Guests: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., weigh in on the numerous issues facing the Obama administration. Also: Erin Burnett and Andrew Ross Sorkin on the possible repercussions of cutting executive pay on Wall Street. Plus, a political roundtable: Jane Mayer, Joe Scarborough, Dan Senor and Tavis Smiley.
Today's program centered around two topics, no matter what segment and who the guest, the public option of the healthcare bill and Afghanistan strategy. I listed the guests above simply for reference.
Straight off, we need to discuss the statement made by Senator Schumer that he believes the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has the 60 votes in the chamber to pass a public option, which he will introduce into the bill. Obviously, Republicans are not for the public option in the healthcare and simply feel that letting people buy insurance across state lines would suffice to foster mpre competition and hence more competitive pricing which will lower costs overall. Both have their pitfalls to be sure and Senator Cornyn stated what all Republicans think is that the public option is just the first step to singular payer (as they have in many European countries).
Erin Burnett, who by the way has been wrong on so many occasions with regard to the market that we distrust her expertise, said that the U.S. will be borrowing a lot money to cover everything until 2019. Will we be running deficits until then as she's saying? Not necessarily. Pragmatically, what she is calling for is fiscal responsibility. To say that one party, usually the Republicans, have a monopoly on responsible spending is complete nonsense. Both parties spend big, they just spend big on different things. Republicans incur huge military debt and Democrats spend big domestically.
However, right now we're in a position where we have to do both.
With regard to Afghanistan, there is disagreement within the administration and amongst the public on what to do - increase the troop levels another 41,000+ as General McChrystal is recommending or concentrate more on Al Qeada solely as Vice President Biden is advocating.
The former Vice President Dick Cheney now famously said this week that the President is 'dithering' with regard to his no decision on Afghanistan. The politically correct thing to say here is that this is out of line because it undermines the Administration and the U.S. policy blah blah blah... Not Mr. Cheney's style of course, and it was a cheap shot, and we agree with what many in the press have said that Mr. Cheney is so discredited on good foreign policy decisions that he should really just.... to use his words, 'fuck off.'
The back and forth, the up and down, side to side.... Anyway, you look at it, here's the bottom line:
President Obama really does need to step up and start making some hard decisions. This column is growing impatient with just hearing that 'The White House is signaling... etc.' With regard to Afghanistan, frankly the Administration is stuck and caught in a holding pattern because of the election run-off, the United States can not announce a strategy while the Afghan government is in question. They should explain this to the public and plan for the different scenarios in the meantime.
This column recommends that the U.S. should commit more troops, but what ever number we commit, the N.A.T.O. forces should match to put as much of an international face on the increase as possible. Have them take the in-country/city patrols with U.S. assistance and then with the rest of our force concentrate on the border - Al Qeada and extremists. But this should be done in post-haste so we can get out of there as quickly as possible.
So when the election is decided, President Obama better have something at the ready. We're giving him a little window here.
However, what has been much more disappointing is Administration's positions on healthcare. We now here that they are leaning toward the 'trigger' idea with regard to the public option, employed only if the insurance companies don't get their act together as Senator Snowe of Maine suggested. What this essentially does is drop the public option from the bill. But... remember, the Administration has given such a declarative statement.
We could go on, but the time is overdue that the President, not people in his administration, but the man himself should state precisely what he believes should be in the bill. (It should be a public option - 61% of the public want it - in so many words, he campaigned on it.) If the public option is of the state by state opt-out, fine. Trigger or nothing at all, this column would just like to know for what he is willing to go to the mat. He's trying not to get his hands too dirty, leaving it to others in the administration.
Mr. President, whatever it is you believe, tell us flat out and take the lead. The time for wonder on these two critic issues is over.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
10.18.09: The Iron Head of Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona
Senior White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett aptly set the stage for the discussion to follow between Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Kyl (R-AZ) by clearly articulating the President's position on the public option consideration in the healthcare legislation. The public option is the last 8-foot hurdle in the steeple chase of healthcare reform. Ms. Jarrett also delivered some tough talk for the insurance industry, which frankly, the administration is late to do.
