Since Meet The Press has gone dark this week, we thought we'd write a little note on the Memorial Day holiday to remind people that this is one of our most solemn and should be recognized as such. In the most general of terms, we honor those soldiers that have given their lives in defense of this country. For specific indicators we've listed the number of deaths for all of the United States' major wars since its founding.
American Revolutionary War: 25,000
War of 1812: 15,000
Mexican-American War: 13,283
U.S. Civil War: 625,000
Spanish-American War: 2,446
Philippine-American War: 4,196
World War I: 116,516
World War II: 405,399
Korean War: 36,516
Vietnam War: 58,209
The Gulf War: 294
Afghanistan: 2,031
Iraq War: 4,487
Total: 1,308,377
While keeping those numbers in mind (and those are just the major conflicts), we'd like to focus on the last two wars, one of which as we all know is still going on, and the soldier fatalities that are not being honored, the deaths unrecognized. We conducted a quick search and came across an article on Forbes.com that reported on a study that said 22 Iraq-Afghanistan veterans commit suicide every day in this country. Over the course of one year, that is 8,030 soldiers, more than who have died overseas.
President Obama stated this week that the United States has to take itself off of a perpetual war footing, and we would agree as it ultimately dishonors the memories of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. For our most recent veterans, this tragic epidemic that for them even though they are not on military footing, the war is perpetual.
We as a country need to recognize this unspeakably horrible circumstance and put what ever resources we have to work to stop this epidemic from continuing so that we can honor more of our Iraq-Afghan vets' service, instead of their memories.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
5.19.13: Dog Whistling
The president was accused of overseeing a sinister 'culture of intimidation' against his opponents on the one hand and then on the other, not having control over investigations or knowledge of events conducted by independent agencies, unaware of what going on around him in his administration. The only reason that we're revisiting these criticisms of the Bush Administration is due to former Secretary Rumsfeld's appearance today. Ok, sure we're guilty of the old bait-and-switch tactic, but that's just so we all keep things in perspective.
In doing so, you realize that the great disappoint in the Obama Presidency isn't these immediate controversies but that he's conducted his White House pretty much the same as those men prior. It shouldn't come as any surprise that this is the case as it is the nature of being President because people are coming at you at all angles (see the above example). What you always hope is that the incoming administration can do it a little bit better than the last, and frankly, that's where Mr. Obama has the advantage. On today's Meet The Press, that perspective was lost.
Case in point, Peggy Noonan said that this I.R.S. misconduct was the worse political scandal since Watergate, and she adamantly defended that opinion. Never mind that David Gregory challenged her directly on that overreach with Iran-Contra, which she was in fact a part of where the Reagan Administration knowingly lied to Congress, something that President Reagan himself knew. But how about the Bush Administration and WMDs in Iraq? They lied to Congress, the American people, and the UN Assembly (where Colin Powell's reputation was forever tarnished) about their existence... Did we forget anyone? Ms. Noonan, Ma'am, you're disqualified from mention for the rest of today's column. This brings us to another example, the most comical statement of the day, courtesy of Mr. Rumsfeld who said that is was worrisome that the Administration supported 'a narrative that didn't exist'... That's all Mr. Rumsfeld did in his time as Secretary of Defense during the Bush years - lie about what was really going on in Iraq. He couldn't characterize it as such, but when Mr. Gregory suggested to Mr. Rumsfeld have sympathy for what's happening with the current administration, he really couldn't give too much for political appearances, but he should have. Mr. Rumsfeld also said that the 'truth leaves on horseback and returns on foot.' We have absolutely no idea what he was talking about there, but it's so meaninglessly funny we just had to mention it.
That implicit understanding, sympathy for the administration, also came from Senator Mitch McConnell with regard to the AP story where the Justice Department accessed reporters' phone records, believe it or not. It's this story that has received the least amount of criticism from conservatives because of the entire national security issue - potentially endangering our agents overseas. The criticism that does exist, and Mr. McConnell channeled it a bit today, is that Republicans as a whole simply loathe the President and Mr. Holder's general modus operandi so they use this for the pile-on effect.
However, for more serious commentary on this issue, we would first ask why the Justice Department didn't come at this from a completely different direction. Instead of gathering AP Reporters' phone numbers without their knowledge, the Justice Department should have turned their focus internally first investigating the outgoing calls from departments involved. This way, if the press then finds out that Justice is doing an internal investigation about leaks - key word internal - and reports on it then the heat gets turned up for Justice's benefit.
