7.27.14: The Advancing Wolves

The wolves are advancing is how David Brooks of the New York Times phrased it in the context that the United States' inability to influence global conflicts and events.  Clearly, he was referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin, but he was also referring to the rival militia violence in Libya.  To further extrapolate, the wolves can include Assad in Syria and Iran - anyone that is ignoring what ever side or position the United States takes. No fear of consequences.  Mr. Brooks explained that since WWII the United States was able to exert pressure throughout the world to keep a global order.

[He also mentioned that the United States was able to do this despite some small wars. We need to remind Mr. Brooks about small wars... Fifty-eight thousand died in Vietnam, no small war. Nor was Korea.]

But could he be also referring to Israel?

Despite the calls for a prolonged cease fire from Secretary of State John Kerry, the United States voice is being largely ignored.  The concerns that the Obama Administration has about the civilian casualties in Gaza go noted but then put aside.  As Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) assessed, Israel isn't going to agree to such a cease fire just to give Hamas a chance to reload.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel has accepted five different cease fires, and Hamas has even broke one that they called for, but say that this latest 24-hour one does in fact take hold, the sides are so far apart that it will have zero effect.  The Prime Minister wants the total elimination of Hamas - that's the goal plain and simple.  Anything short of that doesn't work for Mr. Netanyahu.  We're not saying this because we agree or disagree, but simply based on what he stated.  When he says that he wants to weaken, discredit and demilitarize Hamas, all those parts add up to the elimination of Hamas.

Mr. Netanyahu said that the Egyptian initiative is the only one on the table and it outlines the Palestinian Authority having political control over Gaza, not Hamas.  You can understand Israel's retaliation in the face of rockets being fired into your country and wanting to eliminate the secret tunnels.  But the pictures don't lie - parts of Gaza City (see below), its most populace areas, are devastated.  NBC's Richard Engel described it as punishment.

Mr. Netanyahu brought up a good point - what would the U.S. do if another country started firing rockets into its territory.  We realize that this isn't something the Israelis want to do, but this kind of overwhelming artillery activity is hurting their cause around the world. 

Both sides are clearly to blame for what happened at the UN school in Gaza - Hamas for making it a military target and Israel for making it an indiscriminate one even though it was clearly marked as Chris Gunness, UN Relief and Works Agency Spokesperson, said.  But as we've said before, there are no conditions in which Hamas would recognize Israel's right to exist,  and if they continue rocketing into Israel, we better get used to these pictures and these tragedies like the one at the UN school.

Senator Schumer candidly said that he thinks it's 'dubious' that the United States can dictate outcomes around the world, no where more evident than in Europe with Ukraine, Russia, and Putin the ego wolf.  His government plays large hand in the responsibility of killing 298 people aboard a commercial flight and he hasn't altered his behavior in the slightest.  Russia is still solidly supplying the separatists in eastern Ukraine with no sign of abatement.

The U.S. is having little influence on Europe's willingness to act, and Mr. Schumer used an ominous analogy to illustrate the point saying that Europe can not employ the 1938 policy of appeasement, drawing a correlation between how Europe responded to the Nazis and how they are responding now to Mr. Putin.  However, one thing is for sure, Europe should listen to the U.S. and go hard on the sanctions because Mr. Putin will continue to use military force in all areas he thinks he can. And he knows that Europe will simply stand by and watch him do it as long as he doesn't cross a certain line; that line by the way being Poland. Mr. Putin has a giant dictatorial ego, but he is not stupid.  But if he were, then Europe would be immediately asking for U.S. for help.

With that said, he shouldn't have been allowed to do as much as he's done, and the European Union needs to act.

Then there's Africa in slow disintegration, one country at a time.  It's been a fools errand to try and maintain a diplomatic presence in Libya since the tragic death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  It shouldn't be seen as a political opportunity or a criminal offense, but simply as a sign, one that says the United States has relinquished any influence it has over the events there.  Period, end of sentence.

As the panel agreed, the United States can not withdraw from its leadership role around the world, but as Ruth Marcus commented, the American people no longer want the United States to serve as the world's policeman.  The pressure that David Brooks talked about and the United States' ability to exert it to keep the peace has been discredited because of the horrible mistake it made in Iraq.  It drained the U.S. of all its international mojo.


