3.29.15: Is The Obama Administration A Player or Just Being Played?

-->

It's a predictable notion that we’ll comment on the Germanwings plane crash which turned out to be a deliberate act, because we want to share our perspective on what some are calling an inexplicable act.  But before we get into that, we must skip over to the subject of Yemen and what is happening in the greater Middle East along with what the United States is doing in the region. The proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been going on for the better part of 30 years, and now that Cold War in the Middle East could become quite hot.

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir, said on today's program that the Saudi military was conducting airstrikes in Yemen against Iranian-backed Shia militias at the invitation of the Yemeni government with the goal being, as the ambassador stated, to protect the Yemeni people from these extremists. The ambassador also explained that they are conducting these airstrikes with the full support of the United States. Meanwhile on the other side of things, the Obama administration is in talks with the Iranian regime over its nuclear program. It was outlined on the program that the United States is presenting a pessimistic view of the negotiations while the Iranians are framing things in an optimistic light.

Here’s what we have to say:  At this point in time, there can be no deal no nuclear deal with Iran.

First, as former Ambassador Christopher Hill said, the mullahs in Iran have no interest in normalizing relations with Israel, let alone recognizing the country's right to exist. He used the phrase “a bridge too far” when Chuck Todd asked him why recognition of the Israeli state is not on the table for these negotiations.

Of course this column is a strong supporter of Israel, but, that is not the sole reason why we say that there should be no deal.  The other is that we just don’t see the wisdom in enabling Iran in extending its reach across the region by putting this deal in place, which would essentially lift sanctions give them greater resources. Now, it was brought up that if there is no nuclear deal then that would allow Iran to try and constitute its nuclear program freely as they would be able to kick out U.N. inspectors. The essential problem is that Iran is not acting in good faith – it will say what it has to so that the sanctions are lifted but still pursue a nuclear weapon.

The discussion on today’s program explained that while the US is supporting the Saudi's in their airstrikes against Shia militias in Yemen, the United States is also on the same side as Iran in the fight against ISIS. However, just to stay up to speed, it was reported in the New York Times this morning that Iranian led militias in Iraq left the fight for Tikrit in protest because of United States involvement in the form of airstrikes.  

Unless the Obama administration has some sort of Jedi chess move that we're not seeing, it seems like to us that it is being played by lead by both sides.  The Saudi's and the Iranians are essentially war with one another – hot, cold, lukewarm, covert, overt, whatever - and the U.S. is enabling both of them, but to what end?

The United States in no way should help Iran accrue the resources it needs to spread more of its control throughout the Middle East. What's tricky is that what you are left with is partnering with a regime that protects individuals that export extremism and terrorism targeting the United States, and that is Saudi Arabia. And that's not even to mention the Saudi's horrible human rights record and the way that they treat women.

The United States military in the Middle East should take a stance and posture of support. And what we mean by that is no airstrikes on ISIS. If the Iranians want to take that fight, let them, but the United States should keep the hefty sanctions in place as a certain deterrent to interfering with Kurdistan, Jordan, or of course Israel.

Because in this fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran, one which both sides clearly want to have, the United States shouldn't be fighting for either side. However, we've already thrown our support to the Saudi's, that's clear, but at the same time appeasing Iran is not the way to go.  Why be played by both sides?

It's not so much that we have a problem with the goals that the Obama Administration is trying to achieve – peace in the region. The problem we have is no one's listening to the Obama Administration; no one cares what they have to say; they are basically just in the way in the minds of the major regional players and are carrying no clout. No one is listening to them. 

Update: We want to add here that there could be a deal but there shouldn't be when all of the players involved are presently firing rockets and dropping bombs.