The easy, shallow argument for some one who says that he doesn't want a government bureaucrat coming between me and my doctor, one can say 'as opposed to today's alternative, an insurance company bureaucrat that gets a bonus for denying me coverage.'
Most people in this country agree that the insurance companies are the problem, except maybe the people of Arizona according to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who stated on today's Meet The Press that there needs to be changes in the system without reforming it entirely. What this indicates he that the Senator believes that the system we have in place is working fine, hence the increase in overall healthcare costs for the country are on a normal trajectory and that the Democrats' healthcare plan is fiscally irresponsible. . He also explained that the Republicans offered a lot of amendments but that now the Senate bill is being written in Harry Reid's office behind closed doors and that 'Republicans need not apply.' If this bitterness were on the other foot, Mr. Kyl would call it procedure - let's be clear. Given his answer, Senator Kyl does not see healthcare as a moral imperative.
And with regard to fiscal responsibility, Mr. Gregory posed the question of the war being fiscally neutral, to which Mr. Kyl appropriately said that war can not be done on the cheap. However, one has to ask where were such statements when Mr. Rumsfeld made the assessment to do the Iraq war on the cheap. The mistake of going in on the cheap ended up costing the United States more in the long run - and it continues to be a long run.
Mr. Dodd, who has done less than a stellar job in his position, kept emphasizing accessibility and affordability. He unequivocally stated that the Public Option should be in the legislation to reduce the burden on the federal budget, a view this column advocates. Perhaps the compromise will be that there will be public option that individual states can elect not to offer. Cynically, one could wish for this because if you're a Democrat because you'll see the Republican controlled states, i.e. Texas and Arizona, initially opt out and then because of the reality of the burden put on the population, they have to institute it. This would put party Republicans in a worse position if the public option were to pass nationally outright. Republicans can just claim victory in a losing cause.
And it's ironic that Senator Jon Kyl should be a guest on today's program, of which the entire second half was devoted to initiating NBC's "A Woman's Nation." This is the individual who said, "I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive." And isn't it also curious that Republicans yearn for a time when men worked and woman worked in the home (yes, a simplified version), but it is their fiscal policies over the decades that have created the condition in which women (families) don't have the choice but to have both parents working.
Maria Shriver, NBC's guest editor, pointed out that 50% of the women in the U.S. work and that 38% are the bread winners for their families. Most significantly she pointed out that this is a permanent change. That's what every one needs to get their head around. Additionally, the conversation, which included John Podesta and Valerie Jarrett, swirled around the notion of 'care.' Women, in addition to working, also take on the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to caring for the children AND when care for the elderly. Care.... care like watching out for the health of individuals. It comes back to that. People have to work more to pay for healthcare but they are then less available to care for the individuals who rely on them.
Not to trivialize or to do injustice to the discussion by not writing a ton in this forum, we suffice to say that the burden on women in this country is completely out of proportion. We hope that this week-long expose and discussion brings this issue to the forefront of this country's collective dialogue.
Lastly today, we considered noting last week's Meet The Press Minute and that the reinstitution of this segment on the program is applauded by this column. It reminds the viewers of another reason why they come to Meet The Press - for the historical perspective it can provide.
Today's Meet The Press Minute was no exception with a segment from September 10, 1972, in which the guest was Gloria Steinem. Ms. Steinem was a lightning rod for the women's movement during the 1970's but looking at today's clip really does give perspective.
If this question and answer exchange were to of taken place today, Mr. Lawrence Spivak, the moderator, would have been terminated immediately after the program. His line of questioning was sexist to the nth degree, asking why a woman doesn't have control of a man since it is her who controls him from birth to puberty to beyond. If it weren't 1972, you would think he was being sarcastic. Ms. Steinem gave the male moderator an intellectual beatdown, which we hope for history's sake, turned off a lot more male viewers at the time.
Keep the Meet The Press Minute!
The easy, shallow argument for some one who says that he doesn't want a government bureaucrat coming between me and my doctor, one can say 'as opposed to today's alternative, an insurance company bureaucrat that gets a bonus for denying me coverage.'