Round Table: Judy Woodruff, Co-Anchor and Managing Editor, PBS NewsHour; David Brooks, Columnist, New York Time; Nia-Malika Henderson, Reporter, Washington Post; Ruth Marcus, Columnist, Washington Post

Post Note: We may or may not come back later to comment on the interview with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the comments made by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  The topic of poverty discussed with Mr. Ryan is certainly one of importance that we will comment on, and we find it disgraceful that Congress is about to go on a 5-week recess without the House voting on an immigration bill and a veterans' bill that both passed in the Senate.  But hey, the above commentary is heavy enough for one Sunday.

7.23.14: Meet The Press, David Gregory Rumors

We're talking this mid-week time to comment on a story that appeared in today's Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/23/david-gregory-meet-the-press-replaced-rumor_n_5612773.html).  It reports that after the mid-term elections, David Gregory will be out as moderator and then speculates that Chuck Todd would take over.

Here's our take on that...

We starting blogging this column in earnest at the end of Tim Russert's years of moderating the program (about 30 columns in) but had been watching him for years.  (Mr. Russert died in June of 2008.) We like everyone will say that in Mr. Russert's tenure, he set the gold standard for Sunday political programming; it's the reason why we like to call Meet The Press, the 'Television Program of Record.' 

But in all honesty, it hasn't lived up to that (maybe too) high standard since David Gregory has taken over as moderator.  It's not entirely his fault as we've pointed out over the years.  They've changed the format several times, added too many correspondents, cut down the in-depth interview segments, all of which has created a pacing that is in instances choppy coming off as not so serious in tone.  The cumulative effect erodes David Gregory's  control over the program and its a program that the moderator has to own.

In our humble opinion, Candy Crowley's State of the Union, Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer, and GPS with Fareed Zakaria are the top of the line right now.  That's serious programming... and that's where Meet The Press should be.

You're competing for the informed, the people that pay attention and vote.  They want the insight that most aren't willing to take the time to watch, or write about.  The people watching the above mentioned programs go there for something more in depth... more informed.

Does Chuck Todd taking over get you there?

Tone is very important to us.  And we mean the tone of the host's voice which dictates overall demeanor. It plays a bigger part than you realize toward the success a Sunday political talk show.  We do think that Mr. Todd's tone and demeanor are a better fit for Meet The Press we'll concede.  Oddly enough, we feel that Mr. Gregory would be better suited in the format that Chuck Todd's Daily Rundown has.  Switching places would make sense.

At the time of Mr. Russert's passing, we felt that Chuck Todd wasn't ready for the Meet The Press chair, but we didn't think David Gregory was the best choice either.  It really should have been Andrea Mitchell.  In her few replacement appearances on the program, she seemed uncomfortable but that would have gone away quickly as she has the experience hence the cred.

But now, if someone is going to replace Mr. Gregory now, NBC is most probably going with Mr. Todd.  He can achieve that high standard we outlined, but he'll have to be in it for the long haul and to 'own it' he too will have to up his game. 



As for us, we'll keep on commenting on the program of record.

7.20.14: (Kiev as the New Berlin) The Start of Cold War II

It's important to start this week's column by saying that if this tragic firing down of a passenger plane over Ukraine doesn't change policy behavior in Europe and Russia, things are going to get much worse.  Secretary Kerry, in his interview laid out the case...

It's inexcusable what is happening in the wake of the crash with separatist soldiers removing bodies from the crash site and the cover-up of evidence with cooperation from the Kremlin; the internationally criminal act has now been compounded by international conspiracy. 

Mr. Kerry clearly stated that the Kremlin is supporting, supplying, training, and cooperating with the separatist so now it becomes a question of response.  Europe can not be excused either due that lack of a strong coordinated response from Germany, England, France and Italy, with the latter two pulling back from the two former.

We learned years ago that when Russian President Vladimir Putin says one thing, he'll do another, and in this case he has no inclination to stem the violence in eastern Ukraine.  As long as Mr. Putin keeps gaining ground on his goal of reestablishing the former Soviet territory of influence without consequence while enjoying high approval ratings at home, there's no reason for him to stop. 

Kiev will become the new Berlin in Cold War II. 

Given what we've seen this week in eastern Ukraine, you must conclude that Mr. Putin is fully prepared to be more strategically ruthless than his western counterparts.  Frankly, if you look at it from a wider angle, Mr. Putin, who is enjoying a revival in Russian Nationalism at home according to Mr. Kerry, has European Leaders on their heals in response because of control over energy supply, and he has also bogged down a war weary United States from giving a forceful response by asserting itself as an adversary in the Middle East.  All this means is that Mr. Putin can move with impunity.