***

And now will briefly comment about the Germanwings plane crash, to try to provide a little insight. It's been reported that the co-pilot Andreas Lubitz had been suffering from depression, and The New York Times reported this morning that he was having problems with his eyesight.  The latter possibly causing Mr. Lubitz anxiety about losing his job, possibly ending his flying career.   Whether the concern about eyesight is legitimate or not, make no mistake the depression was there first. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker said on today's program that she wasn't completely convinced that the deliberate act of crashing the plane was due to a mental health issue. We don't have all the evidence so it is possible that there was a motivation that hasn't been identified as of yet.

But if, in fact, it was due to mental illness on the part of Mr. Lubitz, let's put that into a little perspective. Think about society today and how individuals are so physically cut off from one another. We live predominantly communicating through screens -the information that we give and the information that we receive.  We are more and more isolated, living inside our own heads too much and pre-occupied with self, especially true of younger people who have grown up in this technological isolating context. On top of that, take into consideration a general feeling around the world that economically life is never going to be easy, throwing a shadow of foreboding for massive amounts people.

It’s reasoned that someone who is suicidal will go and commit this act, and given that analysis, Mr. Lubitz should be considered a mass murderer of 149 individuals.  While he is, indeed, a mass murderer, maybe he was also (wrongly) thinking that for anyone to sympathize and understand his pain – to hear the cry - he had to bring spectacular attention to it and himself.  For him, the way was to down a passenger jet with all of those people on it.   That in no way explains away anything, serving no justification, but the notion that it was some inexplicable act we just don't buy.

Panel: Joe Scarborough, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe;” Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Sam Stein, The Huffington Post; Neera Tanden, CEO of the Center for American Progres

3.22.15: Conditions on the Ground Dictate

There will not be a two-state solution while Benjamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister.  That's what candidate Netanyahu said to court the hard Israeli right wing to win reelection.  He walked those comments back two days after the election, but it's his initial statement that is correct and will turn to be fact.  The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, explained that under current conditions on the ground, there will not be a Palestinian state, and that's what Mr. Netanyahu meant, and not that he wasn't in favor of one. 

In sorting this out, let's be clear - Mr. Netanyahu does not want a two-state solution, and it's curious that he doesn't see that it's in Israel's best long-term interest that there be.  However, where we agree with Mr. Dermer, Israel should not give statehood to the Palestinians if Israel is not getting peace in return.  If the Palestinians can not see their way in getting along peacefully with Israel then what's the point?

And this is where Mr. Riyad Monsour, Palestinian Observer at the United Nations, lost the argument. He said on today's program that Israel could not negotiate because Mr. Abbas's government in the West Bank didn't represent all Palestinians.  However, later when Mr. Abbas partnered with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, bringing the two factions together, Israel still couldn't negotiate.  That's the best he can do?  Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist as a state, which is an instantaneous deal-breaker. Their dual purpose of a free Palestine that can attack and destroy Israel is farce, and if actualized, is really the first step to their destruction.

Subtracting all the rhetoric, the reality is that a two-state solution is NOT the road to peace, but the end of the road of peace. But Hamas can not get with that program so two states are highly unlikely to happen on Mr. Netanyahu's watch, and there after.

And as Mr. Dermer pointed out, the prospect of another Iranian-backed extremist group on your doorstep - Hamas as junior partner - provides little incentive to do a deal.  And now that Iran has essentially taken control of another capital - Sanaa in Yemen - their growing influence begs the question of what point is it to sit down with a group when it's another country that really makes the decisions?

And speaking of Yemen, the country has broken down into the chaos of a sectarian civil war between Saudi-backed Sunni militias and Iranian-backed Shiite militias.  And though, as we alluded to above, this seeming victory for Iran looks good in the short-term, but it's right at Saudi Arabia's border, which makes it a completely different set of circumstances.  The Saudis will ruthlessly do anything to keep Iranians off the peninsula.  And while the Iranians will be weathering more crippling sanctions because of a failed nuclear deal, the Saudis, though deplorable human rights violators yet enjoying good international standing, will freely put even more money into Sunni extremist groups, like ISIS, to fight the Iranians.  The collateral damage of those extremist groups be damned in the mind of the Saudis.

