Once again we find ourselves void of an episode of Meet The Press unable to take politicians' and reporters' statements to task, but with pleasure we'll opine on the week's biggest topic, which is the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting data on all American citizens... or all of those with either a phone or internet identification.
First, The Guardian in the UK reported that the NSA was collecting phone data on American citizens; specifically the two interlocutors' phone numbers, their locations, and the duration of the call. Then later in the week, the Washington Post reported that the NSA had a program entitled 'Prism' that collected data through Google, Yahoo, Facebook, et. al. on individuals overseas but that there was also mining of data from people living in the United States - in other words, us.
These stories have sent politicians, pundits, reporters, and commentators of all sorts spinning in a number of directions - everyone is all over the map. First and foremost, President Obama spoke out in favor of the NSA program in the name of national security. Make no mistake - the President has to answer to this for the American people, but it is not an Obama Administration scandal but this one is on Congress. Most Senators and House Members are in favor of the program, as they should be, because they authorized such activities through the Patriot Act - remember the warrantless wiretapping. However, this issue has seen Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and political opposite Rand Paul (R-KY) sharing the same opinion on this unprecedented privacy intrusion.
Our question is: what did you expect?
It was only a matter of time before it went from convenient to annoying to offensive. Follow us here. When you lose your phone, you can go to your local Verizon store (for example) and replace the phone where they offer the 'great' service of being able to restore your contacts for you. What a relief, right? Well, they have all that information so those contacts were never really private. Or you're at your computer and you visit Zappos looking for a new pair of shoes, then you visit other sites and advertisements for shoes are following you all over the place courtesy of Google's metadata tracking so you only see advertisements for the products you're interested in; quite annoying actually. So if Google and Verizon (among others) have your information and your communication habits then are subpoenaed by the Federal Government, they will comply. There is no doubt.
Those in favor of the program say that it is in the name of national security that the NSA collects this data, but is it at the expense of individual insecurity? Not necessarily, but there is a rapidly redefining of what privacy is that's making everyone uncomfortable, as it should. With that said, just know, and most people do, that when you sign up to any social media-type platform, that's fair game for anyone to look at... like a blog.
However, with the collection of the phone data as outlined above, you would think to yourself that they might well just have listened to the call. E-mails? Same thing. And is it is now, there are only two ways to go - you either shut the whole thing down or you live with this new reality. Something tells us that we've already implicitly endorsed the latter. And the reason we have is because we understand that our safety is now threatened by people using these tools to communicate, organize and plan terrorist attacks from abroad, and from here inside the United States, though all that monitoring apparatus failed in detecting the perpetrators of the bombing in Boston. Go figure.
Any comfort of privacy will now have to taken in anonymity, an overlooked amongst the millions type of thinking. It's like walking down a really busy city street - midtown Sixth Avenue in New York City at lunch hour for example. Even if you've never been there, just imagine walking down a street where there are so many people that you're looking at everyone but remembering no one, and the reason is because everyone's just walking down the street. Well that's all of us when the NSA are combing through data - ninety-nine percent of us are doing the same thing so nothing stands out and we're not bothered.
But there's our existential dread... everyone doing the same thing to maintain anonymity isn't privacy, that's conformity.
Or in more practical terms, the same lawmakers who authorized all this NSA big-brother eyeballing have also created an economic state where ninety-eight percent of us are so concerned with making ends meet that we couldn't be bothered with all this Constitutionally questionable behavior and spy stuff. Ignorance is bliss.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Sunday, June 02, 2013
6.2.13: Sacrificing Eric Holder
The big question to start with this week is if Attorney General Eric Holder should be fired, should step down, should be charged with perjury... all of those things. Tom Brokaw said it would be tough for him to stay on, however; Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Mr. Holder has done nothing to prevent him from continuing his job. So which is it? The politics of all these 'scandals' has been quite predictable, typical, and hypocritical on both sides, particularly with the A.P. and I.R.S. happenings. Republicans are hardly mentioning Benghazi at this point and they should hold that course because they've beaten it to death and looked disingenuous in the process. They seem less interested in the real problem of funding security at our outposts and their lack of interest in questioning the CIA, particularly David Petraeus. For the others, opponents of the administration have a clear, easy target - the Attorney General.
We all know that the laws in terms of what an Attorney General can and can not do are so nuanced that negotiating them is a complicated kabooki dance in and of itself. Technically, Mr. Holder didn't perjure himself but there are contradictions in his statements - when he knew things. He recused himself from the investigation of Associated Press journalists about leaks, but as the Attorney General you have to know what's going on, not just that it is going on. We agree with Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) that the dragnet approach was overreach (seriously, not to be understated), and as we suggested in a prior column, you have to narrow the search to get the real facts.
With regard to the I.R.S. targeting scandal, Mr. Holder can not be trusted to investigate because of its partisan nature (right there should be a sign). Never mind the bigger problem of 'social welfare' organizations participating in politics and getting secret donations, which David Axelrod unsuccessfully tried to make the case for. The problem with listening to that argument is that no one has been held publicly responsible for this targeting so it rings hollow.
