Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confirmed on Friday that al Qaeda has a "presence in Syria."
At a briefing at the Pentagon with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Panetta was asked by a reporter, "Secretary Panetta, if I may, on al Qaeda in Syria, you've said that we don't have any indication of al Qaeda in that -- those double explosions that took place in Damascus. But what kind of assessment do you have on al Qaeda activity in Syria? Because the Syrian government confirms that al-Qaida is active in Syria. Do you have an indication to say that al Qaeda is actually active, how big it is, and is it a concern for you?"
Panetta responded by confirming the terrorist group's presence, but provided few details.
Al Qaeda anywhere is a concern for us," said Panetta. "And we do -- we do have intelligence that indicates that there is an al Qaeda presence in Syria. But frankly, we don't have very good intelligence as to just exactly what their activities are. And that's the reason we can't really indicate specifically what they are or are not doing. But they are a concern. And frankly, we need to continue to do everything we can to determine what kind of influence they are trying to exert there.
Panetta also reiterated that America's position is for Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad to go, but again provided few details on what, if anything, America is doing to hasten his demise.
Obviously, the situation in Syria remains of great concern. This -- you know, the cease-fire does not appear to be working. And Annan himself has indicated concerns about whether or not parties are abiding by the cease-fire. We continue to urge Assad to step down, that there must be a change there. They've lost their legitimacy by the huge number of deaths that are taking place in Syria.
And again, we are working with the international community to try to make sure we take all steps necessary to try to do what we can to implement the necessary political reforms to have Assad step down and to try to return Syria to the Syrian people.
This is not easy. There are no easy courses here. But I think the most important thing we can do now is to continue to work with the international community to bring pressure on Syria to do the right thing.
With the House of Representatives set to vote this month on a bill to reverse the trillion-dollar “sequestration” cuts to the military, Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Virginia) will be launching his “Defending Our Defenders” listening tour in Chesapeake, Virginia, on May 14, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. Forbes, chair of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, started the listening tour to help make the case to the American public that sequestration will have severe co
President Obama likes to say that a strong America abroad rests on a strong America at home. What he and his administration continue to ignore, however, is that a prosperous America at home has in no small way rested for decades on America’s global military preeminence.
The latest chart from the Senate Republican Budget Committee, pointing out that under President Obama's budget, the U.S. government will be spending more in 2019 to pay the interest on the national debt than it will be to defend America:
The boss, Arthur Brooks, and Ed Feulner, writing in today's Wall Street Journal:
"The contrast between the House Republican budget and that of our current commander-in-chief is striking. President Obama has been arguing that raising taxes is the only solution to sequestration that he will accept. In other words, he asks the nation to decide between higher taxes and a weaker defense. Mr. Ryan rejects either solution.
House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon praised the Republican budget released earlier today in a statement. "Chairman Ryan has drafted a budget that puts us back on the path to prosperity," says McKeon. "His plan is full of tough choices, but I am pleased he recognizes that our men and women in uniform have paid for enough of those choices."
President Obama is cutting future defense spending. It is both a conscious choice to divert funds elsewhere, away from the military, and a consequence of last year’s congressional budget agreement, which alone will likely result in an automatic sequestration of at least $500 billion from future military budgets. Regardless, the decision has serious consequences.
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee this morning "that [defense] sequestration would pose unacceptable risk":
Earlier this month, the Obama administration came out with a plan for the country’s defense and its military needs. It is a bold, even radical, plan that dramatically alters the nation’s strategic outlook. So of course it received almost as much media attention as the shouting matches between Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, three years ago, over an indiscreet remark the first lady had made in France.
The Obama administration states in its just released defense guidance paper that perhaps America’s nuclear “deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force.”
With the end of the Cold War in sight, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell in the George H. W. Bush administration was asked how big the U.S. military should be. He replied, “We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, ‘Superpower Lives Here.’ ”
