November 28, 2004
Guests:
Former Gov. Tom Kean (R-NJ), Chairman of the 9/11 Commission
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission
Rev. Jerry Falwell, The Faith and Values Coalition
Rev. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention
Rev. Al Sharpton, National Action Network
Rev. Jim Wallis, Convener, Call to Renewal, Editor, Sojourners Magazine
Subjects:
9/11 Commission Overhaul, Two Key Republicans are blocking the bill.
The Role Moral Issues play in American politics
Meet The Press trumped out the Executive Branch of the 9/11 Commission as a bill consisting of the body's recommendations soon goes up for vote. Two Republican representatives, including Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) who serves on the judiciary committee - are trying to block its adoption because of a single provision that involves licensing drivers. Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton appeared on this week's program to basically shame these two representatives for obstructing legislation that everyone and his mother apparently want passed.
I realize that in the last column I said that there is no such thing as non-partisan and here we are the very next week with members of a bi-partisan commission. However, these distinguished men aren't active in gritty day-to-day politics anymore and can now serve on policy commissions that are above the fray, political divinity if you will. This leads me to say that these men both show a confidence about their recommendations that would suggest that they are beyond reproach. So why shouldn't they be smug?
So Mr. Sensenbrenner and the other representative, who incidentally was so important that no one each mention him by name, should give it up and stand down. And driver's licenses? Forget that, I have a few questions about the notion of a top intelligence post. First of all, who is going to occupy that spot? Mr. Porter Goss's name was the only one that practically came out of the Bush Administration's group-speak so now there will be someone thrown between the two? I don't think so. This top post would make certain that information would flow fluidly between the various intelligence agencies, but is this just the information that each agency chooses to give this office? The logical answer of course, is 'no,' but don't be so certain, these types of incidences will occur; it seems so typical. Hence, does this new post simply become an intelligence trafficking center for the President?
So the bill isn't perfect but it should be passed. Are indirect endorsements out of bounds? Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton were given time to say their collective peace, but how about Sensenbrenner and the other guy? Do they get time to explain themselves? Who has the patience for equal time anyway?
Meanwhile in the next segment…
Did you hear the joke about how the journalist kept four reverends from poking each other in the throat? Of course you didn't because it was on Meet the Press. It's a sad state of affairs that Mr. Russert had to repeat the word “peace” over and over again in the presence of four reverends.
I almost don't know where to begin here with this group. Four Christian men could barely contain their contempt for one another. I will hand it to the producers this week, it made for good television, but it was very productive as far as an overall discourse was concerned with regard morals playing a role in American politics.
There were a few aspects of the conversation that did stick out with me. First, I have to say that the middle trust does suck. No one wanted to listen to Rev. Wallis, the only one of the group who showed no signs of smugness and he was a total bore, making way too much sense. “The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of values from our public life,” he says. Please.
Dr. Richard Land said that once there is a fetus in the womb, it is no longer the woman's body. That notion isn't anywhere near American mainstream political thinking, no to mention that it is simply an inaccurate statement. This leads me to trouble in taking seriously anything this man says going forward. I agree with Rev. Sharpton when he says that we shouldn't legislate women's bodies, or anybody's body for that matter.
And Rev. Falwell doesn't stand on a pedestal that God made. When asked why it was a responsibility, a duty of Christians to vote for George Bush, this is what he said. “Because I'm a Democrat. I don't vote Republican. I vote Christian. And I believe that he is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, strong national defense, faith-based initiatives for the poor, et cetera. And George Bush fits the criteria for all of them. John Kerry met little or none of those criteria.”
First of all, that answer doesn't make any sense. Mr. Falwell a Democrat? Like I said: good television. I agree that Kerry met none of those criteria, but he's a Democrat, at least that how the ballot went. Jerry Falwell votes Christian: pro-life, pro-family, pro-Israel, and pro-death penalty. I know, I threw that last one in there, but since the endorsement was ringing so loudly, and Mr. Bush is a fan of that last one, I thought I would throw it in there. Also, not for anything, but he wanted us to know that he prayed in the shower. So now that I have that mental image, where am I left in the aftermath of that?
The United States is all about Liberty, and you can use your set of morals as a guide on how you vote, but this doesn't mean that the rest of us have to fall in line… or be damned for eternity.
Monday, November 29, 2004
No Champagne Brunch
Sunday November 21, 2004
Guests:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona: Member of the Armed Services Committee
Michael Sheuer: Former CIA Analyst, Author of “Imperial Hubris”
Subjects:
Iraq, Iran, and The War on Terror
Given the guests on the show, one could be optimistic that some straight answers were going to be given in regard to Iraq and al-Qaida. Mr. McCain has a solid reputation of being a straight talker and one who is not afraid to disagree with his party when he sees things differently. In regard to the second guest, I recently found out that Mr. Sheuer was the author of “Imperial Hubris” and wanted to hear what someone inside the classified circle of information had to say about what is being done and what will be done in regard to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Mr. Russert began his interview with Mr. McCain with questions about Iran. If any part of the sections about Iran from Richard Clarke's “Against All Enemies” is to be believed, our decisions and policies toward Iran are of the gravest of importance. Mr. Russert asked the Senator if we were close to military action with this country. Absolutely a question that needs to be asked, but to think that we are even remotely considering entering into another conflict is reckless and short sited.