We view the A.P. scandal sort of the same way in which we view immigration. The onus is on the government. If someone wants to come to the United States for a better life, who are we to begrudge them that? For example, if conditions in this country were so bad that many people were thinking of immigrating to Germany to earn money, would you blame them? If the government decides that they don't want that to happen then it is their responsibility to protect the borders and make the process more humane. Same with leaks and the press, again the onus is on the government to keep these things secret and if they can not do that, you can not blame the press for reporting it. As we've said before, investigate those leaks from the inside. In both these examples, that doesn't excuse people from responsibility. Most undocumented immigrants aren't breaking all the other laws we have - let's think of the humanity of the situation. With regard to the press, they have to bear some responsibility that the information they publish could put lives in danger and it's a civic obligation that they inform authorities that they've come across this information. It's a critical balance that has to be managed well... by the Attorney General. For the most part, people have lost faith in Mr. Holder's ability to manage things properly.
[A note on Immigration: Senator Schumer said that he expected 70 votes in favor of the Gang of 8's bi-partisan immigration reform bill, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has stated that even though there will be wide consensus in the Senate, don't expect the same in the House as Republicans will block any reform. Just another example of why John Boehner is the worst House Speaker in the modern political era... Unbelievable.]
The comparisons made on today's program between Mr. Holder and Bush Administration Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez are superfluous with the exception that Presidents will always defend this particular appointee. The president will not 'sacrifice' him. Why? (And this is the rub with Eric Holder) Asking your chief law enforcement officer to step down is like a tacit admission of guilt that something was in fact illegally done and no administration, Democrat or Republican, is going to open up itself to that. Eric Holder is not going to step down - he's going to have to go head on into the storm and face it, despite what Congressman Rogers understandably described as a broader notion of a pattern of this kind of [misleading-type] activity. As David Axelrod referred it, Washington's 'favorite political blood sport of human sacrifice' will have to wait.
What always raises an eyebrow for us is when Mr. Rogers says that it undermines people's faith in government and its institutions. And to paraphrase Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), she said that people in her district feel betrayed. Really? Possibly Congressman Rogers less so, but Ms. Blackburn and Republicans in general have built their entire platform on how government is the problem, that it can not be trusted. So do they feel vindicated? Betrayed by some wasteful spending and targeting by the I.R.S.? Sure fine, but we feel betrayed by an administration that falsified evidence that got us into a war where over 4,000 service men and women died. How's that for a comparison?
Our general feeling is that politicians (people in the business of governing) who say that government is bad obviously are being disingenuous and don't have the best interest of all the American people at heart. If they did then they'd be able to recognize all the differences there are in this country and hence the necessity of compromise to move everyone forward.
One of the major negative consequences of these scandals is that we're not speaking about the things that are truly important to 73 percent of Americans, the economy and unemployment. Republican strategist Anna Navarro said that we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time so we should be able to talk about both, however Washington obviously hasn't shown that it can do that - to our collective detriment. And of course, Republicans will not heed Senator Schumer's warning today that they shouldn't focus on 'scandals' too much.
Unemployment is the grave problem in America that has to be addressed. And no - repealing Obamacare as Ms. Blackburn suggested is not the cure. The lack of investment in infrastructure building - 'critical' Jonathan Alter rightly described it - is undoing us. Rebuilding our past accomplishments and investing in research and development for our future (and we put education in the 'development' part of the latter) are the most important ways forward. Also, as Mr. Alter pointed out, Congressman Paul Ryan's budget slashes infrastructure spending, R&D and Education funding without cutting the military. Ask yourself, would you be more worried that we don't have enough planes at our airbase in Aviano, Italy or that the bridge you're driving over every day to work might collapse at any moment?
However, when President Obama discusses these important economic issues, he's just changing the subject. That's our politically rhetorical reality.
And speaking of reality, we didn't want to leave out the discussion of how 40.4 percent of households in this country now have the woman as the primary bread winner. When this study came out this week, there was much debate about whether or not this was a good thing. Anna Navarro said today that it should just be something that each couple (family) figures out for itself. Our take is that it is neither good or bad, it's just how it is (reality) and shouldn't be used as any impetus to put people down or bring others up. It is up to individual families to figure it out, at this point.
Congresswoman Blackburn said that in today's economy of ideas, women particularly excel, which is great, but the way she said it suggested that men were weaker at producing ideas, which to be fair is not the case. What she also said was that women should be recognized by companies for their exceptional skills, and we agree. Actually, President Obama wholeheartedly agreed as well signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which requires equal pay for women for equal work. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voted against that.
Round Table: former top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); author of the new book, “The Center Holds: Obama and his Enemies,” Jonathan Alter; Republican strategist Ana Navarro, and NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman.
We all know that the laws in terms of what an Attorney General can and can not do are so nuanced that negotiating them is a complicated kabooki dance in and of itself. Technically, Mr. Holder didn't perjure himself but there are contradictions in his statements - when he knew things. He recused himself from the investigation of Associated Press journalists about leaks, but as the Attorney General you have to know what's going on, not just that it is going on. We agree with Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) that the dragnet approach was overreach (seriously, not to be understated), and as we suggested in a prior column, you have to narrow the search to get the real facts.
With regard to the I.R.S. targeting scandal, Mr. Holder can not be trusted to investigate because of its partisan nature (right there should be a sign). Never mind the bigger problem of 'social welfare' organizations participating in politics and getting secret donations, which David Axelrod unsuccessfully tried to make the case for. The problem with listening to that argument is that no one has been held publicly responsible for this targeting so it rings hollow.