Senator McConnell is the Republican Leader in the Senate but when he starts talking of this particular administration's 'culture of intimidation' he begins to exhibit qualities that run completely counter to that moniker of 'leader.' His commentary about the 25 year-old clip of himself saying that 501(c)(4) 'social welfar' tax exempt groups were a problem was very telling. He said that 25 years ago he was wrong and for the past 20 he has been right, and now the twenty-year evolution of a leader into political operative is complete. He was correct 25 years ago, as Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA) noted during the panel discussion, that we were asking the I.R.S. to make political calls - on both sides of the aisle and that's problematic, obviously. Mr. McConnell mentioned the danger of disclosing contributors' lists for these 'social welfare' organizations for fear of political retribution, but not seeing the larger picture, he's advocating for big amounts of secretive money to remain in politics, which is the main cause of legislative dysfunction.
Adding to that, when asked by Mr. Gregory about his Republican colleagues calling Benghazi a massive cover-up, Senator McConnell said that he never said those things. Citing Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel's column that the President implicitly encouraged these practices and creating this climate due to his repeated public statements critical of such tax exempt groups - dog whistling to call up action against his enemies. The same can be said for Senator McConnell on Benghazi, a master dog whistler who can conduct an entire interview without really putting anything on record. With regard to Benghazi, all he would commit to was that the security was inadequate. We have to not pay attention to the reasons according to Mr. McConnell, in which it could be argued that Congressional budget cutting played a a part.
The entire 'dog-whistling' argument by Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel and others is really the product of the other end of the dog.
As we're going through the writing of this column thinking about these controversies and the 'righteous' indignation displayed by conservatives on today's program, we can't help but think of their collective complacency during a particular incident - the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. (Mr. Gregory cited Abu Ghraib, which was good too.) The Bush Administration's disclosure of her identity was all three of those 'Obama' controversies rolled into one. It was a 'cult of intimidation' against politic opponents, sinister manipulation of the press, and it endangered the lives of Americans overseas... to say the least.
In saying all this, these are serious issues that need serious solutions and we've had some critical questions of the President and his cabinet, especially Mrs. Clinton, but this barking at the rain is the exact thing that will turn the public sour on the Republicans' cause for accountability.
President Obama’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer appeared on the program today (and all the others) to mitigate damage of course with reporters' hope that he'd slip and make news, but he didn't. As a foil,
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) answered questions just before the panel discussion. His introductory clip contained a soundbite from the Congressional hearing about the I.R.S. in which he talks about a culture of cover-up. As we said last week, the I.R.S. specifically targeting anyway is unacceptable so we're on the same page as Mr. Camp as far as that is concerned, but not the 'culture of cover-up' hyperbole. He reasonably talked about the tax code and how the reformation of it would help this country's economy, which is true and we appreciated that fact that he recognizing the burden that the tax code presents for average Americans - 13 hours for one family to do its taxes is ridiculous (6 billion hours in total). But let's extrapolate that a bit and realize that the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision opened the floodgates for so many of these organizations, probably conservative leaning organization outnumbered progressive ones (nothing wrong there) so the I.R.S. is inundated with the tax exempt status requests. Wrongly, they group them together and then someone becomes skeptical of them all and starts targeting. Dog whistling? We don't hear it.
Round Table: Rep. Camp joins the discussion along with the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA); Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward.
[An interesting dynamic is that Mr. Camp answered Mr. Gregory's questions while the panel participants were present, which tempered his comments quite considerably. Meet The Press seems like it has taken a page out of the Bill Maher format where the second featured guest becomes part of the panel. It makes for a smoother transition in the show, but what it also does is force that guest to answer questions more sensibly, truthfully, and realistically.]
In doing so, you realize that the great disappoint in the Obama Presidency isn't these immediate controversies but that he's conducted his White House pretty much the same as those men prior. It shouldn't come as any surprise that this is the case as it is the nature of being President because people are coming at you at all angles (see the above example). What you always hope is that the incoming administration can do it a little bit better than the last, and frankly, that's where Mr. Obama has the advantage. On today's Meet The Press, that perspective was lost.