As the conversation carried on, Mr. Russert asked, “What is our timetable? How much time do we have for Iran to stand down?” First of all, do we actually think that Iran is going to stand down because of some threat from the U.S.? He made it sound like military conflict between the U.S. and Iran is inevitable by the way he phrased the question. Secondly, at this time, it would be the most profound military error the United States has ever made. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to create a sense of security there, even with the massive redeployment of U.S. troops throughout the world so how would we fare with Iran? You can see where I am going with this.
Another frightening prospect that was brought up was the potential a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. McCain's answer fit his style - logical and responsibly hawkish - and he said that “…from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult,” due to the fact that the facilities are spread all over Tehran. He also said that we want to avoid such a conflict at all costs, and I believe Mr. McCain. However, that this prospect is on the table is just plain scary and I don't trust that someone like Paul Wolfewitz to make a decision that avoids war. I could carry on about Iran for pages, but I will try to stay with a simple critique of the show.
In discussing Iraq and troops, Mr. McCain was straightforward in saying that we need more there, simple. It's unfortunate, but he's right. We need more troops. One thing with Mr. Russert, when he strongly disagrees with something, he won't let it go and follow up questions come firing from him. From seeing him do so many interviews, I rend to feel that he agrees when he moves on.
We could go point by point through the interview, but if you're reading this, then you've probably already have seen the show. It must be said that the notions of “will of the people” and “non-partisan” really don't exist in the United States anymore. Let's face, the will of the people is really the will of the politicians that the people have elected. As for 'non-partisan,' whether it be politicians or journalists, everyone today leans one way or the other. John McCain, I feel, is one of the few politicians left who considers the will of the people at all. And Tim Russert, refreshingly, peppers Democrats and Republicans alike about their views. For example, anyone who viewed the South Carolina Senate debate series and then voted for Jim DeMint is just an idiot. That's the way I see it.
This week's second guest was Michael Sheuer, a former CIA analyst who worked in the Osama bin Laden unit. First, I think the CIA encouraged Mr. Sheuer to get out there and start speaking up. I think the agency resents for the most part that they now have to tow a company line and it's not their own, it's Mr. Bushes. The author of “Imperial Hubris” is now out from behind the wall of anonymity and answering questions and here he is on Meet The Press.
First, when I see interviews with people like this, my sense is that these people give honest answers that we don't want to hear. They have objectified the subjects for which they gather intelligence and then deal with their targets with cold hard pragmatism. With this said, Mr. Sheuer's statements were downright sobering…this was no Sunday brunch.
Mr. Russert started off the interview with a requisite excerpt of Mr. Sheuer's book, which said that we were losing the war on terror. Mr. Sheuer affirmed this and went on to explain that our enemies feel like Americans are out to destroy their religion. Well, unless that perception is changed, which I don't see happening anytime soon, we will be at endless war.
Mr. Sheuer touches on this:
His agenda is not to destroy America, Mr. Russert. He simply
wants us our of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle
East…. My point here is that America has a choice between war
and endless war with the forces led by Osama bin Laden.
This reflects what people like Tom Friedman have suggested which to do, which is address the poverty and lack of education and HOPE that Muslims have. Frankly, we don't care about the Muslim community's lack of hope, and unless Mr. Bush pays more than lip service to their plight, we're at endless war. The war on terror is this generation's Cold War. And this climate of fear is going to be nurtured within the American public. Control of information is our government's goal so that political agenda can be run through without meaningful opposition.
Out of habit of interviewing politicians, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Sheuer about what someone said in regard to the analyst ranting about not being able to be heard, suggesting some kind of political agenda at work. This line of questioning was an error in judgment on the part of Mr. Russert. This should be a discussion devoid of politics, but he felt the need to bring it into the equation unnecessarily. However, what makes Mr. Russert one of the top commentators in politics is that he question the words of the people he is interviewing, which he did here with Mr. Sheuer's appearance on Hardball.
I found it interesting that Mr. Sheuer, thoughout the interview, addressed Mr. Russert as 'sir.' This said to me that this man isn't used to being in front of a camera answering questions and hence, his answers aren't indirect answers to questions like most politicians.
“There's a great deal of killing to be done,” says Michael Sheuer. There is nothing to gain politically in this statement; it's hard and cold… and true.