We view the A.P. scandal sort of the same way in which we view immigration. The onus is on the government. If someone wants to come to the United States for a better life, who are we to begrudge them that? For example, if conditions in this country were so bad that many people were thinking of immigrating to Germany to earn money, would you blame them? If the government decides that they don't want that to happen then it is their responsibility to protect the borders and make the process more humane. Same with leaks and the press, again the onus is on the government to keep these things secret and if they can not do that, you can not blame the press for reporting it. As we've said before, investigate those leaks from the inside. In both these examples, that doesn't excuse people from responsibility. Most undocumented immigrants aren't breaking all the other laws we have - let's think of the humanity of the situation. With regard to the press, they have to bear some responsibility that the information they publish could put lives in danger and it's a civic obligation that they inform authorities that they've come across this information. It's a critical balance that has to be managed well... by the Attorney General. For the most part, people have lost faith in Mr. Holder's ability to manage things properly.
[A note on Immigration: Senator Schumer said that he expected 70 votes in favor of the Gang of 8's bi-partisan immigration reform bill, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has stated that even though there will be wide consensus in the Senate, don't expect the same in the House as Republicans will block any reform. Just another example of why John Boehner is the worst House Speaker in the modern political era... Unbelievable.]
The comparisons made on today's program between Mr. Holder and Bush Administration Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez are superfluous with the exception that Presidents will always defend this particular appointee. The president will not 'sacrifice' him. Why? (And this is the rub with Eric Holder) Asking your chief law enforcement officer to step down is like a tacit admission of guilt that something was in fact illegally done and no administration, Democrat or Republican, is going to open up itself to that. Eric Holder is not going to step down - he's going to have to go head on into the storm and face it, despite what Congressman Rogers understandably described as a broader notion of a pattern of this kind of [misleading-type] activity. As David Axelrod referred it, Washington's 'favorite political blood sport of human sacrifice' will have to wait.
What always raises an eyebrow for us is when Mr. Rogers says that it undermines people's faith in government and its institutions. And to paraphrase Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), she said that people in her district feel betrayed. Really? Possibly Congressman Rogers less so, but Ms. Blackburn and Republicans in general have built their entire platform on how government is the problem, that it can not be trusted. So do they feel vindicated? Betrayed by some wasteful spending and targeting by the I.R.S.? Sure fine, but we feel betrayed by an administration that falsified evidence that got us into a war where over 4,000 service men and women died. How's that for a comparison?
Our general feeling is that politicians (people in the business of governing) who say that government is bad obviously are being disingenuous and don't have the best interest of all the American people at heart. If they did then they'd be able to recognize all the differences there are in this country and hence the necessity of compromise to move everyone forward.
One of the major negative consequences of these scandals is that we're not speaking about the things that are truly important to 73 percent of Americans, the economy and unemployment. Republican strategist Anna Navarro said that we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time so we should be able to talk about both, however Washington obviously hasn't shown that it can do that - to our collective detriment. And of course, Republicans will not heed Senator Schumer's warning today that they shouldn't focus on 'scandals' too much.
Unemployment is the grave problem in America that has to be addressed. And no - repealing Obamacare as Ms. Blackburn suggested is not the cure. The lack of investment in infrastructure building - 'critical' Jonathan Alter rightly described it - is undoing us. Rebuilding our past accomplishments and investing in research and development for our future (and we put education in the 'development' part of the latter) are the most important ways forward. Also, as Mr. Alter pointed out, Congressman Paul Ryan's budget slashes infrastructure spending, R&D and Education funding without cutting the military. Ask yourself, would you be more worried that we don't have enough planes at our airbase in Aviano, Italy or that the bridge you're driving over every day to work might collapse at any moment?
However, when President Obama discusses these important economic issues, he's just changing the subject. That's our politically rhetorical reality.
And speaking of reality, we didn't want to leave out the discussion of how 40.4 percent of households in this country now have the woman as the primary bread winner. When this study came out this week, there was much debate about whether or not this was a good thing. Anna Navarro said today that it should just be something that each couple (family) figures out for itself. Our take is that it is neither good or bad, it's just how it is (reality) and shouldn't be used as any impetus to put people down or bring others up. It is up to individual families to figure it out, at this point.
Congresswoman Blackburn said that in today's economy of ideas, women particularly excel, which is great, but the way she said it suggested that men were weaker at producing ideas, which to be fair is not the case. What she also said was that women should be recognized by companies for their exceptional skills, and we agree. Actually, President Obama wholeheartedly agreed as well signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which requires equal pay for women for equal work. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voted against that.
Round Table: former top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); author of the new book, “The Center Holds: Obama and his Enemies,” Jonathan Alter; Republican strategist Ana Navarro, and NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
5.26.13: Our Soldiers - Recognized and Unrecognized
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.
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 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.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
4.28.13: The Syrian Red Line
Senate Armed Services Committee member John McCain (R-AZ) assessed that the implied meaning of creating a red line with regard to the Assad Regime in Syria using chemical weapons was a green light to do anything up to that. That's catchy, but a bit off the mark. The atrocities committed by the Bashar Assad government have not gone unnoticed, but there is an weariness in this country to become the prime player in a Syrian intervention. There is a little merit in what the Senator said if you interpret it this way, which is that we think the Obama Administration would like to handle Syria like Libya with the 'leading from behind' strategy. [That's not to imply that leading-from-behind is a bad strategy. Generals always stand in the back; just now it's the United States acting as the general and the troops are other countries...] However, that's not going to work with Syria because of several factors.
Chuck Todd provided a key fact that the Arab League has not supported the ouster of the Assad Regime. The feeling there is that if they had the choice between orderly oppression or failed state freedom, the Arab League would choose the former and that is something they feel the Assad Regime provides - order that doesn't given their own populations any ideas. What also factors into their non-decision is that Iran didn't care about Libya but they care about Syria, their trading partner and conduit to Lebanon. In addition to Russia being a cagey partner in all this, there is the huge problem the usage of chemical weapons, which brings us back to the red line.
