josh McCreary, who is defending the building permit, contended that the “earthshaking importance” of the building permit was only raised after the lawsuit against the permit. “In this instance, everything they are relying on to prove this is a matter of pervasive public importance came after the lawsuit was filed,” he said.

Opponents of the mosque have already declared victory. “Justice is served,” the lead plaintiff, Kevin Fisher, wrote to the AP in an e-mail. But it’s not clear that’s the case. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) already asked that, should new permits not be forthcoming, the Justice Department step in and “intervene in this case to support the religious rights of Tennessee Muslims.”

Furthermore, the Tennessean newspaper reported today that construction on the mosque expansion might not be ground to a halt by the judicial ruling. Noting that the judge did not order that construction stop, the Tennessean reported that the county that houses the mosque does not plan on revoking the permits:

Rutherford County has no immediate plans revoke the building permit for an embattled Murfreesboro mosque.

“The county is going to look at all the possibilities,” said Jim Cope, attorney for Rutherford County. “This could take weeks.”

Earlier this month, House lawmakers passed a $643 billion defense budget draft, $4 billion more than the president’s defense budget request and $8 billion more than the cap set on defense spending Congress last year. The bill’s passage brought criticisms from House Democrats and Pentagon officials — including Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey — and stood in striking contrast to recent polling data showing that 65 percent of Americans would support cuts to military spending. But generous campaign contributions from the defense industry, and related industries that benefit from other Defense Department contracts, may explain the willingness of House Republicans to ignore the preferences of the American public and the military’s leadership.

An investigation for Time.com by defense budgeting expert Winslow Wheeler into “Pentagon pork” found that “the money being added for ‘Restoration & Modernization of Facilities’ was being added without any meaningful guidance, none whatsoever.” Funding for “Restoration & Modernization of Facilities,” which Wheeler characterizes as a having “the distinct odor of being a slush fund,” totals $594.7 million.

But the House Armed Services Committee members who passed the oversized defense budget draft may have other interests in mind. Four of the top-ten industry campaign donors to House Armed Services Committee members, as categorized by OpenSecrets.org, would appear to benefit from this “slush fund.” “Defense Aerospace,” “Real Estate,” “Misc Defense,” and “Building Trade Unions,” already contributed a total of $4.89 million to House Armed Services Committee members in the 2012 election cycle. The majority of that went to Republicans.

And House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and his leadership PAC are the top congressional recipients of defense industry campaign dollars. See the chart below to see how defense dollars stack up against his other campaign contributors:

The apparent contradiction of House Armed Services Committee members passing an oversized defense budget which exceeds that requested by the military and defies the U.S. public’s preference for a reduction in defense spending makes more sense when viewed in the context of defense industry, and industries which benefit directly and indirectly from defense related appropriations, contributions to committee member’s campaign committees and leadership PACs. Indeed, the contributions offer a monetary incentive for committee members to advocate for additional budget items — such as an East Coast missile defense system which Gen. Demspsey said was unnecessary — and create “Pentagon pork.”

Many of Washington’s more hawkish voices have sought to downplay or drown out discussions about a possible military attack on Iran’s nuclear program. Even as the Obama administration has kept all options on the table regarding iran’s nuclear program, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign attacked the administration for trying to have an honest discussion of the possible consequences of a military strike.

Now, three Members of Congress — Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Keith Ellison (D-MN), and Barbara Lee (D-CA) — are introducing an amendment to an intelligence authorization bill that would demand a government report about the possible consequences of an attack. Conyers and Ellison, among others, also used the amendment process to tag the Defense authorization — another big appropriations bill likely to pass — with language stating that Congress was not authorizing war with Iran.

The first public comments by members on the amendment, which has the support of pro-peace groups, could come this afternoon when the Rules Committee meets to decide on its inclusion in the larger bill. The amendment, Section 306 of the new bill, reads in full that:

Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report containing an assessment of the consequences of a military strike against Iran.

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has already said that Iran has not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon — an estimate in line with reported U.S. assessments and also the U.N. atomic watchdog and Israeli assessments — and made clear that he thinks Iran can be dissuaded from building a bomb.

But his views on the consequences of a strike are unlikely to satisfy militaristic voices in Congress. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a prominent hawk on Iran, publicly disagreed with Clapper’s Iran assessments during a hearing this winter. Last year, Graham called on Clapper to resign.

While President Obama, like others, considers a potential Iranian nuclear weapon a threat, this Spring he lamented the “loose talk of war” and called on those who are pushing an attack on Iran to hold open discussions about the possible consequences:

If some of these folks think that it’s time to launch a war, they should say so and they should explain to the american people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be.

Instead of hawkish bluster, the Obama administration maintains its options while pushing a negotiated diplomatic solution, which the administration considers the “best and most permanent way” to end the crisis. That’s because Israeli and American experts have noted that attacking could push Iran into building a weapon, and potentially ignite a regional war. Those are exactly the sorts of potential consequences of an attack on Iran that the Obama administration has called for a forthright conversation on, which Conyers, Ellison and Lee are now bolstering. And its exactly the conversation the hawks don’t want to have.

The number of pages of classified government documents that were declassified, as well as the number reviewed for declassification, declined from the year before, according to the Information Security Oversight Office’s (ISOO) Report for Fiscal Year 2011 [PDF].

The report found that 26.7 million pages were declassified through automatic, systematic, and discretionary declassification reviews, the lowest number of declassified pages since the 1980-1994 period. See the chart below:

Trendlines in the ISOO report indicate that President Obama’s 2009 goal of reviewing 400 million pages of classified records of historical importance by December 2013 “is not likely to be met,” says a response by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

While the total volume of declassified documents per year appears to be slowing, the ISOO report shows that in 2011, as in past years, the majority of classification decisions that were appealed to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel were overturned in whole or in part, resulting in the declassification and release of records which government agencies had sought to classify. FAS observes:

Because this pattern has persisted for 15 years (since the Panel was established), it represents empirical proof that overclassification has been and still remains pervasive, even by internal executive branch standards. In fact, there are indications that the Panel itself is too conservative in its handling of classification disputes. Recently, even the hyper-retentive National Security Agency decided to fully release a document despite a Panel finding that it should remain partly classified.