Case in point, Peggy Noonan said that this I.R.S. misconduct was the worse political scandal since Watergate, and she adamantly defended that opinion. Never mind that David Gregory challenged her directly on that overreach with Iran-Contra, which she was in fact a part of where the Reagan Administration knowingly lied to Congress, something that President Reagan himself knew. But how about the Bush Administration and WMDs in Iraq? They lied to Congress, the American people, and the UN Assembly (where Colin Powell's reputation was forever tarnished) about their existence... Did we forget anyone? Ms. Noonan, Ma'am, you're disqualified from mention for the rest of today's column. This brings us to another example, the most comical statement of the day, courtesy of Mr. Rumsfeld who said that is was worrisome that the Administration supported 'a narrative that didn't exist'... That's all Mr. Rumsfeld did in his time as Secretary of Defense during the Bush years - lie about what was really going on in Iraq. He couldn't characterize it as such, but when Mr. Gregory suggested to Mr. Rumsfeld have sympathy for what's happening with the current administration, he really couldn't give too much for political appearances, but he should have. Mr. Rumsfeld also said that the 'truth leaves on horseback and returns on foot.' We have absolutely no idea what he was talking about there, but it's so meaninglessly funny we just had to mention it.
That implicit understanding, sympathy for the administration, also came from Senator Mitch McConnell with regard to the AP story where the Justice Department accessed reporters' phone records, believe it or not. It's this story that has received the least amount of criticism from conservatives because of the entire national security issue - potentially endangering our agents overseas. The criticism that does exist, and Mr. McConnell channeled it a bit today, is that Republicans as a whole simply loathe the President and Mr. Holder's general modus operandi so they use this for the pile-on effect.
However, for more serious commentary on this issue, we would first ask why the Justice Department didn't come at this from a completely different direction. Instead of gathering AP Reporters' phone numbers without their knowledge, the Justice Department should have turned their focus internally first investigating the outgoing calls from departments involved. This way, if the press then finds out that Justice is doing an internal investigation about leaks - key word internal - and reports on it then the heat gets turned up for Justice's benefit.
Senator McConnell is the Republican Leader in the Senate but when he starts talking of this particular administration's 'culture of intimidation' he begins to exhibit qualities that run completely counter to that moniker of 'leader.' His commentary about the 25 year-old clip of himself saying that 501(c)(4) 'social welfar' tax exempt groups were a problem was very telling. He said that 25 years ago he was wrong and for the past 20 he has been right, and now the twenty-year evolution of a leader into political operative is complete. He was correct 25 years ago, as Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA) noted during the panel discussion, that we were asking the I.R.S. to make political calls - on both sides of the aisle and that's problematic, obviously. Mr. McConnell mentioned the danger of disclosing contributors' lists for these 'social welfare' organizations for fear of political retribution, but not seeing the larger picture, he's advocating for big amounts of secretive money to remain in politics, which is the main cause of legislative dysfunction.
Adding to that, when asked by Mr. Gregory about his Republican colleagues calling Benghazi a massive cover-up, Senator McConnell said that he never said those things. Citing Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel's column that the President implicitly encouraged these practices and creating this climate due to his repeated public statements critical of such tax exempt groups - dog whistling to call up action against his enemies. The same can be said for Senator McConnell on Benghazi, a master dog whistler who can conduct an entire interview without really putting anything on record. With regard to Benghazi, all he would commit to was that the security was inadequate. We have to not pay attention to the reasons according to Mr. McConnell, in which it could be argued that Congressional budget cutting played a a part.
The entire 'dog-whistling' argument by Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel and others is really the product of the other end of the dog.
As we're going through the writing of this column thinking about these controversies and the 'righteous' indignation displayed by conservatives on today's program, we can't help but think of their collective complacency during a particular incident - the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. (Mr. Gregory cited Abu Ghraib, which was good too.) The Bush Administration's disclosure of her identity was all three of those 'Obama' controversies rolled into one. It was a 'cult of intimidation' against politic opponents, sinister manipulation of the press, and it endangered the lives of Americans overseas... to say the least.
In saying all this, these are serious issues that need serious solutions and we've had some critical questions of the President and his cabinet, especially Mrs. Clinton, but this barking at the rain is the exact thing that will turn the public sour on the Republicans' cause for accountability.