Conditions on ground (in the region) dictate, and the one sure conclusion is that the conditions will not be getting better any time soon, certainly not in the time that Mr. Netanyahu is prime minister. 

***

 Conditions on the ground...

It's an all-too-nice segue into commenting on the interview with Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA), who said that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who will officially be the first person to declare a candidacy (tomorrow) for president of the United States in 2016, is completely unfit to hold the office on the basis of simply being a climate denier.  For this reason and a host of others, we couldn't agree more with Governor Brown. For the sack of some brevity, we'll just stick with climate change for today.

First, whether you believe climate change exists or not, the fact is that ice melt in the Arctic has set records this year, and with that fact here's a scientific fact that we all agree on - when ice melts it turns to water.  If you don't believe in climate change, then how about coastal change because that what's going to happen - that water has to go somewhere when all that ice melts.

Governor Brown mentioned extreme weather, which includes years-long drought that California is experiencing, as an effect of climate change, which shouldn't be confused with global warming.  We've pointed this out before, but it's worth reiterating and that is this:  when the climate changes in one region of the world other regions will be affected so when it gets warmer in the Arctic, it will become even wetter in tropical and coastal areas.  In the case of the East Coast of the United States, it is becoming wetter but the air remains cold hence the increase in snow fall.  However, one day decades from now the air will become warmer thus rain instead of snow.  So getting back to the case of California, it's dry and becoming worse. (And it will not get better before water is an emergency in the state.

If you're following Mr. Cruz's lead on this subject, we'll understate, being charitable, in saying their you're having an impairment of judgement.

Panel: John Stanton, Buzzfeed Washington Bureau; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Jane Harman, the Wilson Center

3.15.15: Congressional Killing of Time

Mr. Todd asked fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen the same question that he asked Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last week, and he was surprised that he got the same answer.  The question being who they feared more - Iran or ISIS, and both men answered Iran.  But the problem is not with the answer, it's with the question. 

Given Mr. Graham's track record of ill-advised foreign policy positions in the past, we'll still give him the benefit of the doubt here along with Admiral Mullen of course, that they are answering the question from a long-term strategic perspective, whereas the question is framed in terms of fear [of being attacked]. 

If you look at it that way, which seemed evident in Adm. Mullen's interview, then it makes perfect sense because the fact is that ISIS has too many enemies and Iran has too much influence. It's the expansion of that influence that prompts answers from these types of people.  Not too mention the other significant point that Andrea Mitchell brought up, which was the question of Iran's deliver systems and how advanced those are. So on a more macro level, their answers are well-founded because beside nuclear weapons ambitions, Iran wants the same oil influence in the world as Saudi Arabia has, which makes many vested parties more than uncomfortable - summed up by NBC's Bill Neely.  And lastly, Iran's position that Israel doesn't have the right to exist is completely unacceptable.  It has the right, it does exist - get over it and deal.  Maybe that seems trite, but if Iran only has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program then why the provocation?  And it's a continuing one, because Iran must know that before the first of anything hits the ground in Israel, the United States will have already dropped hundreds.  From the Iranian perspective, they play a dangerous foolish game, provoking the United States.

Tough talk... which should be delivered by the president, not by Congress in a sophomoric letter, in which it now has been established that neoconservative Bill Kristol consulted freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) on the idea.  Disappointingly and not surprisingly, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) has not second thoughts about signing it even given this week Senator John McCain admitting it wasn't thought out well unlike some of Mr. Kristol's other ideas like Sarah Palin for VP or the Iraq War.