It's in the right place because WMDs have consequences beyond politically designed borders, however the Obama Administration has to own this rigid stance. They have been reluctant to do so and that's why verifying the use of Sarin gas, as it's presumed to be, will not come quickly if the Administration has anything to say about it, and John McCain did admit that it wasn't an airtight case even though the Israelis and Brits are pretty convinced. It's something that we, as American citizens, need to be 100% sure of before we do anything because that's the mentality of the country now, no more combat based on inaccurate information.
For Senator McCain, he just wants to be proven right, in that we should have done what he's been suggesting all along, as he reminded us today, of arming the rebels, creating a no-fly zone, deploying patriot missiles, and help the 2,500 refugees pouring into Jordan everyday. He said that we could do this without putting any boots on the ground but that's ridiculous. In fact, he stated that it was the worst thing we could do. Think about it... whose going to enforce a no-fly zone whether by plane or missile? Our troops... on the ground. Now, we get it, what he specifically means is that U.S. troops would not be in-country in Syria. However, if you suggest that a UN force needs to go into Syria to secure chemical weapons, you have to step up and say that U.S. troops have to be included. We can not have it both ways, but we can get it both ways.
For example, what's most troubling is when you hear Senator McCain tell the story of how innocent Syrian civilians are going to blame the United States and take revenge on us for not doing anything, 'sick and bitter' he described them. Yet, if we were to become involved militarily, inevitably (sick to say) we'll inadvertently kill civilians in an airstrike and then they'll hate us for that. That's what you would call a classic no win.
We'll get to Bush's Library dedication and legacy more in a few moments, but maybe this is part of it. The world now expects us, more than ever, to get involved in every militarized crisis or they will call us on our empty freedom rhetoric. Karen Hughes, a Bush senior adviser, reinforced that notion on today's program saying that the world was waiting for us to act, and that if we don't get directly involved in Syria that we're not leading.
The exhaustive nature of that responsibility is certainly wearing on the American people and it affects our economy at home, which makes it even more difficult to justify. That leaves us with arming the rebels, which could potentially restart the cycle once again. The lessons of 9-11 are rooted in the arming of Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980's, one of which was named Osama Bin Laden. As Mike Murphy assessed, 'Good guys might be hard to find' in Syria. Seems a little far-fetched, but is it? Congressman Peter King (R-NY) said that the rebels were, to a degree, under the influence of Al Qaeda; he implied with his tone that it's 'most' of the rebels but that is not the case. But, he seems to think it's within the realm of possibility.
The twisted ideology created by Bin Laden, after getting his start through us, touched down again in Boston. Let it be said that Osama Bin Laden done far more harm to Islam than good, in fact no good because he cemented a false association between Islam and extreme violence. Exhibit 'A' is Congressman King sitting next to his Congressional colleague, Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, and saying that the Muslim community is the problem, with Mr. Ellison trying to reason him away from that to no avail. And Mr. King does have it wrong. Two words - Timothy McVeigh. Instead of targeting, hence alienating, the Muslim community, public officials and lawyer enforcement should work with the community and build more trust. That's how the recent terror suspects in Canada were apprehended - someone from the community, an Imam, alerted the authorities. Mr. King said that we can not be taken over by political correctness, but by the same token we can not be taken over by bigotry and hatred. And it has to be noted that the last thing that Congressman King said today was that work of FBI to follow up on initial leads and any subsequent investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev was an 'absolute failure,' a very significant assertion that I'm sure we'll be discussing more in future columns.
They did mention that the mother is under investigation as she may be the one responsible for radicalizing her two sons. That speaks to such self-hatred, the kind so intense that someone is willing to essentially sacrifice her own offspring. The successful end result of all this is the 'perversion of Islam' as Tony Blair called it.
We could go on, but that brings us to a key historical figure in all of this, President George W. Bush, whose library was dedicated this week at Southern Methodist University and whose legacy is once again being debated. Mike Murphy said that there were a lot of little mistakes, but that he got the big decisions right. We'd amend that to say that he made a lot of little mistakes that lead to the wrong decisions in big moments. Instead of going on ad nauseam about a legacy that 'history hasn't finished writing yet' we'll just make these few observations.
During the dedication of the library where five living presidents spoke, there was not one mention of the Iraq War, and as David Gregory pointed out, the Iraq War is exhibited in the library only as a part of the larger war on terror. That does a distinct disservice to all the U.S. service personnel who fought and died there. We're still deeply involved in foreign combat that Mr. Bush initiated, and for here at home... You know the story... Upon his leaving office, the economy collapsed creating the worst crisis since the Great Depression. That accounts for a lot, wouldn't you agree?
When commentators, reporters, and presidents say that if you know George Bush personally, it's impossible not to like him. We don't doubt it. If all those people say he's a man of compassion (think: immigration reform) and integrity (combating HIV/AIDS in Africa) then we take their word for it because they would know. What we know is that the same can not be said for construction crew that built that library: Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, Henry Paulson, Alberto Gonzalez, Condoleeza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz to name a few.
Round Table: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), GOP strategist Mike Murphy, NBC’s Chuck Todd, and former counselor to the president, once described as “the most influential woman ever to serve an American president, Karen Hughes.
Additional Guests: Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who serves on both the intelligence and homeland security committees in the House, and Minnesota Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison.