President Obama’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer appeared on the program today (and all the others) to mitigate damage of course with reporters' hope that he'd slip and make news, but he didn't. As a foil,
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) answered questions just before the panel discussion. His introductory clip contained a soundbite from the Congressional hearing about the I.R.S. in which he talks about a culture of cover-up. As we said last week, the I.R.S. specifically targeting anyway is unacceptable so we're on the same page as Mr. Camp as far as that is concerned, but not the 'culture of cover-up' hyperbole. He reasonably talked about the tax code and how the reformation of it would help this country's economy, which is true and we appreciated that fact that he recognizing the burden that the tax code presents for average Americans - 13 hours for one family to do its taxes is ridiculous (6 billion hours in total). But let's extrapolate that a bit and realize that the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision opened the floodgates for so many of these organizations, probably conservative leaning organization outnumbered progressive ones (nothing wrong there) so the I.R.S. is inundated with the tax exempt status requests. Wrongly, they group them together and then someone becomes skeptical of them all and starts targeting. Dog whistling? We don't hear it.
Round Table: Rep. Camp joins the discussion along with the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA); Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward.
[An interesting dynamic is that Mr. Camp answered Mr. Gregory's questions while the panel participants were present, which tempered his comments quite considerably. Meet The Press seems like it has taken a page out of the Bill Maher format where the second featured guest becomes part of the panel. It makes for a smoother transition in the show, but what it also does is force that guest to answer questions more sensibly, truthfully, and realistically.]
Sunday, May 12, 2013
5.12.13: Tragedy Vs. Scandal
Libya's long-time dictator had just been usurped and the country was in a volatile state. The knowledge of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in country was common. BBC's Katy Kay stated on the program that there were several attacks on the Benghazi facility for the six months prior to Ambassador Stevens being killed. David Brooks said that this consulate revised to mission revision to facility was none of the above. It was a C.I.A. outpost, which explains was there would be so many attacks on it. This diplomatic facility, and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) rightly asked why it was there in the first place, had no Marine guard, protected only by a Libyan militia that (surprise surprise) melted away at the first signs of the attacks. You can see the potential problems and additional questions given those facts.
Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that there were three questions which needed to be answered: why requests for additional security were denied; did we do all that we could to alleviate the situation during the 7 hours of attacks; and why all the changes in the talking points? The third would seem to be the most difficult to answer, but actually the explanation makes sense - different agencies couldn't agree on what to include and not to include, which would dictate how blame would be assigned. The question of the repeated requests for additional security being denied, we have a feeling that the answer can be attributed to budget cuts, which falls on Congress, some that David Gregory touched on in his questioning. As for doing all that we could at the time of the attack - If you look back into it, the closest Air Force base was in Aviano, Italy where fighters could have been scrambled in time, but would have required refueling planes which were unavailable nullifying that possibility.
We don't mean to be disrespectful, but what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place? Given all that know, possibly, in his familiarity and comfort with the country, he underestimated the threat and made a poor decision. If the embassy staff in Tripoli had been sending requests for more security before this happened then where is the common sense to know that the farther you get from the embassy the more risky the situation. That it was a 'diplomatic facility,' what ever that means, it was obvious that he didn't have enough security to be that trip.
That's a hypothetical, but one that could apply to someone walking down the street in any major U.S. city, which is also to say that these things are unpredictable and impossible to anticipate in every corner of the world.
But more on the text changes, it has come to light that Victoria Nuland, a twenty-plus year veteran of the State Department oversaw edits that removed mention that the attack involved an Al Qaeda affiliated group called Ansar Al-Sharia. The reasoning for the omission, it's said, was to not alert the group that the CIA and U.S. officials were on to them. This reason was outlined by then CIA Director General David Petraeus in a hearing last fall so it was something that Congress was already aware of. In such a rare occurrence - the killing of a U.S. Ambassador - where the details are murky and talking points are being tailored, why wouldn't top officials in the CIA, State, and the Administration have a firmer hand on all of this? That would be our question.
The different agencies were at odds with one another over the talking points because each didn't want to take the heat and look bad under Congressional scrutiny, and ironically... ultimately that's who you have to blame - Congress. The reason is because in this hyper-partisan climate that's been created all our legislators are interested in is who is to blame, and not focusing on fixes, prevention, or solutions. For example, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that this is 'the most egregious coverup in American history.' That's so far being true it makes you wonder what good hearings would do at all if there is obviously no will to listen. We would agree with Senator Feinstein that ulterior motives (something sinister) don't exist, as it seems that Senator Inhofe desires. When Mr. Gregory asked Congressman Issa if he was reading into something that isn't there, his answer was no, but he and his Republican colleagues want it to be 'yes' (the nature of the opposition of course). He said that President Obama and former Secretary Clinton were not targets, but they clearly are.
