"I am not going to run from a fight when I know who I am fighting for.'
- NY Governor David Patterson
Mr. Patterson said this while David Gregory is citing his poll numbers with a 20% approval rating. In this case, it is a kind determination that deserves respect. Whether the citizens of New York feel like he is, in fact, fighting for their best interest will ultimately be decided on election day. But the notion, that Mr. Patterson knows who he is fighting for, is of critical importance.
This brings us to the subject of Afghanistan, which in terms of the program, serves as a welcome change from the constant back and forth of healthcare. Also, what this conversation shows us is that Americans can work together and listen to one another. Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), who became per snippety this week with Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) over healthcare, guested on today MTP along with Senator Jim Webb (D-VA). Before we go any farther, it is worth stating how much better off this country is to have Mr. Webb in office over Mr. George Allen (Mr. Macaca for the less informed). As a former Secretary of the Navy and a son in Iraq, Mr. Webb evaluates our military policy with a multi-level insight - both personally and professionally - that is levelheaded and realist in perspective. Today was a clear example of our politicians can wisely discuss critical matters. And the critical matter at hand is whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan.
President Clinton, today's first guest in a recorded interview, outlined it as a surge similar to the one in Iraq that proved successful. However, the President was non-committal to whether or not more troops would be beneficial. His tact, as well as the two guest Senators, is to wait for what General Petreas and General McCrystal have to report in terms of strategy. Senator Webb pointed out that we have to determine whether this will be a counter terror strategy or a counter insurgency approach. Counter insurgency, as Mr. Webb continued to explain, is nation building, a matter of which is having at least 400,000 Afghan police and soldiers trained up, but that it is also a country that has never had more than 90,000 in those combined positions in its history.
With questions of whether the Karzai Government is even legitimate, it's difficult to advocate for nation building in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we didn't do so much of nation building as we did nation rebuilding. Infrastructure was not a question until we started blowing things up. However, in Afghanistan, there is nothing, it's completely starting from scratch. So what seems to be happening now, is a bit of both - building in Afghanistan and routing out the Taliban to get to Al Qaeda. A hybrid or two-pronged approach, what ever you want to call it, is not an option. Detractors would call this unfocused and indecisive, but no matter which way is the focus, there will have to be some of the other.
If there was an instance in which military action would be beneficial to decapitate Al Qaeda, it would be here. Counter terror should be the focus: Though the Taliban is not an outside overt threat to the United States (they won't bomb us), they will harbor Al Qaeda again if they control Afghanistan. Unchecked, Al Qaeda would turn its attention to Pakistan, attempting to destabilize a nuclear power. This is a distinct possibility, which truly endangers us... and everyone else. Not to mention that they will have to time to plan another creative large-scale attack. To do this, additional troops are necessary and in effect we agree with Senator Kyl that more troops would keep the Taliban out. However, if the mission were nation building, more troops would also be required. What it boils down to is not if more troops are going, it's a matter of what they're going to do once they get there. We need to know who exactly we're fighting for.
So the level headed Republicans understand that the Democratic President isn't delaying a strategic decision, he's being careful listening to his generals before deciding. Once, he does then a new debate will begin.
Waiting for the generals...
The other important international concern discussed on today's program was Iran. This morning is was reported that Iran has conducted a long range missile test, which is troubling given that the missiles that pass the test are likely to be pointed at Israel. This column's take on this missile test is that it is a warning shot. The United States, along with France and Britain, announced and condemned this week a secret Iranian nuclear facility too big to be just for peaceful purposes.
President Clinton offered a hopeful approach saying that if Iran reverses course, think of the places that we could go together. That idea is not unrealistic because we know that ordinary Iranians and Americans have similar attitudes - citizenry to citizenry very compatible. However, the Iranian government is not going to reverse course anytime soon so Mr. Clinton's hopeful notion will have to be put on hold.
Right now, we [read: U.S., France, Britain (mainly)] are threatening the stick but haven't used it. If we are serious, we have to pick it up in the form of strict sanctions. MIlitary action is unwise in the short term and the long term. In the short term, it's a third battlefront in the region for the U.S. and in the long term we make an enemy of the Iranian citizenry. Sanctions need to be communicated that it is not the Iranian people we're acting against but their repressive government - clearing identifying who were are fighting against. There can be no flinching with Iran, decisiveness is key. And during this time, there must be hard diplomacy with China, who as Mr. Webb pointed out, remains neutral and continuing trade with Iran.
on going.....
Coming full circle, Governor. Patterson, today's last guest, made his case for the hard decisions in trying to straighten out New York State's budget. He explained himself well and is most likely doing the right thing for his constituents, but it's being swallowed like castor oil - complaints all the way down. And as we pointed out at the top, Mr. Patterson is 'blind, but not obvious' (his quote) and knows who he is fighting for. Unfortunately, he's still trying to figure out exactly who he is fighting against - which looks like everyone.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
9.20.09: A Harsh Response
Recently, at one of these Freedomworks-sponsored tea party events, a man whose family members perished in the Holocaust attacked another man who was holding a sign that depicted President Obama as Adolf Hitler. The attacker was arrested. Now we're not saying that the man shouldn't have been arrested, but what we are saying is that overt racist references that are still open wounds for an individual or particular group of people will provoke a heightened reaction.
