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.”

When the Obama administration announced its new military strategy last month, and the correlating proposed spending reductions, conservatives tried to claim, in the words of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), that the President was trying to “gut the military.” But as CAP’s Larry Korb, Alex Rothman and Max Hoffman write in a new report today, President Obama’s defense budget “does little to bring the baseline budget back down from its current level, which remains near historic highs.” Indeed, the New York Times noted last month that “over the next four years, the Pentagon budget would rise each year, reaching $567 billion by 2017.”

But you might not know that by scanning the Wall Street Journal’s new budget analysis. According to one graphic, the Journal suggests that military spending will decline over the next few years:

While it may be true that military spending will decline as a percentage of GDP, framing the military budget in these terms hides the fact that defense spending will increase in the coming years. Why? As the aforementioned CAP report explains, “Because these ‘cuts’ come from projected increases in defense spending.” As such, “the baseline defense budget will fall by just 1 percent, or $5 billion, next year and resume its growth thereafter.” Here is what a chart of projected military spending actually looks like:

Korb, Rothman and Hoffman offer a number of “next steps” the Pentagon can take to trim more fat, including reducing F-35 procurement, cancelling the V-22 Osprey, shrinking the size of the nuclear arsenal and reducing the size of the carrier fleet from nine to eleven.

Responding to news that the Pentagon will formally relax rules forbidding women from serving in combat, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta said on the cable network last Sunday that the real issue is about women serving in the military more broadly. Referring to a recent report that violent sex crimes within the military have increased over the last 6 years, Trotta said women service members should “expect” sexual assault and complained about levels of bureaucracy that support women who have been “raped too much.”

Now, Trotta is facing some backlash. Kayla Williams, a former sergeant and Arabic linguist in the 101st Airborne Division who also served in Iraq, told ThinkProgress that the “level of ignorance” in Trotta’s comments is “astounding”:

Trotta’s implication that women “in close contact” with men should “expect” to be sexually assaulted is breathtakingly offensive, as is her baffling reference to women “who are now being raped too much.” Frankly, I don’t even know how to respond to someone who holds such a low opinion of those who risk their lives in defense of our country every day.

And Anu Bhagwati, Executive Director of the Service Women’s Action Network and herself a former Marine captain, also issued this statement, noting that Trotta’s disturbing comments are based on a series of myths about men and women serving together in the military:

It has become a desperate but popular myth among commentators recently that women’s presence in the military necessarily means they will get raped. First, the mere presence of women in the workplace does not turn men into rapists. Second, the majority of victims of military rape over time have been men. In fact, half of the Military Sexual Trauma patients being treated at Veterans Affairs hospitals today are men.

Bhagwati adds that the issue isn’t men and women serving together, it’s the “broken” U.S. military justice system which currently offers “few deterrents to rapists or the commanders who protect them. Serial predators can largely expect to enjoy full military careers without ever being punished for the violent crimes they commit.”

Media Matters reports that Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) called Trotta’s comments “shameful” and “abhorrent.” “Contrary to Trotta’s comments, being a victim of rape or sexual assault is not in the job description of a US Service Member,” Speier said.

The Pentagon announced new rules last week easing the ban on women serving in combat. While conservatives like Rick Santorum are a little uneasy with the news, the announcement only formalizes military practices that were already taking place.

But Fox News contributor Liz Trotta’s commentary on the matter took the issue to a whole other level. She’s not really concerned about the “controversy” surrounding the Pentagon’s announcement. For Trotta, the issue is having “women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time.” She cited a recent Pentagon report that violent sex crimes in the military have increased over the last 6 years and said women should “expect” it, decrying more levels of bureaucracy to support women who have been “raped too much“:

TROTTA: But while all of this is going on, just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it’s strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.

And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims’ advocates, sexual response coordinators. … So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

To his credit, Fox host Eric Shawn tried to talk Trotta down a bit. “You certainly want the people fighting the war to be protected from anything that could be illegal,” he said. But Trotta wouldn’t have it. “Nice try Eric,” she said, “This whole question of women in the military has not been aired properly, and it’s the great sleeping giant.” Watch the clip via Media Matters:

Just to clarify, Trotta complained about government supporting women who have been “raped too much,” a statement seeming to imply that there is an acceptable amount of rape one can or should endure in order to prevent more layers of bureaucracy from swooping in to help out.