Do we think the Administration orchestrated a cover-up? No. But, we do distinctly note Senator Feinstein's assessment of the Administration. The word she used was 'cautious,' which she explained that she appreciated for the most part, but in regard to Benghazi this approach didn't serve them well. Cautiousness is understandable on behalf of this Administration, given that the American people became very dissatisfied with the last administration because we felt it was too rash and not analytical enough.
After all this, you know who shouldn't be blamed? UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was just following the talking points she was given in an 'audition' to potentially replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State. Unfortunately for her, she was given talking points that were inaccurate to the actual events. But also, it turns out that General David Petraeus, for all the greatness thrust upon him, was incompetent as a CIA chief, who was caught up in his own scandal/cover-up.
And speaking of scandal, the panel discussed two that we feel are more significant than Benghazi, one being the 26,000 sexual assaults in the military last year and the other of course being these new revelations that the Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted groups with 'Tea Party' and 'Patriot' in their names for scrutiny into their tax exempt status.
Wes Moore stated that the military is in most instances ahead of the curve when it comes to social mores, integration, et. al, but obviously not on this aspect of being transparent and direct in addressing this criminality. Twenty-six thousand sexual assaults are 26,000 felonies, and if the military can not police itself, as we've all heard one awful story or another, then we'll have to have an independent body oversee such complaints as Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) has proposed. However, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has already come out against that so we'll see where this all gets us.
And then there is our 'beloved' I.R.S. We'll truthfully put it this way. We believe that Super PACs in general will end up being devastatingly detrimental to our democracy and should not have tax-exempt status at all. Politicians always want full disclosure and transparency when it comes to say talking points with regard to an international tragedy, but not when advocacy groups spend millions of secret (undisclosed donors) money on their behalf to get reelected. You have to call B.S. on that. We will also truthfully say that, in particular, the Tea Party movement, has been one of the worst influences on our democracy, poisoning the well of compromise and crippling this country's ability to move forward. (We're not talking at all about Republicans in general.) With that said, we completely reject and are appalled by these actions of the I.R.S. specifically targeting these groups. If they operate under the law or apply for a status that they are entitled to apply for, regardless of whether you like them or not, they should be given equal opportunity and protections to do so. To have any other position is not American because next time it could be you... as the saying goes. The Obama Administration needs to make a forceful statement condemning these actions. Period. Hard Stop.
Round Table: Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) who is a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan; New York Times columnist David Brooks; the BBC’s Katty Kay; and Afghanistan veteran and author Wes Moore; Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) stayed on from interview appearance.
Postscript: Isn't it telling to know that President Bush didn't write an e-mail in 8 years because of what he called potential 'Congressional Intrusions' into what would be his private papers?
Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that there were three questions which needed to be answered: why requests for additional security were denied; did we do all that we could to alleviate the situation during the 7 hours of attacks; and why all the changes in the talking points? The third would seem to be the most difficult to answer, but actually the explanation makes sense - different agencies couldn't agree on what to include and not to include, which would dictate how blame would be assigned. The question of the repeated requests for additional security being denied, we have a feeling that the answer can be attributed to budget cuts, which falls on Congress, some that David Gregory touched on in his questioning. As for doing all that we could at the time of the attack - If you look back into it, the closest Air Force base was in Aviano, Italy where fighters could have been scrambled in time, but would have required refueling planes which were unavailable nullifying that possibility.
We don't mean to be disrespectful, but what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place? Given all that know, possibly, in his familiarity and comfort with the country, he underestimated the threat and made a poor decision. If the embassy staff in Tripoli had been sending requests for more security before this happened then where is the common sense to know that the farther you get from the embassy the more risky the situation. That it was a 'diplomatic facility,' what ever that means, it was obvious that he didn't have enough security to be that trip.
That's a hypothetical, but one that could apply to someone walking down the street in any major U.S. city, which is also to say that these things are unpredictable and impossible to anticipate in every corner of the world.
But more on the text changes, it has come to light that Victoria Nuland, a twenty-plus year veteran of the State Department oversaw edits that removed mention that the attack involved an Al Qaeda affiliated group called Ansar Al-Sharia. The reasoning for the omission, it's said, was to not alert the group that the CIA and U.S. officials were on to them. This reason was outlined by then CIA Director General David Petraeus in a hearing last fall so it was something that Congress was already aware of. In such a rare occurrence - the killing of a U.S. Ambassador - where the details are murky and talking points are being tailored, why wouldn't top officials in the CIA, State, and the Administration have a firmer hand on all of this? That would be our question.