Aside: We thought the White House Correspondents Dinner last night was entertaining. (Conan was good but there was something odd about his delivery from the podium that struck us as not so funny.) The only issue we had was with the Twitter hashtag 'nerdprom.' Really? If anything the hash tag should have been 'command and control.' The most powerful people in government, media, business, and entertainment all in one room is not a 'nerd prom.' Give us a break...
For the record, the definition of a nerd rests somewhere within the context of sitting at home on a Saturday night watching CSPAN online.
Chuck Todd provided a key fact that the Arab League has not supported the ouster of the Assad Regime. The feeling there is that if they had the choice between orderly oppression or failed state freedom, the Arab League would choose the former and that is something they feel the Assad Regime provides - order that doesn't given their own populations any ideas. What also factors into their non-decision is that Iran didn't care about Libya but they care about Syria, their trading partner and conduit to Lebanon. In addition to Russia being a cagey partner in all this, there is the huge problem the usage of chemical weapons, which brings us back to the red line.
It's in the right place because WMDs have consequences beyond politically designed borders, however the Obama Administration has to own this rigid stance. They have been reluctant to do so and that's why verifying the use of Sarin gas, as it's presumed to be, will not come quickly if the Administration has anything to say about it, and John McCain did admit that it wasn't an airtight case even though the Israelis and Brits are pretty convinced. It's something that we, as American citizens, need to be 100% sure of before we do anything because that's the mentality of the country now, no more combat based on inaccurate information.
For Senator McCain, he just wants to be proven right, in that we should have done what he's been suggesting all along, as he reminded us today, of arming the rebels, creating a no-fly zone, deploying patriot missiles, and help the 2,500 refugees pouring into Jordan everyday. He said that we could do this without putting any boots on the ground but that's ridiculous. In fact, he stated that it was the worst thing we could do. Think about it... whose going to enforce a no-fly zone whether by plane or missile? Our troops... on the ground. Now, we get it, what he specifically means is that U.S. troops would not be in-country in Syria. However, if you suggest that a UN force needs to go into Syria to secure chemical weapons, you have to step up and say that U.S. troops have to be included. We can not have it both ways, but we can get it both ways.
For example, what's most troubling is when you hear Senator McCain tell the story of how innocent Syrian civilians are going to blame the United States and take revenge on us for not doing anything, 'sick and bitter' he described them. Yet, if we were to become involved militarily, inevitably (sick to say) we'll inadvertently kill civilians in an airstrike and then they'll hate us for that. That's what you would call a classic no win.
We'll get to Bush's Library dedication and legacy more in a few moments, but maybe this is part of it. The world now expects us, more than ever, to get involved in every militarized crisis or they will call us on our empty freedom rhetoric. Karen Hughes, a Bush senior adviser, reinforced that notion on today's program saying that the world was waiting for us to act, and that if we don't get directly involved in Syria that we're not leading.
The exhaustive nature of that responsibility is certainly wearing on the American people and it affects our economy at home, which makes it even more difficult to justify. That leaves us with arming the rebels, which could potentially restart the cycle once again. The lessons of 9-11 are rooted in the arming of Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980's, one of which was named Osama Bin Laden. As Mike Murphy assessed, 'Good guys might be hard to find' in Syria. Seems a little far-fetched, but is it? Congressman Peter King (R-NY) said that the rebels were, to a degree, under the influence of Al Qaeda; he implied with his tone that it's 'most' of the rebels but that is not the case. But, he seems to think it's within the realm of possibility.
The twisted ideology created by Bin Laden, after getting his start through us, touched down again in Boston. Let it be said that Osama Bin Laden done far more harm to Islam than good, in fact no good because he cemented a false association between Islam and extreme violence. Exhibit 'A' is Congressman King sitting next to his Congressional colleague, Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, and saying that the Muslim community is the problem, with Mr. Ellison trying to reason him away from that to no avail. And Mr. King does have it wrong. Two words - Timothy McVeigh. Instead of targeting, hence alienating, the Muslim community, public officials and lawyer enforcement should work with the community and build more trust. That's how the recent terror suspects in Canada were apprehended - someone from the community, an Imam, alerted the authorities. Mr. King said that we can not be taken over by political correctness, but by the same token we can not be taken over by bigotry and hatred. And it has to be noted that the last thing that Congressman King said today was that work of FBI to follow up on initial leads and any subsequent investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev was an 'absolute failure,' a very significant assertion that I'm sure we'll be discussing more in future columns.
They did mention that the mother is under investigation as she may be the one responsible for radicalizing her two sons. That speaks to such self-hatred, the kind so intense that someone is willing to essentially sacrifice her own offspring. The successful end result of all this is the 'perversion of Islam' as Tony Blair called it.
We could go on, but that brings us to a key historical figure in all of this, President George W. Bush, whose library was dedicated this week at Southern Methodist University and whose legacy is once again being debated. Mike Murphy said that there were a lot of little mistakes, but that he got the big decisions right. We'd amend that to say that he made a lot of little mistakes that lead to the wrong decisions in big moments. Instead of going on ad nauseam about a legacy that 'history hasn't finished writing yet' we'll just make these few observations.
During the dedication of the library where five living presidents spoke, there was not one mention of the Iraq War, and as David Gregory pointed out, the Iraq War is exhibited in the library only as a part of the larger war on terror. That does a distinct disservice to all the U.S. service personnel who fought and died there. We're still deeply involved in foreign combat that Mr. Bush initiated, and for here at home... You know the story... Upon his leaving office, the economy collapsed creating the worst crisis since the Great Depression. That accounts for a lot, wouldn't you agree?