And here's why Senator Tim Kane's (D-VA) co-sponsored bill that Congress must ratify any negotiated nuclear deal with Iran is a bad idea.  First, we want to point out that Senator Kane specifically said that the letter was "an unacceptable level of contempt of the office of the presidency," the very point we touched on in our last post.  In spirit, it's a good idea actually, but in practicality, a complete embarrassing disaster waiting to happen.  Keep in mind that the negotiations with Iran also involves the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, England, The United States, and France) and Germany.  If the bill languishes in Congress, which is likely - passing in the Senate and dead in the House where does that leave the deal?  The others go ahead and the U.S. is left out? We impose sanctions and no one else does while Iran continues on with it's nuclear program? If the bill does pass both Houses and the president vetoes it, then what? All this only to make the United States look fractured and indecisive - very problematic.

With what seems like a Congressional majority for the legislation that gives them a ratifying say in the matter, Congress is completely hands off when it comes to a formal authorization for the use of force against ISIS, which at least on the surface seems like there would be broad consensus, but instead just killing time.

Speaking of legislation and 'problematic,' how about Congress pass a law that limits the amount of times Congress can investigate an incident of government scale, like Benghazi.  Before Mr. Todd's interview with Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who heads up the Benghazi investigation.

The sixth one.

Now, fmr. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton clouded the issue with the personal e-mail controversy, but as Congressman Gowdy explain, she is but a very small part of the overall investigation.  He also said that his committee was the first one to interview Mrs. Clinton and several others.  This leads one to ask what the other committees that conducted investigations were doing.  Mrs. Clinton did testify in front of Congress so we'll presume he's differentiating between Congressional testimony and an interview.  It still makes no sense to do five investigations without interviewing all relevant officials.  Admiral Mullen was part of one of those investigations and he said on the program that he was completely comfortable with what his committee did and the conclusions they came to.  Mr. Gowdy's committee is doing work that should have already been done, what a waste.  And bringing it full circle, Mr. Todd mentioned that Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) wants an investigation into Mrs. Clinton's e-mails.  Not the most judicious use of time, wouldn't you agree?


Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Karen Finney, fmr. DNC Communications Director; Kevin Madden, fmr. senior advisor for Mitt Romney; Matt Bai, Yahoo News


A Note to the Producers:  On "Meet The Press," viewers, and the panel itself, are better served when it consists of only journalists, reporters, op-ed writers, et. al.  In other words the press, and not strategists.  The discussion of Mrs. Clinton's e-mails became a verbal joust between Kevin Madden and more egregiously Karen Finney (in Mrs. Clinton's defense), in which Mr. Todd has to shift from moderator to referee, which is inappropriate for "The Meet Press." That's for cable.

3.10.15: Seven Dwarfed By Forty-Seven Idiots

Forty-Seven Republican Idiots...

If you actually think that what these forty-seven Republicans Senator did in signing an ill-conceived letter written by freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) then you have no idea of how foreign policy should be conducted and the signal that this sends allies and adversaries alike.

Here are the seven still worthy of the office (the adults in the room):  Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  If he didn't think it was a good idea, then why would his forty-seven colleagues not heed that advice.

How did all of these supposedly experienced legislators with names like Hatch and McCain think this was a good idea?  We expect counterproductive legislators like Ted Cruz or James Inhofe to sign onto such stupidity.  But not the Republicans that have in fact shown some common sense like Rand Paul or Kelly Ayotte. 

Way to lead your Senate caucus Mr. McConnell...  Why don't you just thrown the gavel over your shoulder like a bouquet for anyone to catch.

And why are we so angry with this move? These Republican senators not only embarrassed themselves with this stunt, but all of us.  Secondly, not matter what these individuals think of the president, you do not disrespect the office of the presidency.  If you believe that the United States is an exceptional nation, for good or ill, you do not disrespect the lead office that is the face of our foreign policy.

Idiots...