The different agencies were at odds with one another over the talking points because each didn't want to take the heat and look bad under Congressional scrutiny, and ironically... ultimately that's who you have to blame - Congress. The reason is because in this hyper-partisan climate that's been created all our legislators are interested in is who is to blame, and not focusing on fixes, prevention, or solutions. For example, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that this is 'the most egregious coverup in American history.' That's so far being true it makes you wonder what good hearings would do at all if there is obviously no will to listen. We would agree with Senator Feinstein that ulterior motives (something sinister) don't exist, as it seems that Senator Inhofe desires. When Mr. Gregory asked Congressman Issa if he was reading into something that isn't there, his answer was no, but he and his Republican colleagues want it to be 'yes' (the nature of the opposition of course). He said that President Obama and former Secretary Clinton were not targets, but they clearly are.
Do we think the Administration orchestrated a cover-up? No. But, we do distinctly note Senator Feinstein's assessment of the Administration. The word she used was 'cautious,' which she explained that she appreciated for the most part, but in regard to Benghazi this approach didn't serve them well. Cautiousness is understandable on behalf of this Administration, given that the American people became very dissatisfied with the last administration because we felt it was too rash and not analytical enough.
After all this, you know who shouldn't be blamed? UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was just following the talking points she was given in an 'audition' to potentially replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State. Unfortunately for her, she was given talking points that were inaccurate to the actual events. But also, it turns out that General David Petraeus, for all the greatness thrust upon him, was incompetent as a CIA chief, who was caught up in his own scandal/cover-up.
And speaking of scandal, the panel discussed two that we feel are more significant than Benghazi, one being the 26,000 sexual assaults in the military last year and the other of course being these new revelations that the Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted groups with 'Tea Party' and 'Patriot' in their names for scrutiny into their tax exempt status.
Wes Moore stated that the military is in most instances ahead of the curve when it comes to social mores, integration, et. al, but obviously not on this aspect of being transparent and direct in addressing this criminality. Twenty-six thousand sexual assaults are 26,000 felonies, and if the military can not police itself, as we've all heard one awful story or another, then we'll have to have an independent body oversee such complaints as Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) has proposed. However, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has already come out against that so we'll see where this all gets us.
And then there is our 'beloved' I.R.S. We'll truthfully put it this way. We believe that Super PACs in general will end up being devastatingly detrimental to our democracy and should not have tax-exempt status at all. Politicians always want full disclosure and transparency when it comes to say talking points with regard to an international tragedy, but not when advocacy groups spend millions of secret (undisclosed donors) money on their behalf to get reelected. You have to call B.S. on that. We will also truthfully say that, in particular, the Tea Party movement, has been one of the worst influences on our democracy, poisoning the well of compromise and crippling this country's ability to move forward. (We're not talking at all about Republicans in general.) With that said, we completely reject and are appalled by these actions of the I.R.S. specifically targeting these groups. If they operate under the law or apply for a status that they are entitled to apply for, regardless of whether you like them or not, they should be given equal opportunity and protections to do so. To have any other position is not American because next time it could be you... as the saying goes. The Obama Administration needs to make a forceful statement condemning these actions. Period. Hard Stop.
Round Table: Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) who is a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan; New York Times columnist David Brooks; the BBC’s Katty Kay; and Afghanistan veteran and author Wes Moore; Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) stayed on from interview appearance.
Postscript: Isn't it telling to know that President Bush didn't write an e-mail in 8 years because of what he called potential 'Congressional Intrusions' into what would be his private papers?
Sunday, May 05, 2013
5.5.13: Our Actions Make Us Who We Are
As for Syria, we're in... With the news of the Israelis hitting the Assad Regime with airstrikes, coupled with the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, the United States is already in the mix. You can easily see all the signs that it's moving in that direction. As Andrea Mitchell reported, there are various Arab countries arming different groups within the anti-Assad rebel forces. Of course, we are going to have to get in on that action and try to swing the balance toward a more moderate entity to take control, however, the reality there is that it's going to get even uglier because once Assad is gone, and he will be, then comes a civil war between the victors.
Representative Tom Cotton (R-AR) represented the consensus opinion in the House when he said that we should have been arming rebels months ago. We've created that sort of expectation from countries, especially in the Middle East, that we'll always be involved, at the very least with arm shipments. And it was all but confirmed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) today. At this point, the United States is obligated to get into the fray, but Syria will linger perhaps significantly worse than even Iraq for the United States. Syria's two main allies are Russia and Iran, both of whom are actively involved with the Syrian civil war, on the side of the Assad Regime, unlike in Iraq. Arms shipments will facilitate murky results in the end because we'll still have to deal with Russia and Iran on the myriad of known issues for years and years after Syria is settled.