When commentators, reporters, and presidents say that if you know George Bush personally, it's impossible not to like him. We don't doubt it. If all those people say he's a man of compassion (think: immigration reform) and integrity (combating HIV/AIDS in Africa) then we take their word for it because they would know. What we know is that the same can not be said for construction crew that built that library: Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, Henry Paulson, Alberto Gonzalez, Condoleeza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz to name a few.
Round Table: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), GOP strategist Mike Murphy, NBC’s Chuck Todd, and former counselor to the president, once described as “the most influential woman ever to serve an American president, Karen Hughes.
Additional Guests: Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who serves on both the intelligence and homeland security committees in the House, and Minnesota Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison.
Aside: We thought the White House Correspondents Dinner last night was entertaining. (Conan was good but there was something odd about his delivery from the podium that struck us as not so funny.) The only issue we had was with the Twitter hashtag 'nerdprom.' Really? If anything the hash tag should have been 'command and control.' The most powerful people in government, media, business, and entertainment all in one room is not a 'nerd prom.' Give us a break...
For the record, the definition of a nerd rests somewhere within the context of sitting at home on a Saturday night watching CSPAN online.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
4.21.13: One Week in America
One week in America can seem like a long time, can it not? First and foremost, it should be noted that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said he was not concerned with any other imminent threat to the area, which he wouldn't have said if it weren't the case. A relief to say the least. Mr. Patrick has been steady throughout the crisis and knew when to get out of the way, commending the agencies and letting them do their work, "building the case from the facts up," he said. His checked ego is the kind of leadership that was needed and which the city of Boston received. The governor also mentioned how well the various agencies worked together and if you watched the coverage, you would certainly get that impression. It really indicated that we have in fact learned our lessons from past experience.
Past experience has also shown us that we need to be patient in getting all the answers to the infinite amount of questions as to why these two young men, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarvaev, allegedly (with 99% certainty) did this. The reason we phrase it that way is because David Gregory asked the question of the public officials on today's program, getting them on record, as to whether they believed that Dzhokhar Tsarvaev should be tried as a civilian in a municipal court or as an enemy combatant through a military tribunal. This is an important decision on how we get those answers.
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), along with Liz Cheney for example, are now calling for the military tribunal, which we'll go on record as saying is completely misguided. Their judgement needs to be questioned anyhow for reasons we'll obviously get to later. One the other hand, maybe Governor Patrick deferred a little too much when he answered the question by saying that he'd let the Attorney General, Eric Holder, make that call though pointing out the man's American citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated he was for a civilian trial - for the record. All the ugly details of the 'why' need to be vetted in the open and the American people will not get that with a military tribunal where much of the testimony could be deemed classified. If we tried this individual in a military tribunal, it would go against who we are as Americans. And are these tribunal advocates afraid that the civilian courts may trip up and let him go free on some technicality? Please. We can not understate the importance of representatives of the community, his peers, looking him in the face as the facts come out. That's Americanism.
Tragically, these killers rejected that concept and the actual freedom that this country provided for them, which leads us to the discussion of the 'radicalization' of these young men. We'll learn more about this in the coming months, but we do have a little bit of back story to share from today's program. First, Governor Patrick described the video tape of the younger brother calmly watching the first bombing then dropping his backpack as chilling. But then he told us Tsarnaev was seen at the UMass-Dartmouth campus the next day - simply frightening. NBC's Pete Williams, the consensus sole best source for accurate information on the Boston bombing, reported that the father said that the now-deceased son, Tamerlan, was visiting him in Russia. (From what we've read and heard about the father, he would be considered what you'd call an uncooperative or hostile witness.)
However, we also know that the FBI, on what Congressman Rogers called information about this individual's radicalization from a 'foreign service,' interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to this visit. The news that Mr. Rogers made for us was that the FBI could not follow up after the initial interview because said 'foreign service' stopped cooperating with us so the case was close. One can only deduce that this 'foreign service' was Russia. So when Congressman Rogers, who was an FBI agent, defends the agency, ultimately it's legitimate because the FBI as an agency can only go so far investigating an American citizen as former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff pointed out. With that said, it sounds as though from that point, frankly, the FBI would have (should have) handed it over to the N.S.A. Mr. Chernoff also explained that the security strategies that were put in place after September 11, 2001 have worked prior to and during this event and would not need to be majorly adjusted, which is reassuring to an extent. He also said that they have been prepared for something like this for some time as numerous past attempts have illustrated.
We'll all have to be prepared from now on. We can no longer afford to have the 'not until it happens to me' mentality to understand and hopefully prevent such events going forward.
It's easy to point fingers of course or take passive aggressive pot shots like the one from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who said that our security efforts had become complacent. However, that kind of finger pointing is going in the wrong direction and the only way it should be toward is the perpetrators.
Mr. Gregory properly steered today's discussion away from too much speculation as to the motivations of these individuals. Only time will tell and we have to 'respect the process,' as Governor Patrick phrased it. However, in considering the evident radicalization of Tamerlan Tsarnaev given his documented trip to Russia, it is important to note the causes of ongoing Islamic rage toward the United States as NBC's Tom Brokaw did. And if that rage is focused through the lens at the end of a smart bomb from a predator drone, then what we saw transpire in Boston this week will sadly repeat itself in another American city.