David Gregory asked Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) what the administration hasn't done in response to these events, he said that Secretary Kerry and the president haven't called Mr. Putin a thug.  We agreed with Mr. Graham on some points, but not this one because even if in fact that's what he should be called, it's actually Mr. Graham's job to call him that.  The president has to be presidential and Mr. Kerry is the one who has to keep the dialogue going so it falls upon the Senators in the U.S. Congress to issue harsh words.

However, we agree with Mr. Graham, and the entire round table, in saying that the president's response has been weak.  As Andrea Mitchell accurately pointed out, Samantha Powers, U.S. Ambassador to the UN made a more forceful state in condemning Russia's actions than President Obama.  The president has to be out front on this, no more leading from behind.  As the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley succinctly stated, Mr. Obama is not leading, supported by Ron Fourier's reminder that the president had set a red line in Syria, it was crossed, and there were no consequences - an situation by the way that benefited Russia the most for its backing of the Assad regime. 

Right now are the most challenging times the United States has faced in the last twenty years and unfortunately, the Obama Administration doesn't have a good enough strategy - the light footprint, leading from behind - to get through them and Republicans' ideas are even worse.

Mr. Kerry, for his part, couldn't give a clear answer on what the United States next move should be.  Nor could the Secretary explain what the United States wanted Russia to do in as much as changing its behavior.  The president did institute new sanctions against Russia this week, but he should immediately step them up.  Usually we'd advocate getting Europe on board first, but not in this case.  The U.S. should move ahead and then get Europe on board - take the difficult lead, which is something Mr. Putin figures isn't going to happen.

With regard to Mr. Graham's other suggestion of arming the Ukraine, we would not advocate that action because it puts the United States directly involved in an armed conflict on the Russia border with everything west of that line not fully supporting you.  Not to mention that such action would only escalate the conflict.

Speaking of which, that's exactly where we are with the Israelis and Palestinians.  What's different here is that the region's powers, and the United States according to Mr. Kerry today, back an Egyptian plan to have the moderate Palestinian Authority, lead by Mahmoud Abbas, take control of Gaza instead of Hamas.  It's certainly the desired outcome certainly, as having Hamas, whose arms are funded by Iran, continuing to fire rockets into Israel is not an option. But making that happen is going to require eliminating Hamas altogether because they are not going to capitulate, fall into line as it were so hence, there must be an escalation of the conflict to achieve that desired result.

That escalation is now in the form of Israeli ground troops, who should stay in Gaza as long as they need to root out Hamas completely according to Senator Graham, who spoke tough on behalf of Israel which was a little silly.  However, what he was really saying is that the United States will support the effort.

To ever achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, one core tenant has to be in place.  The Palestinians, all of them, have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist because until Hamas acknowledges this, the violent cycle will only continue. The question is if we have seen Israel's patience completely run out this time.


Round Table: Andrea Mitchell, NBC Foreign Affairs Correspondent; Ron Fourier, editorial director at the National Review; Amy Walter, national editor; and Jason Riley, Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal

7.13.14: Coming Back to Bite US

Detroit Free Press Columnist Stephen Henderson commented that the round table had been snickering during David Gregory's interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, which is an understated reaction to say the least.

At every turn on every topic - from Syria to Centrifuges - Mr. Zarif explained that Iran was neither the aggressive actor nor responsible for situations that it helped to created and/or exacerbate. 

Mr. Zarif talked of logical and reasonable actions and reactions throughout the interview but that depends on from which perspective you’re looking.  He said that Iran goes out of its way to show its neighbors that they want to live in peace in the region.  He explained that Iran would not dismantle any centrifuges, would provide credible assurances to the international community that they are not building a nuclear weapon.  Credible assurances?    What does that even mean?  Also, he said that Iran has a right to have what everyone else has, meaning a nuclear weapon, but then went on to say that having them doesn’t make anyone safer.  He said that the paradigm of being safe because of the guarantee of mutually assured destruction is mad.  You see how contradictory his statements are.

With regard Iran’s support of Hamas, he said that Iran was going to support people who protect themselves, as if Hamas was simply a victim in the conflict with Israel.  Hezbollah and Hamas are funded by Iran and both have carried out terrorist acts.  He blamed the United States, of course for not taking any action or condemning Israel for the deaths of Palestinians, yet the funding for Hamas’ rockets being fired into Israel comes from Iran.  The big difference is that the United States does pretend it has nothing to do with what’s happening there, whereas Iran pleads innocent.  And Mr. Zarif wonders allow why the international community thinks Iran is up to no good.