Most people in this country agree that the insurance companies are the problem, except maybe the people of Arizona according to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who stated on today's Meet The Press that there needs to be changes in the system without reforming it entirely. What this indicates he that the Senator believes that the system we have in place is working fine, hence the increase in overall healthcare costs for the country are on a normal trajectory and that the Democrats' healthcare plan is fiscally irresponsible. . He also explained that the Republicans offered a lot of amendments but that now the Senate bill is being written in Harry Reid's office behind closed doors and that 'Republicans need not apply.' If this bitterness were on the other foot, Mr. Kyl would call it procedure - let's be clear. Given his answer, Senator Kyl does not see healthcare as a moral imperative.
And with regard to fiscal responsibility, Mr. Gregory posed the question of the war being fiscally neutral, to which Mr. Kyl appropriately said that war can not be done on the cheap. However, one has to ask where were such statements when Mr. Rumsfeld made the assessment to do the Iraq war on the cheap. The mistake of going in on the cheap ended up costing the United States more in the long run - and it continues to be a long run.
Mr. Dodd, who has done less than a stellar job in his position, kept emphasizing accessibility and affordability. He unequivocally stated that the Public Option should be in the legislation to reduce the burden on the federal budget, a view this column advocates. Perhaps the compromise will be that there will be public option that individual states can elect not to offer. Cynically, one could wish for this because if you're a Democrat because you'll see the Republican controlled states, i.e. Texas and Arizona, initially opt out and then because of the reality of the burden put on the population, they have to institute it. This would put party Republicans in a worse position if the public option were to pass nationally outright. Republicans can just claim victory in a losing cause.
And it's ironic that Senator Jon Kyl should be a guest on today's program, of which the entire second half was devoted to initiating NBC's "A Woman's Nation." This is the individual who said, "I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive." And isn't it also curious that Republicans yearn for a time when men worked and woman worked in the home (yes, a simplified version), but it is their fiscal policies over the decades that have created the condition in which women (families) don't have the choice but to have both parents working.
Maria Shriver, NBC's guest editor, pointed out that 50% of the women in the U.S. work and that 38% are the bread winners for their families. Most significantly she pointed out that this is a permanent change. That's what every one needs to get their head around. Additionally, the conversation, which included John Podesta and Valerie Jarrett, swirled around the notion of 'care.' Women, in addition to working, also take on the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to caring for the children AND when care for the elderly. Care.... care like watching out for the health of individuals. It comes back to that. People have to work more to pay for healthcare but they are then less available to care for the individuals who rely on them.
Not to trivialize or to do injustice to the discussion by not writing a ton in this forum, we suffice to say that the burden on women in this country is completely out of proportion. We hope that this week-long expose and discussion brings this issue to the forefront of this country's collective dialogue.
Lastly today, we considered noting last week's Meet The Press Minute and that the reinstitution of this segment on the program is applauded by this column. It reminds the viewers of another reason why they come to Meet The Press - for the historical perspective it can provide.
Today's Meet The Press Minute was no exception with a segment from September 10, 1972, in which the guest was Gloria Steinem. Ms. Steinem was a lightning rod for the women's movement during the 1970's but looking at today's clip really does give perspective.
If this question and answer exchange were to of taken place today, Mr. Lawrence Spivak, the moderator, would have been terminated immediately after the program. His line of questioning was sexist to the nth degree, asking why a woman doesn't have control of a man since it is her who controls him from birth to puberty to beyond. If it weren't 1972, you would think he was being sarcastic. Ms. Steinem gave the male moderator an intellectual beatdown, which we hope for history's sake, turned off a lot more male viewers at the time.
Keep the Meet The Press Minute!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
10.11.09: What's 'Winning?'
It's a sad state of affairs when this column is relieved to be discussing the enigma of Afghanistan instead of healthcare reform. But while we're thinking of it, the key to healthcare reform is actually quite simple, politically difficult for no good reason, but what has to be done is that we need to take the power away from the insurance companies. Do that and everything will fall into place.
So now, on to Afghanistan.