And if you don't believe us that it was stupid and dangerous then read David Ignatius's (someone who is very critical of Mr. Obama's foreign policy) column in today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/10/gop-senators-letter-to-iran-is-dangerous-and-irresponsible/

Maybe you think it's farce... like how Dan Milbank describes Republicania, also from today's Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-set-up-their-own-breakaway-nation/2015/03/10/1618f6d4-c749-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html?hpid=z3

As idiotic and deplorable as this stunt was, we wouldn't go quite this far (but we love the provocation):

Wow, what's next?

3.8.15: Knowing Your Adversaries

“Embarrassing, humiliating and very arrogant” are the words that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) used to describe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress this past week.  Say what you will about that description, but there’s no doubt about another one of her comments, which was that no American ally would have done what he did.  Israel does enjoy a special relationship with the United States, that’s not at issue, but that the Prime Minister taking advantage of that to win re-election is deplorable.

However, in light of the above commentary, the one thing we agree with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on is that Iran is a much more dangerous adversary than ISIS.  That’s proven by the influence that Iran wields in the region – Shiites throughout the Middle East follow Iran’s lead.  Mr. Graham used to the term ‘enemy,’ which connotes that no negotiation or agreement can be reached.  Like Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Graham doesn’t want any agreement with Iran at all, but more severe sanctions and the use of military action always on the table.  Mr. Netanyahu seems to dictate the Republican view (with the exception of Senator Rand Paul who didn’t applaud enough… please) of Middle East policy.  The result of all this will be more instability in the region, which will then lead to more U.S. intervention, not less.

No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, of course, but what Senator Feinstein said about needing Russia and Iran’s help in ridding Syria of the Assad regime is true.  However, that’s simply not going to happen, and it leaves you with Chuck Todd’s question about who are really the U.S.’s Arab allies in the region who are able to fight ISIS and Assad. 

Here’s the problem for the United States: it’s fighting a strategy battle in the Middle East while almost everyone else is fighting a religious war.   What that means is that the U.S. needs to greatly strength its alliances with moderate strategic partners, Jordan and the Kurds to fight ISIS.  (This column has said before that the Kurds should have their own state  - the compromise being that the Kurds don’t get any present Turkish territory.  If this upsets Turkey, so be it.)  The religious war being fought by proxies for Iran and Saudi Arabia respectively cannot include the United States so it has to stop from getting sucked into those battles, which it hasn’t managed to do.

 

But here is what’s also really messed up (understating it), that Republican politicians in Washington will follow Mr. Netanyahu’s lead lock-step, but in Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich (R) committed suicide because of a whisper campaign that he was Jewish.   When conservative try to eviscerate the president for reminding people of the Christianity’s darker days of religious purity, they need to re-examine their collective righteousness because there a conservative political action committee (PAC) that wants religious purity in its candidates.  Senator Claire McCaskill who attended Mr. Schweich’s funeral this week stated that dark undisclosed money needs to be eliminated and that Congress should pass the Disclose Act to institute more transparency as to who is responsible for such messages.

Citizens United did put the final nail in the coffin of honesty or transparency in our politics, without a doubt.  For those who agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling to allow all this dark money in our politics don’t have the high-ground when it comes to Hilary Clinton and this e-mail scandal – that she was being illegally secretive.

 

When thinking about this, always keep in mind Amy Walter’s (from the “Cook Political Report”) notion that it is not at all about the e-mails.  It’s all about the narrative of Clinton secrecy.  Helping that along, Mr. Todd enforced the notion by saying that the Clintons follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Give us a break… What politician doesn’t do that?  To Mrs. Clinton’s defense, what she did is not without precedent (Colin Powell used private e-mail.) and she did not break the law.  However, did Mrs. Clinton not think that this could be problematic and just give Republicans more to dig through?   Even though the law wasn’t broken, you may with agree with Senator Feinstein that Mrs. Clinton should clarify and shed light on all this.  If so, then as The New York Times Jonathan Martin said, it must be before the announcement of her candidacy.  Then again, if she didn’t break the law, then what’s there to explain?