It's obvious that our Cold War relationship with Russia was much better than what we have with them now because during that time both countries motivations were much more predictable. The United States naively thought that since the Cold War ended that the two countries could now cooperate, but the Putin government never took to that attitude. The dynamic may have changed but not the sentiment, as far as international relations are concerned; no more evident than in Syria.
With that in mind, the much less turbid tact is the establishment of an internationally coordinated no-fly zone (also all but confirmed by Senator Leahy), something that the American people can begrudgingly live with as opposed to having 'boots on the ground,' something Jane Harman said there was zero chance of happening. This international effort, most probably spearheaded by the United States, would be better served if simultaneously they would concentrate on the flow of refugees threatening instability in other countries, namely Jordan.
What makes our head hurt when it comes to Syria is the eagerness exhibited by many in the U.S. Congress to become directly involved. Our only explanation for this is that it plays into the larger sentiment of combating terrorism and making sure Al Qaeda elements do not have a place of sanctuary. The President, in a clip, confirmed that the Israelis have the right to thwart any attempts by the Assad Regime to ship arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon (surprise: the Russian air defense systems aren't very good). Congressman Cotton stated that we've gotten off of a war footing when it comes to fighting terrorism and are more in a law enforcement stance, although his example was to say that we haven't put any one into Guantanamo Bay Prison in four years, implying that we should be putting more people in there instead of closing it. The usually intellectually buffoonish Newt Gingrich said that he sees the fight against terrorism as a fifty to seventy year battle. It's unfortunate (to say the least) that Mr. Cotton can not see that the longer we keep Guantanamo open, the closer we get to Mr. Gingrich's assessment being true. What upsets us here at this column is the fear that our political leaders show by being so reluctant to bring those prisoners to the United States. If they're guilty, hold them in this country and don't be afraid - deal with the decisions that you've made or change your thinking. As Senator Leahy asked, "What are we afraid of?" Later in the program, Mr. Cotton said that Islamic extremists don't attack us for what we do, but who we are. That's actually the kind of absurd responsibility denial that perpetuates the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States, here and abroad.
It's our actions that have created self-radicalized terrorists. We don't appreciate Mr. Giuliani's Monday morning quarterbacking with regard to the Boston bombing as it pertains to the investigation and what we knew beforehand, but he did make a very good point. If the three additional suspects knew that the Tsarnaev brothers were responsible for the bombing before a M.I.T. police officer was shot and killed then they are conspirators. The stupid teenager excuse doesn't fly. But, our actions created terrorism and sympathy. In the case of Fort Hood, we're always skeptical about Mr. Giuliani's hyperbolic facts, but that was certainly a terrorist act inspired by Islamic extremism.
To that end, no one on the program had a good answer as to whether we're safer or not. "Yes and no," Jane Harmon said, agreeing with Mr. Giuliani that the threats have evolved. But that answer would be 'no' if you agree with what Wayne LaPierre said in posing the question as to whether Bostonians upon being asked to stay in their homes in the search for the bombing suspects would be safer if they all owned guns. In that statement Mr. LaPierre was simply pedaling fear, one which the people of Boston wouldn't buy. What he suggested wouldn't make us safer, just more suspicious and dangerous to one another.
It's this same sort of fear mongering that translates to other aspects of our society and law making, the xenophobic kind that could (will) stifle immigration reform. Senator Leahy when asked if it would pass, said that he hoped so. Further pressed by Mr. Gregory about it, he said, "I think so," which is not encouraging. And we would contend that it is our actions, in fact, that make us who we are so what does it say that a nation of immigrants will have shut the door on inclusiveness? That's not what we do or who we are as Americans.
Americans see a brave move, a lesson in courage and not in fear, and we embrace it. Just ask Jason Collins.
Round Table 1: Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT); former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani; President and CEO of the Wilson Center, former Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); and Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR).
Round Table 2: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford; Editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry; and MSNBC contributor as well as political columnist for the Miami Herald, Joy-Ann Reid.