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made the point at the top of the program that we need to show the Afghan people resolve. Resolve would be defined as NOT cutting and running. The possibility of this is slim - this American mistake is well documented, especially in this region. General McChrystal, who is not only the commander of the U.S. forces but who is also the N.A.T.O. commander is requesting 40,000 more troops to squash the Taliban. There is a necessity to keep the face of this operation as international as possible. It is American dominated, yes, the international forces need to be recognized - more so than they are now.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), also on the Armed Services Committee, said he would go with the general's recommendation of the troop increase. But then he said that no matter how many troops you send it won't make a difference if the Afghan government isn't seen as legitimate. Mr. Gregory appropriately called the Senator on this, to which he back tracked and said it needed to be a combined effort to send more troops and simultaneously sure up the government of Afghanistan.
Senator Graham has it correct, but the problem is that he doesn't know why he has it right. Every time (seriously, no exaggeration) Senator Graham states his opinion, his personal assessment gets replaced by the consensus Republican talking point. It's as if he checks himself mid-sentence. The surge in Iraq worked and there are people who are of the mind that a similar strategy would work in Afghanistan. In fact, General McCaffery, guest on today's program, stated the we have to escalate, at the very least in the short term. It's just not that simple.
As we said last week, what's needed is more diplomatic boots on the ground to assist with the governmental infrastructure and builders. With regard to the troops, a clear goal in terms of who we're fighting must be set. Wisely, Senator Levin articulated what most agree upon, which is that there can not be a timeline for ending this conflict, at least not right now. But this is up against the following chart:
Not only is this graphic troubling [responsibility squarely resides with the Bush Administration] because of the length of time without a strategic goal, but the fact that we don't know when this will end. Republicans advocate more troops to 'win it,' but what does that mean exactly? Repbulicans want the win but they seem to just want the presence of the U.S. Military to overcome, intimidate, and conquer. Not a good plan.
Operationally, the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate out of Pakistan, and despite whatever has been said, Pakistan is not cooperative. Vice President Joe Biden has it correct that this should be the focus, especially given the Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Does this rule out a troop increase - no. But there has to be clear reasons for every additional soldier to be there. Stabilizing the country [read: decreasing the violence] and assisting the government in becoming more efficient should have been going on for 8 years now, but unfortunately, we're just starting now.
Lastly, we'll leave you this week with comments on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win and gays in the military. First, Senator Levin stated it correctly - recognition of the new direction that he has set for us. And though it is not deserved, this column feels that it is very poor taste for Republicans to stand in open opposition against the President receiving it. Where's our national collective pride? It' sad, but we don't have that anymore - not in the slightest.
And as far as gays in the military - end 'don't ask, don't tell.' You can not advocate freedom for all - a Republican talking point - but only if you're part of certain groups. It doesn't work that way. Any American that wants to serve in our military and put his/her life on the line for our country, should be honored - not persecuted.
So now, on to Afghanistan.
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made the point at the top of the program that we need to show the Afghan people resolve. Resolve would be defined as NOT cutting and running. The possibility of this is slim - this American mistake is well documented, especially in this region. General McChrystal, who is not only the commander of the U.S. forces but who is also the N.A.T.O. commander is requesting 40,000 more troops to squash the Taliban. There is a necessity to keep the face of this operation as international as possible. It is American dominated, yes, the international forces need to be recognized - more so than they are now.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), also on the Armed Services Committee, said he would go with the general's recommendation of the troop increase. But then he said that no matter how many troops you send it won't make a difference if the Afghan government isn't seen as legitimate. Mr. Gregory appropriately called the Senator on this, to which he back tracked and said it needed to be a combined effort to send more troops and simultaneously sure up the government of Afghanistan.
Senator Graham has it correct, but the problem is that he doesn't know why he has it right. Every time (seriously, no exaggeration) Senator Graham states his opinion, his personal assessment gets replaced by the consensus Republican talking point. It's as if he checks himself mid-sentence. The surge in Iraq worked and there are people who are of the mind that a similar strategy would work in Afghanistan. In fact, General McCaffery, guest on today's program, stated the we have to escalate, at the very least in the short term. It's just not that simple.