This leaves us with the political implications that will come into play. When Mr. Greogory asked Senator Durbin about how Boston may affect Immigration Reform for instance, he responded by saying that if Congress does nothing, holding up the bill because of this week's events, we'll be less safe. There is no reason not to move forward on the bill. To the larger political point, it's ironic that some of our public officials, who tell Americans not to live in fear, cast votes that reek of it. Unfortunately, Monday wasn't the only sad day we experienced.
Wednesday, the Senate voted down a bill that would have required expanded background checks for gun purchases, something the ninety percent of the American people support. Why? Out of fear that they would face a primary and possibly loss re-election if they voted in opposition of an NRA-led effort to impede additional gun-safety measures, the bill went down in defeat. The families of Newtown, Connecticut looked on as 46 senators, one by one, let them and parents around the country down. The president described it as a 'shameful day' in America. With acts of bravery being illustrated moment to moment on television from within a major America city, our U.S. Senate was blind to the example and acted cowardly.
Columnist Peggy Noonan gave a nuanced [read: vague] answer as to why the Senate acts the way it does. As is her way, she blamed the president for the failures of that chamber saying that he did not have command of the levers of power. But slightly out of character, presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin was having none of it, calling out the monied interests that rule the chamber at present and the 60-vote threshold that is required to pass legislation. [The filibuster rule in the Senator is in desperate need of reformation.] Will these spineless Senators reconsider their votes if it is found out that the Boston perpetrators bought guns illegally or without a background check? We would seriously doubt it. (There's a little bit of speculation.)
Like we said, it was a long week for America (that will not end any time soon) topped off with a fertilizer plant exploding in West, Texas claiming 14 dead so far, scores of people injured, and part of an entire community decimated. The regretful commentary that instantly comes to mind is about how safety precautions were probably not taken and regulations not followed, but we hope that's not the case. We witnessed too much actual terror, fear, death, and destruction play out this week, even for a country said to be anesthetized to it. The American people will have to lead our Congress in opening up the conversation about these root causes to make changes. It can not wait anymore. We're exhausted.
In the meantime, the thought to try to keep in mind is of the people in great city of Boston. On a day where they were celebrating our country's original act of patriotism, they showed us through bravery, selflessness, community, and togetherness what that idea is all about.
Round Table: Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff; The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg; NBC's Tom Brokaw; historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan.
Past experience has also shown us that we need to be patient in getting all the answers to the infinite amount of questions as to why these two young men, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarvaev, allegedly (with 99% certainty) did this. The reason we phrase it that way is because David Gregory asked the question of the public officials on today's program, getting them on record, as to whether they believed that Dzhokhar Tsarvaev should be tried as a civilian in a municipal court or as an enemy combatant through a military tribunal. This is an important decision on how we get those answers.
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), along with Liz Cheney for example, are now calling for the military tribunal, which we'll go on record as saying is completely misguided. Their judgement needs to be questioned anyhow for reasons we'll obviously get to later. One the other hand, maybe Governor Patrick deferred a little too much when he answered the question by saying that he'd let the Attorney General, Eric Holder, make that call though pointing out the man's American citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated he was for a civilian trial - for the record. All the ugly details of the 'why' need to be vetted in the open and the American people will not get that with a military tribunal where much of the testimony could be deemed classified. If we tried this individual in a military tribunal, it would go against who we are as Americans. And are these tribunal advocates afraid that the civilian courts may trip up and let him go free on some technicality? Please. We can not understate the importance of representatives of the community, his peers, looking him in the face as the facts come out. That's Americanism.
Tragically, these killers rejected that concept and the actual freedom that this country provided for them, which leads us to the discussion of the 'radicalization' of these young men. We'll learn more about this in the coming months, but we do have a little bit of back story to share from today's program. First, Governor Patrick described the video tape of the younger brother calmly watching the first bombing then dropping his backpack as chilling. But then he told us Tsarnaev was seen at the UMass-Dartmouth campus the next day - simply frightening. NBC's Pete Williams, the consensus sole best source for accurate information on the Boston bombing, reported that the father said that the now-deceased son, Tamerlan, was visiting him in Russia. (From what we've read and heard about the father, he would be considered what you'd call an uncooperative or hostile witness.)
However, we also know that the FBI, on what Congressman Rogers called information about this individual's radicalization from a 'foreign service,' interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to this visit. The news that Mr. Rogers made for us was that the FBI could not follow up after the initial interview because said 'foreign service' stopped cooperating with us so the case was close. One can only deduce that this 'foreign service' was Russia. So when Congressman Rogers, who was an FBI agent, defends the agency, ultimately it's legitimate because the FBI as an agency can only go so far investigating an American citizen as former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff pointed out. With that said, it sounds as though from that point, frankly, the FBI would have (should have) handed it over to the N.S.A. Mr. Chernoff also explained that the security strategies that were put in place after September 11, 2001 have worked prior to and during this event and would not need to be majorly adjusted, which is reassuring to an extent. He also said that they have been prepared for something like this for some time as numerous past attempts have illustrated.
We'll all have to be prepared from now on. We can no longer afford to have the 'not until it happens to me' mentality to understand and hopefully prevent such events going forward.
It's easy to point fingers of course or take passive aggressive pot shots like the one from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who said that our security efforts had become complacent. However, that kind of finger pointing is going in the wrong direction and the only way it should be toward is the perpetrators.