The ISOO report doesn’t address the implications that over-classification remains rife in federal agencies but ISOO Director John P. Fitzpatrick, in a letter addressed to the President at the beginning of the report, emphasized that 2011 would mark the launch of the first executive branch-wide Fundamental Classification Guidance Review.

“Agencies with original classification authority began comprehensive reviews of their classification guidance, particularly classification guides, to ensure the guidance reflects current circumstances and to identify classified information that no longer requires protection and can be declassified,” wrote Fitzpatrick. “We believe that significant results will be obtained from this program.”

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family are unafraid of using their money in politics. They purportedly gave $20 million to Newt Gingrich’s failed run for the Republican presidential nomination — and reportedly weighed an astounding $100 million donation. But with Gingrich dispatched, Adelson is now turning his attention to presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. It’s not clear if Adelson has yet poured millions of dollars into SuperPACs associated with the Romney campaign, and we may never know: Adelson vowed this winter to keep most of his election giving secret.

We do know that Adelson was slated to meet today in his Las Vegas office with Romney, according to a CBS report citing people close to the billionaire.

So who is Adelson? Here’s a reminder of some of the priorities and far right-wing views held by the owner of Las Vegas Sands Corporation and its Venetian hotel:

In February, Adelson and his wife reportedly joined up with the Koch brothers for the first time in their twice-yearly gathering of major right-wing donors largely obsessed with ending regulation on business. Reports suggested that the Adelsons would contribute to American Crossroads, an attack-dog Super PAC run by Karl Rove.

One of the reasons Adelson wants to keep his political giving private is that his gambling empire and, relatedly, close relationship with the Chinese government awkwardly juxtapose with Christian conservative views (Adelson’s been denounced) and Republican antipathy on China (including from Romney). Adelson allegedly helped crush a congressional measure by House Republicans opposing Beijing’s Olympic bid. “The bill will never see the light day, Mr. Mayor. Don’t worry about it,” he reportedly told Beijing’s mayor in 2001 after phoning then House GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX). Adelson went on to get a lucrative gambling license from China to build a casino in Macau.

Part of Adelson’s Chinese dealings, which came under federal scrutiny in 2011, went through a non-profit called the Adelson Center for U.S.-China Enterprise. According to a WikiLeaks cable flagged by Salon, the association, which was meant to facilitate business between the U.S. and China, was shut down by the Chinese government after some “missteps” with “funds transfer mechanisms” used by Las Vegas Sands. Unlike competitors, the cable said, Las Vegas Sands lobbied Beijing directly instead of going through Macau authorities.

Gingrich told NBC News that Adelson puts a priority on far-right policies on Israel. Adelson opposed the American Israeli Affairs Committee — threatening to withdraw financial support — when the group backed a Bush administration-led peace process in 2007. Adelson has since said, “There won’t be a two-state solution; there won’t be a one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has, in the past, suggested the two-state solution was “suicide” for Israel

Adelson’s right-wing views on Israel have, at times, descended into bigotry against Palestinians, who he thinks do not have legitimate aspirations to a state of their own. When Newt Gingrich said Palestinians are an “invented” people — a talking point the New Yorker’s David Remnick said was “propaganda” — Adelson backed him up. “Read the history of those who call themselves Palestinians,” he told a group of young American Jews visiting Israel late last year, “and you will hear why Gingrich said recently that the Palestinians are an invented people.”

While Mitt Romney claims to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and advocates for a tough foreign policy on China, the man he was slated to meet with today in Las Vegas has espoused a nearly opposite set of policy views. He’s also shown no timidity in throwing around his money to pursue those political interests in the U.S., China and Israel.

After a massacre of civilians on Friday night in Syria — including dozens of children — which the U.N. strongly hinted was perpetrated by government forces, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney blamed the Obama administration for not taking decisive enough action against the Syrian regime.

The plan Romney and his aides proposed to deal with the crisis, however, sounds a lot like the one Obama administration officials discussed with press just a few days before. “The United States should work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves,” the campaign said in a release on Sunday. On CNN this morning, top Romney aide Andrea Saul echoed the call, saying that Romney would “work with our allies to help arm the Syrian opposition.” Watch it:

If all that sounds familiar, it might be because, three days before the Romney statement, that’s exactly what Obama administration officials told the AP they were setting a plan in motion to do. The AP reported:

[T]he Obama administration is preparing a plan that would essentially give U.S. nods of approval to arms transfers from Arab nations to some Syrian opposition fighters.

The effort, U.S. officials told the Associated Press, would vet members of the Free Syrian Army and other groups to determine whether they are suitable recipients of munitions to fight the Assad government and to ensure that weapons don’t wind up in the hands of al-Qaida-linked terrorists.

As for the goal of pushing for a transition in Syria, the New York Times reported on Saturday — the day before Romney’s statement — that ” President Obama will push for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad.”

The Romney campaign “doesn’t want to really engage” on foreign policy issues. Perhaps that’s because so many of his proposals sound like what the Obama administration is already doing — albeit with more hawkish bluster. Last month, Vice President Biden, while criticizing Romney’s “loose talk of war,” noted that, other than the rhetoric, the policies were the same: “Governor Romney has called for what he calls a ‘very different policy’ on Iran. But for the life of me it’s hard to understand what the governor means by a very different policy.”