As we said last week, what's needed is more diplomatic boots on the ground to assist with the governmental infrastructure and builders. With regard to the troops, a clear goal in terms of who we're fighting must be set. Wisely, Senator Levin articulated what most agree upon, which is that there can not be a timeline for ending this conflict, at least not right now. But this is up against the following chart:
Not only is this graphic troubling [responsibility squarely resides with the Bush Administration] because of the length of time without a strategic goal, but the fact that we don't know when this will end. Republicans advocate more troops to 'win it,' but what does that mean exactly? Repbulicans want the win but they seem to just want the presence of the U.S. Military to overcome, intimidate, and conquer. Not a good plan.
Operationally, the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate out of Pakistan, and despite whatever has been said, Pakistan is not cooperative. Vice President Joe Biden has it correct that this should be the focus, especially given the Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Does this rule out a troop increase - no. But there has to be clear reasons for every additional soldier to be there. Stabilizing the country [read: decreasing the violence] and assisting the government in becoming more efficient should have been going on for 8 years now, but unfortunately, we're just starting now.
Lastly, we'll leave you this week with comments on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win and gays in the military. First, Senator Levin stated it correctly - recognition of the new direction that he has set for us. And though it is not deserved, this column feels that it is very poor taste for Republicans to stand in open opposition against the President receiving it. Where's our national collective pride? It' sad, but we don't have that anymore - not in the slightest.
And as far as gays in the military - end 'don't ask, don't tell.' You can not advocate freedom for all - a Republican talking point - but only if you're part of certain groups. It doesn't work that way. Any American that wants to serve in our military and put his/her life on the line for our country, should be honored - not persecuted.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
10.4.09: From the Khyber Pass to the Partisan Divide
Given the report in today's New York Times that Iran has to the data to construct a nuclear bomb, it became topic umber one on the charts for today's Meet The Press and its first guest Ms. Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador of the United Nations. The report stems from a 'confidential' analysis from the U.N. Nuclear Agency that says that Iran has sufficient information to create a workable atomic bomb (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/middleeast/04nuke.html?_r=1&hp). Just a couple things here before we get to the conversation with Ms. Rice. One, a report like this is most certainly better for the entire international community when made public. It should not be held in secret. Now that it is out in the open, it forces other countries to weigh in with their concerns and then possibly a wider consensus on what position to take can jell.
Secondly, and this should be obvious, with all the talk of Iran and its nuclear facilities, one large secret facility exposed last week, to think that Iran didn't have this knowledge, even without the report, doesn't say much for our analytical skills. However, something like this does have to come from the United Nations because if the United States were to bring this to the table, we would be scoffed at. We are the boy that cried wolf. The last time the U.S. presented nuclear evidence to that body, none of it turned out to be true.
Today's interview with Ms. Rice served to introduce her to the MTP audience. Also, it's one thing to speak in front of a room full of international diplomats, but it is another to appear on Meet The Press. It showed in Ms. Rice's answers with her being the consummate diplomat giving, essentially, non-answers. However, her hands are tied in as much as she speaks not for herself but for United States international policy as dictated by the President. Ms. Rice repeated the themes of thoughtful and thorough analysis with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But it is of no matter. Just know that Iran has the resources to make a nuclear bomb or they at least have the resources they need to acquire the missing puzzles pieces. This column is of the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will possess this technology. That doesn't mean we're happy about it... nor sad - it's just a matter of being realistic. And other governments have to step up, taking more of a leadership role in the collective bargaining while the U.S. conducts individual negotiations.
Afghanistan is what really tripped up the U.N. Ambassador... the subject has been doing that to a lot of people lately including today's gaggle of pundits. When Mr. Gregory pressed Ms. Rice on the difference of strategy in keeping America safe vs. making Afghanistan stable, she didn't have a clear answer/position. The reason - because the Administration does have one either. In all fairness, the Administration is diligently constructing a policy with the news today that insurgents stormed an outpost killing 8 U.S. soldiers.
Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist, on today's panel said we would either have to leave or triple down, meaning commit more troops and go in for the long haul. David Brooks is of the mind that the Taliban remaining in country is not an option and says that they are redefining the standard by allowing the existence of the Taliban as long as there is no Al Qaeda. But here's to Mr. Brooks who feels that the administration will make the right decision. Rachel Maddow, competent at identifying the partisanship of an issue, said the political divide that the one side is willing to give the President time and the other is saying he's moving too slowly - you figure out which is which. Mr. Murphy sees it as a 'binary' choice, siting that the politics involved is an inevitable mess.
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist, who rounded out today's paneland ever insightful, countered saying that this cut and dry choice is the critical mistake. He explained, citing General McChrystal, that in order of a counter-insurgency to work, there must be good governance and given that they are looking for a responsible way to get rid of Al Qaeda.
No matter how many troops the U.S. commits, it will not rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. The commitment to get rid of Al Qaeda, or as it stands now its operational/inspirational head, should ultimately remain the focus of U.S. policy. In doing so, assist the Afghan government in building up a sound infrastructure of personnel. The diplomatic presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan requires its own 'surge' with an actual increase of individuals on the ground. To go in and spend another trillion dollars - all in as Mr. Murphy suggests - would simply dig us in deeper, hence longer.
Lastly, we would just like to touch on one more topic that all of today's guests had an opinion on and serves as a solid barometric reading of where we are as a country as it relates to our political discourse - the 2016 Olympics. Much had been made of the President going to Denmark to lobby for Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympics. There was even more made of it it, when after his appearance, Chicago didn't even make it into the final round of voting. As Ms. Maddow pointed out, the Weekly Standard's office celebrated the news that Chicago was not chosen. Ambassador Rice said that it is never a mistake for fight for something for your country. Many asked why would the President go on such a frivolous trip when there are so many more serious matters at hand. Mr. Murphy said it was amateur staff work sending the President to try and get something like that when it isn't a sure thing. David Brooks is with President Obama on it - he took a risk putting the country over his own personal prestige. We're all over the place.
Chicago was a long shot to get the 2016 Olympics, something most people didn't know. Being as though the city is the adopted hometown of the President, it is not unreasonable that he would go and try to tip the scales in the favor of a U.S. city. Given that, we fall on the side of David Brooks and Amb. Rice. - why not? And anyone who makes a big deal that he went all the way to Denmark should know that the President was in country for four hours, and traveled a total of fourteen. That is 18 hours total - less than one day. Another American example of making a big deal out of nothing.
And we'll leave you this week with these two quotes.
"...loons and harmful for America..." David Brooks on today's Meet The Press when referring to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Mark Levine. Mr. Brooks keeping it real. We applaud.
"...It's the same dance toward the dumbing of the base." After Rachel Maddow attempted to make the point that MSNBC is not a one-party network with Joe Scarborough as part of the mix, Mr. Murphy literally left Ms. Maddow speechless when he concluded with comparing her network's prime-time to Fox's. We appreciate Ms. Maddow's perspectives on what she covers on much of her show, but since her very quick rise as a TV persona, we haven't seen her really get slammed like that before - quite humbling. Glad to see it happen.
You know, keep everyone in check.
MTP Minute: William Safire - 99 TImes. The dialogue between him and Mr. Russert could collectively be made into a great piece of theater.
Secondly, and this should be obvious, with all the talk of Iran and its nuclear facilities, one large secret facility exposed last week, to think that Iran didn't have this knowledge, even without the report, doesn't say much for our analytical skills. However, something like this does have to come from the United Nations because if the United States were to bring this to the table, we would be scoffed at. We are the boy that cried wolf. The last time the U.S. presented nuclear evidence to that body, none of it turned out to be true.
Today's interview with Ms. Rice served to introduce her to the MTP audience. Also, it's one thing to speak in front of a room full of international diplomats, but it is another to appear on Meet The Press. It showed in Ms. Rice's answers with her being the consummate diplomat giving, essentially, non-answers. However, her hands are tied in as much as she speaks not for herself but for United States international policy as dictated by the President. Ms. Rice repeated the themes of thoughtful and thorough analysis with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But it is of no matter. Just know that Iran has the resources to make a nuclear bomb or they at least have the resources they need to acquire the missing puzzles pieces. This column is of the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will possess this technology. That doesn't mean we're happy about it... nor sad - it's just a matter of being realistic. And other governments have to step up, taking more of a leadership role in the collective bargaining while the U.S. conducts individual negotiations.