In David Gregory's interview with President Obama, as he made the Meet The Press round of his Sunday intervews, he reacted to former President Jimmy Carter's remarks, centered on race and racist resistance, with regard to criticism of the President. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer in Georgia, living in the height of segregation where overt racial bias [understated] and racial violence prevailed. In other words, he's a man who knows. Now, is President Carter sometimes guilty of over-dramatization? Sure, but he also has a knack of telling people what they need to hear even if they don't like it.
Of course, the President has too distance his answer from Jimmy Carter's observations. To say anything otherwise would then invite the distillation of every debate on public policy down to that one element. Mr. Obama acknowledged that for a small amount of people it is a problem but that is not what drives the language. He once again referred to the example of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when in his day amidst the changes he was making, he was called every name in the book.
(Just an impression: On this topic of race at one point, this column felt that Mr. Gregory pressed the President in a way that simply sought to obtain a provocative quote. It is a tact to which Mr. Gregory is prone, but one that he should get away from. Another probing but thoughtful question should be the approach.)
As we know, the above topic is fueled by the debate on healthcare reform. What more can be said? At least that's our initial thought. We'll try and keep it within the context of what was said on today's program... but no guarantees.
Given what we said above about Mr. Gregory's tact, we liked that when asking the President about the public option he asked it as such: So the public option is dead? In a matter of fact tone. The President needs to clearly state his way out of this box, repeatedly. This column, frankly, finds his answer disappointing. He said that it is not dead, but not essential for reform. As long as the insurance companies dictate who receives what coverage for treatment, core reform is empty.
And lastly, with regard to Afghanistan, at this moment, the President is still getting only minor pressure from the Republicans and minimal heat from the Democrats and the left. The President is closely following the advice of the generals, but a report, mentioned on the program, indicates that the Obama Administration is asking the generals to hold off on their assessment. This is a mistake on two levels: One, we should never delay an assessment that should lead to the wisest strategy on the ground. Literally, Our soldiers depend on it. And two, politically, putting more focus on Afghanistan could serve as a counter balancing issue that unites politicians versus what is going on in the healthcare debate.
However, on today's program, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said he was concerned about the 'changing goals' in Afghanistan. The strategy, as it stands, is to stabilize the country by destroying any Taliban influence, the group that harbors Al Qaeda, the leadership of which we're trying to catch. The constant problem with Congressman Boehner is that he makes these statements that he doesn't like the Administration's direction but never offers a concrete alternative view. Exasperatingly, it begs the question: What is solution to the problem? On Afghanistan and Iraq, for that matter, Mr. Boehner was in lock step with most all of the previous administration's disastrous decisions making his 'concerns' virtually irrelevant.
For a change of pace, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put his support behind the President and wants him to succeed. Whether he agrees with everything or not, foreign military policy should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, former Vice President Dick Cheney solidified that it always would be. Despite all of this, decisions and assessments should never be put on hold.
On the domestic front, it has and always will be grossly partisan. Senator Graham said that the President is saying everything that everyone wants to hear but that the 'details just don't add it,' Mr. Boehner added that he didn't want to see a giant government take over of healthcare. The Republicans, as they did on today's program, are floating the notion of stopping and starting over with the legislation. In unprecedented expression for this column, that is the biggest load of bullshit we've ever heard.
One, the minority party does not dictate the terms of discussion.
Two, the Republicans would never entertain such a notion if they were in control [see the previous administration].
Three, Republicans complain also complain about the T.A.R.P. when considering cost for healthcare, but if it was for their deregulating everything during the previous administration's run, we wouldn't have needed the T.A.R.P. in the first place.
Four, it is a blatant delay tactic to block any real reform before the mid-term elections start heating up, hence the presence of a huge wedge issue.
Five, until the Republicans come up with some serious proposals to reform healthcare so that the insurance companies don't control everything, then they have no ground on which to stand for even the right to ask for a 'do-over.'
We could digress further...
And with regard to the vitriolic public rhetoric, all Mr. Boehner could offer was that, 'it's been spirited.' Senator Graham pointed out that the President was combative in his address to the joint session. These two statements reek of enabling, or to frame it in political operative terms (most used by Republicans), guilt by association. For Senator Graham, his sensitivity comes off as passive aggressive in so much that it says that what his South Carolinian colleague Joe Wilson said was appropriate, even given Mr. Graham's statements to the contrary. Not to mention what a tight-knit group South Carolina politicians are with the senator stating on today's Meet The Press that Governor Mark Sanford should finish his term. Despite the Governor's disappearance for five days and his apparent usage of government travel for private purpose.
As for Congressman Boehner, sadly, it just seems as though is just sitting back and letting the rhetoric take hold, almost content with what he sees. So if this week's column seems particularly disgusted with some of the Republican statements, it's because when you enable people by condoning images of our President as Adolf Hitler, you're going to get a harsh response.