Once blaming the United States, Mr. Zarif said the U.S. is supporting ISIS in an attempt to dismantle Syria, which saying that Iran respects the will of the Syrian people.  If you conflate the ‘Syria people’ with the Assad regime then that makes sense.  Either way, it’s clear that Iran is backing Assad and his use of chemical weapons against his own people, hence condoning mass murder.

However, he disputed the claim that Iran supports an individual [read: Assad] and that the people had no trouble casting their votes in Lebanon.  The fact that they’re casting votes in Lebanon to ‘choose’ the leader in Syria should tell you enough.  As Jeffrey Goldberg explained post interview, the whole thing is a cosmic joke.  Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon so that it can play that very stand off game with Israel and they are the prime sponsors of Assad.  It’s state terrorism institutionalized.

The one place where we heap blame on the United States is for building a nuclear reactor in Iran, in the 1950’s, in the first place.  So typical… Like when we helped the Mujahideen in the 80’s topple the Soviets in Afghanistan and then they morphed into Al Qaeda.  One of these days, the U.S. will think a little bit more longer term so that these kinds of things will stop coming back to bite us.

Round Table: Fmr. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA); Stephen Henderson Columnist, Detroit Free Press; Kimberley Strassel Columnist, The Wall Street Journal

7.6.14: "...Deport Them All..."

We re-watched the interview with Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID), and we're glad we did because the first time we watched the segment, it was pretty infuriating, and to some extent still is.

Mr. Labrador said that we, the United States, should "deport these children immediately"and his reasoning was that it was creating a crisis on our border.

What kind of country are we becoming when we immediately deport children without even asking why or how this is happening?  Are we that heartless of a nation to do such as thing?  We are a nation of immigrants for cryin' out loud.  We're not experts in Central American affairs we admit, but perhaps there's a humanitarian crisis occurring in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala that needs to be addressed, after all this is in our background, not on the other side of the globe.  And where is Mexico in all this? 

Mr. Labrador did rightly point out that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, couldn't say what would happen to these children, putting it that we have 'to do right by the children.' We'll answer the question of whether or not we'll deport all the children at the border, and the answer is:  We don't know.  We've gotten way past the point in our politics that no person in Congress or an administration can in fact level with the American people, and this is another huge, glaring example.

Secretary Johnson, or any administration official for that matter, definitely can not say 'I don't know' to any question, when the real answer is 'not all, but probably most.'

The congressman's statement is intended to send the message to the people of these countries to stop sending your children here because if you do, they will immediately be sent back.  It plays very well with the Tea Party Republican base, of whom he is a vocal advocate.  We would agree with the sentiment that we do not want children making the treacherous, 1000-mile journey hanging from trains, but if they do manage to get here, we should find out the whole story, don't you think?

With further regard for the Congressman, later in the interview, Mr. Labrador did concede a few points, which shows that he is listening at the very least, and we do like that. But also later, he put the blame mostly on the Central American drug cartels and the gangs associated with them. He tempered his rhetoric and then couldn't cast blame for this humanitarian crisis on the Obama Administration.

And it brings us to the point Mr. Labrador made about the children that on this trek, they could be kidnapped, raped, robbed, harmed (to use a word of his) or potentially killed.  So what are we going to do; immediately deport children back to their country where they most probably face that same fate at the hands of gangs. 

The law that grandfathered in immigrant minors to have legal status here was passed in 2008, but Mr. Obama took office; not to mention the fact that Mr. Obama is to the right of President Bush when it comes to the number of deportations. 

Mr. Johnson said that all of these migrants will go through a deportation evaluation and process, which is simply the prudent thing to do, and that's why we said, not all but probably most.  And if that's the case, then so be it. 

We often use the example that if economic conditions in this country were so poor to the point where if someone came to you and send, there's a great job for you in Germany, pays 5x what you're making now, but you'd be illegal; to feed your family you would do it. 

So to Mr. Labrador, we say to just tone it down, but don't be so harsh or heartless... Be American and reread what it says on the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

OK, a little magnanimous, but we're humanitarians over here and we (The United States) just celebrated a birthday! Why not?

Round Table: Chuck Todd, Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent NBC News;

Carolyn Ryan, Washington Bureau Chief, The New York Times; Lori Montenegro, 

National Correspondent, Telemundo; Michael Gerson,  Columnist, The Washington Post