What’s funny about this is that we don’t blame Mrs. Clinton for setting up her own server for communication purposes while Secretary of State given how much more efficient the private sector is over government in trusting that it will work well.  When you think of it like that, it’s a good idea.  And if she did use the server for official business, has anyone just asked for access to the whole server, because that would be justified.   If she cannot do that, then you have to agree with Kathleen Parker that Mrs. Clinton has poor judgment or is hiding something.  Our feeling is that it’s a political story that the press ate right up, simply because it is about Hillary Clinton.  

 

And here’s another funny notion, slightly related.  Lindsey Graham in his interview today said that he never sends e-mail, doesn’t use it.  Mr. Graham may run for president but does he know that not using e-mail disqualifies him for the office.  Follow us here… You don’t use e-mail, which says to anyone under 35 that you are not tech savvy, don’t understand the internet or social media, and hence don’t understand American life today… why would that person vote for Lindsey Graham?  She or he wouldn’t. 

Panel: Jonathan Martin, The New York Times; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Manu Raju, Politico; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report  

A Note:  Yeah, sure… Obamacare is a disaster… that’s standard critical the line, but because of Obamacare the number of uninsured has decreased in every state, which disqualifies the law as a disaster.

Oh wait; we have our facts wrong.  The uninsured has not decreased in every state as Kansas is the only state that saw an increase of 4 percent.  Kansas’s political body completely opposes the law, didn’t use the federal money to expand Medicaid, and obviously didn’t set up its own exchange.  Way to go.

Program note: Good panel of journalists this week that was underutilized in only discussing presidential politics or Hillary Clinton, which is also presidential politics. 

3.1.15: Homeland Security and Immigration... and Stupidity

It's insultingly predictable that Republicans would blame the president for the current legislative mess that is now going on in Congress, which is what House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) did in his interview today.  To agree with him, you would align with Hugh Hewlitt’s description that the president has exceeded his constitutional questions authority by issuing executive orders on immigration laws. It is these executive orders that are hence causing the potential shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. (By the way, Congress managed to pass a bill keeping it open for another week.  Speaker Boehner couldn’t rally is party for a three-week extension). Because border security is an aspect of homeland security, which relates to the immigration debate, the Republicans decided to tie a Department of Homeland Security funding bills to the repeal of the president's executive orders on immigration.

Coun-ter Pro-duc-tive…

In addition to not having much success blaming the president for the current situation, Congressman McCarthy kept saying that Senator Harry Reid, the [now] minority leader, had to decide whether he wanted to work with Republicans, and if he did, then everything could move forward. Doesn’t Mr. McCarthy know that Mr. Reid is no longer the person in control of the Senate – that would be Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky who did the sensible thing and split the votes.

The Republicans in the House have a rule, which is that they will not vote on something unless there are a majority of Republicans in favor of it. Only concerning oneself with a majority of a partiality of the House body ensures that nothing will get done.  No longer can Republicans vote with Democrats on anything, making every single vote a controversial issue, when they certainly shouldn’t be. The Republicans chose to tie the funding for the Department of Homeland Security to these executive orders, but they didn’t need to be.  Is there a constitutional question about whether the Pres. overstepped his executive authority? Possibly. However, that should not affect the funding of a whole department, a vital one to the safety of American citizens at that.

It's like Republicans have made the issue of immigration into one like vaccinations, because of a few ideologues, they’re willing to put all of us at risk.

Politically, there is something worse for Republicans than being blamed for shutting down the Department of Homeland Security, and that would be any respect and trust people have in them to accomplish anything. If the Republicans spoke with one voice, giving sensible reasons for why they're denying this funding the Department of Homeland Security, then people would in fact listen and decide for themselves.  But now, we’re all just shaking our heads.

The Senate has taken a clean vote and a bill to fund the DHS, and they have also passed a bipartisan immigration bill that the House is yet to take up.  DHS funding should not wait, cannot wait.