Guests:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona: Member of the Armed Services Committee
Michael Sheuer: Former CIA Analyst, Author of “Imperial Hubris”
Subjects:
Iraq, Iran, and The War on Terror
Given the guests on the show, one could be optimistic that some straight answers were going to be given in regard to Iraq and al-Qaida. Mr. McCain has a solid reputation of being a straight talker and one who is not afraid to disagree with his party when he sees things differently. In regard to the second guest, I recently found out that Mr. Sheuer was the author of “Imperial Hubris” and wanted to hear what someone inside the classified circle of information had to say about what is being done and what will be done in regard to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Mr. Russert began his interview with Mr. McCain with questions about Iran. If any part of the sections about Iran from Richard Clarke's “Against All Enemies” is to be believed, our decisions and policies toward Iran are of the gravest of importance. Mr. Russert asked the Senator if we were close to military action with this country. Absolutely a question that needs to be asked, but to think that we are even remotely considering entering into another conflict is reckless and short sited.
As the conversation carried on, Mr. Russert asked, “What is our timetable? How much time do we have for Iran to stand down?” First of all, do we actually think that Iran is going to stand down because of some threat from the U.S.? He made it sound like military conflict between the U.S. and Iran is inevitable by the way he phrased the question. Secondly, at this time, it would be the most profound military error the United States has ever made. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to create a sense of security there, even with the massive redeployment of U.S. troops throughout the world so how would we fare with Iran? You can see where I am going with this.
Another frightening prospect that was brought up was the potential a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. McCain's answer fit his style - logical and responsibly hawkish - and he said that “…from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult,” due to the fact that the facilities are spread all over Tehran. He also said that we want to avoid such a conflict at all costs, and I believe Mr. McCain. However, that this prospect is on the table is just plain scary and I don't trust that someone like Paul Wolfewitz to make a decision that avoids war. I could carry on about Iran for pages, but I will try to stay with a simple critique of the show.
In discussing Iraq and troops, Mr. McCain was straightforward in saying that we need more there, simple. It's unfortunate, but he's right. We need more troops. One thing with Mr. Russert, when he strongly disagrees with something, he won't let it go and follow up questions come firing from him. From seeing him do so many interviews, I rend to feel that he agrees when he moves on.
We could go point by point through the interview, but if you're reading this, then you've probably already have seen the show. It must be said that the notions of “will of the people” and “non-partisan” really don't exist in the United States anymore. Let's face, the will of the people is really the will of the politicians that the people have elected. As for 'non-partisan,' whether it be politicians or journalists, everyone today leans one way or the other. John McCain, I feel, is one of the few politicians left who considers the will of the people at all. And Tim Russert, refreshingly, peppers Democrats and Republicans alike about their views. For example, anyone who viewed the South Carolina Senate debate series and then voted for Jim DeMint is just an idiot. That's the way I see it.
This week's second guest was Michael Sheuer, a former CIA analyst who worked in the Osama bin Laden unit. First, I think the CIA encouraged Mr. Sheuer to get out there and start speaking up. I think the agency resents for the most part that they now have to tow a company line and it's not their own, it's Mr. Bushes. The author of “Imperial Hubris” is now out from behind the wall of anonymity and answering questions and here he is on Meet The Press.
First, when I see interviews with people like this, my sense is that these people give honest answers that we don't want to hear. They have objectified the subjects for which they gather intelligence and then deal with their targets with cold hard pragmatism. With this said, Mr. Sheuer's statements were downright sobering…this was no Sunday brunch.
Mr. Russert started off the interview with a requisite excerpt of Mr. Sheuer's book, which said that we were losing the war on terror. Mr. Sheuer affirmed this and went on to explain that our enemies feel like Americans are out to destroy their religion. Well, unless that perception is changed, which I don't see happening anytime soon, we will be at endless war.
Mr. Sheuer touches on this:
His agenda is not to destroy America, Mr. Russert. He simply
wants us our of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle
East…. My point here is that America has a choice between war
and endless war with the forces led by Osama bin Laden.
This reflects what people like Tom Friedman have suggested which to do, which is address the poverty and lack of education and HOPE that Muslims have. Frankly, we don't care about the Muslim community's lack of hope, and unless Mr. Bush pays more than lip service to their plight, we're at endless war. The war on terror is this generation's Cold War. And this climate of fear is going to be nurtured within the American public. Control of information is our government's goal so that political agenda can be run through without meaningful opposition.
Out of habit of interviewing politicians, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Sheuer about what someone said in regard to the analyst ranting about not being able to be heard, suggesting some kind of political agenda at work. This line of questioning was an error in judgment on the part of Mr. Russert. This should be a discussion devoid of politics, but he felt the need to bring it into the equation unnecessarily. However, what makes Mr. Russert one of the top commentators in politics is that he question the words of the people he is interviewing, which he did here with Mr. Sheuer's appearance on Hardball.
I found it interesting that Mr. Sheuer, thoughout the interview, addressed Mr. Russert as 'sir.' This said to me that this man isn't used to being in front of a camera answering questions and hence, his answers aren't indirect answers to questions like most politicians.
“There's a great deal of killing to be done,” says Michael Sheuer. There is nothing to gain politically in this statement; it's hard and cold… and true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)