The Pentagon announcement easing the ban on women serving in combat led Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum to express his concerns that missions could be put in jeopardy “because of other types of emotions that are involved.”

But today, Santorum attempted to clarify his seemingly sexist statement in an interview with ABC News:

RICK SANTORUM: I was talking about men’s emotional issues, not women. That’s something I’ve talked about repeatedly. [...] Men in our culture are focused on if a woman is in trouble, obviously, to react to try to help to protect and care for that person. That is something that is built in culturally. So my concern is that being in combat in that situation, instead of being focused on the mission, they might be more concerned about protecting a woman in a vulnerable position.

Watch it:

Having put to rest the allegation that he was suggesting women were emotionally unfit to serve in combat — and instead having argued that men are emotionally unfit to serve alongside women — Santorum went on to emphasize that he has no problem putting women’s lives in danger.

Blogger Jennifer Rubin describes her interview with Santorum:

He says, “It’s not a matter of putting women in dangerous roles.” He tell[s] me, for example, that women are fully capable of “flying small planes.”

So it seems that for Santorum, it’s okay for women to fly the puddle jumpers but save the heavy bombers for the men. While Rubin goes on to commend Santorum for his fearlessness in “refusing to censor his views” and possibly “provoking the ire of women,” his views on women in the military may pose a challenge for his campaign which finds itself in the media spotlight after primary victories in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.

In the past 24 hours, Santorum: accused Obama of helping Iran acquire nuclear weapons; suggested that male soldiers are incapable of controlling their emotions around female comrades in combat; and said women are better suited to “flying small planes.”

After a year-long review ordered by Congress, the Pentagon yesterday announced easing the ban on women serving in combat. Women service members will now be allowed to be permanently assigned to a battalion “as radio operators, medics, tank mechanics and other critical jobs.”

The news isn’t sitting well with GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Last night, CNN’s John King asked Santorum about the news and the former Pennsylvania senator said he’s worried that “emotions” might get in the way of the mission:

SANTORUM: I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country. And they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. And they’re a great addition to the — and have been for a long time, to the armed services of our country.

But I do have concerns about women in frontline combat. I think that can be a very compromising situation where — where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that’s probably — you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But it’s — but it’s — I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. And I think that’s probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.

Watch it:

The Pentagon announcement only formalizes military practices that were already taking place, and thus far “emotions,” as Santorum says, haven’t been an issue.

And Santorum also happens to think the same way about gays serving in the military, saying — despite evidence to the contrary — that it “would cause problems for people living in those close quarters.” And he’s been wrong about that prediction too.

A group of Senators led by Arizona Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl today unveiled a bill to try to prevent nearly $500 billion in cuts to military spending, which were mandated after the congressional debt commission’s super committee failed to agree on where to trim $1.2 trillion from the federal budget.

Their plan calls for delaying the implementation of the mandatory spending cuts one year (in to 2014) in order to figure out how to offset the reductions. The Republicans don’t plan on raising taxes however. Instead, they want to cut federal jobs and freeze federal workers’ pay, Reuters reports:

The new proposal by McCain, Kyl and four other Senate Republicans would spare the military and selected domestic programs of cuts set to go into effect in January 2013. The $127 billion in budget savings would be achieved, instead, by scaling back the federal workforce and freezing its pay.

The move is designed to buy time for lawmakers to decide on more orderly reductions than the across-the-board cuts put in place after a special congressional committee failed to develop a deficit reduction plan last year, a Republican aide said.

“Let’s not let a domestic issue such as tax increases interfere…with our nation’s security,” McCain said at the bill’s unveiling on Capitol Hill today. In fact, the military can more than afford the extra $500 billion in cuts. Not only has the U.S. defense budget doubled in the last 10 years, the U.S. spends more than the next 14 countries combined. Indeed, as Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said, “it’s difficult, but it is not super hard” to make the reductions.

Democrats, however, balked at the plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called the bill “unfair.” Referring to the fact that McCain and many of his GOP colleagues had indeed voted for the plan that ended up resulting in the sequester cuts, Reid added, “I believe that an agreement is an agreement. I believe that a handshake is a handshake. Here we have more than a handshake – we have a law that is in place in our country. They should keep their word. That’s what the American people expect them to do, and that’s what I expect them to do.”