Representative Tom Cotton (R-AR) represented the consensus opinion in the House when he said that we should have been arming rebels months ago. We've created that sort of expectation from countries, especially in the Middle East, that we'll always be involved, at the very least with arm shipments. And it was all but confirmed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) today. At this point, the United States is obligated to get into the fray, but Syria will linger perhaps significantly worse than even Iraq for the United States. Syria's two main allies are Russia and Iran, both of whom are actively involved with the Syrian civil war, on the side of the Assad Regime, unlike in Iraq. Arms shipments will facilitate murky results in the end because we'll still have to deal with Russia and Iran on the myriad of known issues for years and years after Syria is settled.
It's obvious that our Cold War relationship with Russia was much better than what we have with them now because during that time both countries motivations were much more predictable. The United States naively thought that since the Cold War ended that the two countries could now cooperate, but the Putin government never took to that attitude. The dynamic may have changed but not the sentiment, as far as international relations are concerned; no more evident than in Syria.
With that in mind, the much less turbid tact is the establishment of an internationally coordinated no-fly zone (also all but confirmed by Senator Leahy), something that the American people can begrudgingly live with as opposed to having 'boots on the ground,' something Jane Harman said there was zero chance of happening. This international effort, most probably spearheaded by the United States, would be better served if simultaneously they would concentrate on the flow of refugees threatening instability in other countries, namely Jordan.
What makes our head hurt when it comes to Syria is the eagerness exhibited by many in the U.S. Congress to become directly involved. Our only explanation for this is that it plays into the larger sentiment of combating terrorism and making sure Al Qaeda elements do not have a place of sanctuary. The President, in a clip, confirmed that the Israelis have the right to thwart any attempts by the Assad Regime to ship arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon (surprise: the Russian air defense systems aren't very good). Congressman Cotton stated that we've gotten off of a war footing when it comes to fighting terrorism and are more in a law enforcement stance, although his example was to say that we haven't put any one into Guantanamo Bay Prison in four years, implying that we should be putting more people in there instead of closing it. The usually intellectually buffoonish Newt Gingrich said that he sees the fight against terrorism as a fifty to seventy year battle. It's unfortunate (to say the least) that Mr. Cotton can not see that the longer we keep Guantanamo open, the closer we get to Mr. Gingrich's assessment being true. What upsets us here at this column is the fear that our political leaders show by being so reluctant to bring those prisoners to the United States. If they're guilty, hold them in this country and don't be afraid - deal with the decisions that you've made or change your thinking. As Senator Leahy asked, "What are we afraid of?" Later in the program, Mr. Cotton said that Islamic extremists don't attack us for what we do, but who we are. That's actually the kind of absurd responsibility denial that perpetuates the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States, here and abroad.
It's our actions that have created self-radicalized terrorists. We don't appreciate Mr. Giuliani's Monday morning quarterbacking with regard to the Boston bombing as it pertains to the investigation and what we knew beforehand, but he did make a very good point. If the three additional suspects knew that the Tsarnaev brothers were responsible for the bombing before a M.I.T. police officer was shot and killed then they are conspirators. The stupid teenager excuse doesn't fly. But, our actions created terrorism and sympathy. In the case of Fort Hood, we're always skeptical about Mr. Giuliani's hyperbolic facts, but that was certainly a terrorist act inspired by Islamic extremism.
To that end, no one on the program had a good answer as to whether we're safer or not. "Yes and no," Jane Harmon said, agreeing with Mr. Giuliani that the threats have evolved. But that answer would be 'no' if you agree with what Wayne LaPierre said in posing the question as to whether Bostonians upon being asked to stay in their homes in the search for the bombing suspects would be safer if they all owned guns. In that statement Mr. LaPierre was simply pedaling fear, one which the people of Boston wouldn't buy. What he suggested wouldn't make us safer, just more suspicious and dangerous to one another.
It's this same sort of fear mongering that translates to other aspects of our society and law making, the xenophobic kind that could (will) stifle immigration reform. Senator Leahy when asked if it would pass, said that he hoped so. Further pressed by Mr. Gregory about it, he said, "I think so," which is not encouraging. And we would contend that it is our actions, in fact, that make us who we are so what does it say that a nation of immigrants will have shut the door on inclusiveness? That's not what we do or who we are as Americans.
Americans see a brave move, a lesson in courage and not in fear, and we embrace it. Just ask Jason Collins.
Round Table 1: Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT); former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani; President and CEO of the Wilson Center, former Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); and Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR).
Round Table 2: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford; Editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry; and MSNBC contributor as well as political columnist for the Miami Herald, Joy-Ann Reid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)