Everyone on the panel conceded that whether the entire thing was triggered by the President or not, Republicans were the ones who were going to be blamed for any government shutdown due to their Congressional control. If not for anything else, the perception of Congress’s performance has gotten worse since the Republicans have taken over control of both Houses.

With regard to immigration at this point, Republicans have only blocked and obstructed legislation so now anything that they do loses more Latino votes. They've basically put themselves in a position where they can do no right in the eyes of Latinos when it comes to immigration reform before the motives will always be questioned.

If there is a constitutional question then Hugh Hewitt's suggestion was of the free common sense good one which was from the Department of Homeland Security and keep the injunction in place on Pres. Obama's executive orders because there is an injunction at this time handed down by a district judge.

This column agrees with the hard right in as much as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) being one of the main problems in the House, be it for different reasons. Our reason has to do with his inability to bring along the hard right in his own party. Mr. Boehner can't reason with them, then folds to their indefensible positions and saying things that are completely irrational, or just plain stupid.

This brings us to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s to a joint session of Congress this Tuesday.  Here’s our basic take on the Prime Minister – he’s a real horse's ass.   His family lived in Cheltenham, PA, a suburb of Philadelphia where he in fact graduated from Cheltenham High School so he would understand perfectly what we mean.  He’s got stubbornness that always gets in the way of being productive, and then grows to a point to where it's counter-productivity is feeding off of itself.

And that's what next week's speech is going to be. Hopefully, what will happen is is what former Sen. Joe Lieberman described inasmuch as the speech will be complementary to Pres. Obama while stating concerns about the Iranian, maybe even turning out to be graceful.  Were not confident in that happening again, but it’s not Mr. Netanyahu’s fault.

It’s Speaker John Boehner’s.  As a politician with an upcoming re-election bid, Mr. Netanyahu’s instinct for self-political-preservation is dictating everything, and an opportunity to get head and shoulders above his opponents with the optics of addressing a joint session are too tempting to resist. Speaker Boehner invited him and created a political mess that set a very bad precedent.   He disrespected the office of the President of the United States by acting disgracefully.

So atthis point, who cares who goes to the speech and who doesn't - everything that needs to be said has already been.  And as not to lose sight of what it's all about, the Prime Minister is going to say that the United States is making a bad deal with Iran on its nuclear program. But as Senator Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) pointed out, if not this deal what is the alternative? Going to war?

In his interview, potential presidential candidate, Ben Carson's answer for what should be done in the Middle East was completely ridiculous.  He said that he would give the military all authority to do what ever they deemed necessary to eradicate ISIS and also Shia extremists – otherwise known as the ‘kill them all’ policy?  

What he outlined was giving the military full authority to go to war, not only with ISIS, but Shia extremists as well.  Does that mean Hezbollah, which is funded by Iran? See where we’re going with this.  We respect the fact that Mr. Carson is perhaps the finest pediatric neurosurgeon alive, but his view on Middle East policy and engagement is downright idiotic.

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, “The Hugh Hewlitt Show;” Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post

And one more thing: Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich (R) committed suicide this week, apparently, in part, because there was a ‘whisper campaign’ against him for his family's Jewish heritage. In Chuck Todd's interview segment with St. Louis Post Dispatch Editor Tony Messenger, they didn’t specifically refer to the ‘whisper campaign’ as what it really was – anti-Semitism.  Instead, they talked about it in terms of the ‘politics of personal destruction.” Right, but our question is: How in the hell is a gubernatorial candidate in Missouri, U.S.A. in this day and age, being destructed by attacks on his family’s Jewish heritage.  If this does turn out to be the reason or plays a large role, that would lead us to our second question: why  aren’t federal investigators there getting to the bottom of this? 

And one more after that:  With the murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in Moscow on Friday, with the Kremlin as a backdrop no less, one can only think that there are even darker days on the horizon for Russians’ and their freedoms as they wander back into Mr. Putin’s totalitarian forest.