Afghanistan is what really tripped up the U.N. Ambassador... the subject has been doing that to a lot of people lately including today's gaggle of pundits. When Mr. Gregory pressed Ms. Rice on the difference of strategy in keeping America safe vs. making Afghanistan stable, she didn't have a clear answer/position. The reason - because the Administration does have one either. In all fairness, the Administration is diligently constructing a policy with the news today that insurgents stormed an outpost killing 8 U.S. soldiers.
Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist, on today's panel said we would either have to leave or triple down, meaning commit more troops and go in for the long haul. David Brooks is of the mind that the Taliban remaining in country is not an option and says that they are redefining the standard by allowing the existence of the Taliban as long as there is no Al Qaeda. But here's to Mr. Brooks who feels that the administration will make the right decision. Rachel Maddow, competent at identifying the partisanship of an issue, said the political divide that the one side is willing to give the President time and the other is saying he's moving too slowly - you figure out which is which. Mr. Murphy sees it as a 'binary' choice, siting that the politics involved is an inevitable mess.
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist, who rounded out today's paneland ever insightful, countered saying that this cut and dry choice is the critical mistake. He explained, citing General McChrystal, that in order of a counter-insurgency to work, there must be good governance and given that they are looking for a responsible way to get rid of Al Qaeda.
No matter how many troops the U.S. commits, it will not rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. The commitment to get rid of Al Qaeda, or as it stands now its operational/inspirational head, should ultimately remain the focus of U.S. policy. In doing so, assist the Afghan government in building up a sound infrastructure of personnel. The diplomatic presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan requires its own 'surge' with an actual increase of individuals on the ground. To go in and spend another trillion dollars - all in as Mr. Murphy suggests - would simply dig us in deeper, hence longer.
Lastly, we would just like to touch on one more topic that all of today's guests had an opinion on and serves as a solid barometric reading of where we are as a country as it relates to our political discourse - the 2016 Olympics. Much had been made of the President going to Denmark to lobby for Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympics. There was even more made of it it, when after his appearance, Chicago didn't even make it into the final round of voting. As Ms. Maddow pointed out, the Weekly Standard's office celebrated the news that Chicago was not chosen. Ambassador Rice said that it is never a mistake for fight for something for your country. Many asked why would the President go on such a frivolous trip when there are so many more serious matters at hand. Mr. Murphy said it was amateur staff work sending the President to try and get something like that when it isn't a sure thing. David Brooks is with President Obama on it - he took a risk putting the country over his own personal prestige. We're all over the place.
Chicago was a long shot to get the 2016 Olympics, something most people didn't know. Being as though the city is the adopted hometown of the President, it is not unreasonable that he would go and try to tip the scales in the favor of a U.S. city. Given that, we fall on the side of David Brooks and Amb. Rice. - why not? And anyone who makes a big deal that he went all the way to Denmark should know that the President was in country for four hours, and traveled a total of fourteen. That is 18 hours total - less than one day. Another American example of making a big deal out of nothing.
And we'll leave you this week with these two quotes.
"...loons and harmful for America..." David Brooks on today's Meet The Press when referring to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Mark Levine. Mr. Brooks keeping it real. We applaud.
"...It's the same dance toward the dumbing of the base." After Rachel Maddow attempted to make the point that MSNBC is not a one-party network with Joe Scarborough as part of the mix, Mr. Murphy literally left Ms. Maddow speechless when he concluded with comparing her network's prime-time to Fox's. We appreciate Ms. Maddow's perspectives on what she covers on much of her show, but since her very quick rise as a TV persona, we haven't seen her really get slammed like that before - quite humbling. Glad to see it happen.
You know, keep everyone in check.
MTP Minute: William Safire - 99 TImes. The dialogue between him and Mr. Russert could collectively be made into a great piece of theater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)