In David Gregory's interview with President Obama, as he made the Meet The Press round of his Sunday intervews, he reacted to former President Jimmy Carter's remarks, centered on race and racist resistance, with regard to criticism of the President. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer in Georgia, living in the height of segregation where overt racial bias [understated] and racial violence prevailed. In other words, he's a man who knows. Now, is President Carter sometimes guilty of over-dramatization? Sure, but he also has a knack of telling people what they need to hear even if they don't like it.
Of course, the President has too distance his answer from Jimmy Carter's observations. To say anything otherwise would then invite the distillation of every debate on public policy down to that one element. Mr. Obama acknowledged that for a small amount of people it is a problem but that is not what drives the language. He once again referred to the example of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when in his day amidst the changes he was making, he was called every name in the book.
(Just an impression: On this topic of race at one point, this column felt that Mr. Gregory pressed the President in a way that simply sought to obtain a provocative quote. It is a tact to which Mr. Gregory is prone, but one that he should get away from. Another probing but thoughtful question should be the approach.)
As we know, the above topic is fueled by the debate on healthcare reform. What more can be said? At least that's our initial thought. We'll try and keep it within the context of what was said on today's program... but no guarantees.
Given what we said above about Mr. Gregory's tact, we liked that when asking the President about the public option he asked it as such: So the public option is dead? In a matter of fact tone. The President needs to clearly state his way out of this box, repeatedly. This column, frankly, finds his answer disappointing. He said that it is not dead, but not essential for reform. As long as the insurance companies dictate who receives what coverage for treatment, core reform is empty.
And lastly, with regard to Afghanistan, at this moment, the President is still getting only minor pressure from the Republicans and minimal heat from the Democrats and the left. The President is closely following the advice of the generals, but a report, mentioned on the program, indicates that the Obama Administration is asking the generals to hold off on their assessment. This is a mistake on two levels: One, we should never delay an assessment that should lead to the wisest strategy on the ground. Literally, Our soldiers depend on it. And two, politically, putting more focus on Afghanistan could serve as a counter balancing issue that unites politicians versus what is going on in the healthcare debate.
However, on today's program, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said he was concerned about the 'changing goals' in Afghanistan. The strategy, as it stands, is to stabilize the country by destroying any Taliban influence, the group that harbors Al Qaeda, the leadership of which we're trying to catch. The constant problem with Congressman Boehner is that he makes these statements that he doesn't like the Administration's direction but never offers a concrete alternative view. Exasperatingly, it begs the question: What is solution to the problem? On Afghanistan and Iraq, for that matter, Mr. Boehner was in lock step with most all of the previous administration's disastrous decisions making his 'concerns' virtually irrelevant.
For a change of pace, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put his support behind the President and wants him to succeed. Whether he agrees with everything or not, foreign military policy should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, former Vice President Dick Cheney solidified that it always would be. Despite all of this, decisions and assessments should never be put on hold.
On the domestic front, it has and always will be grossly partisan. Senator Graham said that the President is saying everything that everyone wants to hear but that the 'details just don't add it,' Mr. Boehner added that he didn't want to see a giant government take over of healthcare. The Republicans, as they did on today's program, are floating the notion of stopping and starting over with the legislation. In unprecedented expression for this column, that is the biggest load of bullshit we've ever heard.
One, the minority party does not dictate the terms of discussion.
Two, the Republicans would never entertain such a notion if they were in control [see the previous administration].
Three, Republicans complain also complain about the T.A.R.P. when considering cost for healthcare, but if it was for their deregulating everything during the previous administration's run, we wouldn't have needed the T.A.R.P. in the first place.
Four, it is a blatant delay tactic to block any real reform before the mid-term elections start heating up, hence the presence of a huge wedge issue.
Five, until the Republicans come up with some serious proposals to reform healthcare so that the insurance companies don't control everything, then they have no ground on which to stand for even the right to ask for a 'do-over.'
We could digress further...
And with regard to the vitriolic public rhetoric, all Mr. Boehner could offer was that, 'it's been spirited.' Senator Graham pointed out that the President was combative in his address to the joint session. These two statements reek of enabling, or to frame it in political operative terms (most used by Republicans), guilt by association. For Senator Graham, his sensitivity comes off as passive aggressive in so much that it says that what his South Carolinian colleague Joe Wilson said was appropriate, even given Mr. Graham's statements to the contrary. Not to mention what a tight-knit group South Carolina politicians are with the senator stating on today's Meet The Press that Governor Mark Sanford should finish his term. Despite the Governor's disappearance for five days and his apparent usage of government travel for private purpose.
As for Congressman Boehner, sadly, it just seems as though is just sitting back and letting the rhetoric take hold, almost content with what he sees. So if this week's column seems particularly disgusted with some of the Republican statements, it's because when you enable people by condoning images of our President as Adolf Hitler, you're going to get a harsh response.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)