Mr. Gregory properly steered today's discussion away from too much speculation as to the motivations of these individuals. Only time will tell and we have to 'respect the process,' as Governor Patrick phrased it. However, in considering the evident radicalization of Tamerlan Tsarnaev given his documented trip to Russia, it is important to note the causes of ongoing Islamic rage toward the United States as NBC's Tom Brokaw did. And if that rage is focused through the lens at the end of a smart bomb from a predator drone, then what we saw transpire in Boston this week will sadly repeat itself in another American city.
This leaves us with the political implications that will come into play. When Mr. Greogory asked Senator Durbin about how Boston may affect Immigration Reform for instance, he responded by saying that if Congress does nothing, holding up the bill because of this week's events, we'll be less safe. There is no reason not to move forward on the bill. To the larger political point, it's ironic that some of our public officials, who tell Americans not to live in fear, cast votes that reek of it. Unfortunately, Monday wasn't the only sad day we experienced.
Wednesday, the Senate voted down a bill that would have required expanded background checks for gun purchases, something the ninety percent of the American people support. Why? Out of fear that they would face a primary and possibly loss re-election if they voted in opposition of an NRA-led effort to impede additional gun-safety measures, the bill went down in defeat. The families of Newtown, Connecticut looked on as 46 senators, one by one, let them and parents around the country down. The president described it as a 'shameful day' in America. With acts of bravery being illustrated moment to moment on television from within a major America city, our U.S. Senate was blind to the example and acted cowardly.
Columnist Peggy Noonan gave a nuanced [read: vague] answer as to why the Senate acts the way it does. As is her way, she blamed the president for the failures of that chamber saying that he did not have command of the levers of power. But slightly out of character, presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin was having none of it, calling out the monied interests that rule the chamber at present and the 60-vote threshold that is required to pass legislation. [The filibuster rule in the Senator is in desperate need of reformation.] Will these spineless Senators reconsider their votes if it is found out that the Boston perpetrators bought guns illegally or without a background check? We would seriously doubt it. (There's a little bit of speculation.)
Like we said, it was a long week for America (that will not end any time soon) topped off with a fertilizer plant exploding in West, Texas claiming 14 dead so far, scores of people injured, and part of an entire community decimated. The regretful commentary that instantly comes to mind is about how safety precautions were probably not taken and regulations not followed, but we hope that's not the case. We witnessed too much actual terror, fear, death, and destruction play out this week, even for a country said to be anesthetized to it. The American people will have to lead our Congress in opening up the conversation about these root causes to make changes. It can not wait anymore. We're exhausted.
In the meantime, the thought to try to keep in mind is of the people in great city of Boston. On a day where they were celebrating our country's original act of patriotism, they showed us through bravery, selflessness, community, and togetherness what that idea is all about.
Round Table: Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff; The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg; NBC's Tom Brokaw; historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
4.14.13: Defining Heroes - Senator Marco Rubio Interview
The political media noted this week that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) would be making the rounds on seven talk shows this week to discuss immigration reform. Well, we don't know what he said on all those others shows but what he said today on Meet The Press today was actually quite startling. First, he said that once the bill is finished being drafted, he'll be able to speak more about the details so we're not getting anything there. However, in the meantime, David Gregory pressed him on a statement the Senator made in the past, which was that if you had come here illegally, but want legal status you'll have to leave the country and then come back. Mr. Rubio backed away from that explaining that immigrants without legal status could stay here but they would have to pay many penalties and fines, along with additional costs to obtain applications for legal status then wait 10 years or so. He summed it up by saying that it was probably cheaper for some one to leave then try to come back than it was to stay here.
Huh? So what he is proposing is that we're going to make it so financially hard on someone to accomplish his citizenship goal that he'll just have to leave? That sounds like you're pushing for self-deportation to us. Where is the compassion or responsibility or principle in that?
Not to mention that his statement doesn't consider a motivation beyond monetary to come here and that is to escape persecution in the country of origin. We may get a little flack for this, but you know who all of this doesn't affect? Cubans. Because of our relations (or lack thereof) with that country, Cubans defect or seek political asylum, they don't go through the immigration system like everyone else. We're not saying that it is wrong to do that given the oppression in Cuba, but other large groups of immigrants, Mexicans for example, can not claim that. Although considering the violent narco-state that is Mexico now, they should be able to.
People immigrate to the United States for a better life, something we all concede because it's true. By extension, one could reason that Mexican immigrants bring their kids here for a better life, but infants are not aware of their circumstances so why not afford those children the Dream Act opportunity? We're kind of big on this here at The Opinion because if you are someone who has been here for most all your life then you're willing to fight and die for this country or become indebted to us by successfully graduating from college then you've earned your citizenship. We'd even go one step further... If you're kid successfully navigates the already daunting steps of the Dream Act, then the parents should be able to apply for citizenship, keeping the family together. However, Republicans view the Dream Act as a pathway to citizenship, which they say is amnesty, which is hence a deal breaker - as Mr. Rubio noted.
New York Times columnist David Brooks had the nerve to say that Marco Rubio was a hero for his efforts on immigration, 'standing up' to his party. 'Acts of heroism' he called them. On a day where they featured Rachel Robinson, wife of a real American hero Jackie Robinson, you put Marco Rubio in the same category? Give us a break. Mr. Rubio said that he doesn't get paid to make speeches but to solve problems. Well, he should tell that to his Senate colleague Mike Lee (R-UT) who said that he wanted a step-by-step approach to immigration where we address boarder security first and then look for other points of reform. As of this writing, boarder security in the United States has never been stricter, we have a net-zero amount on illegal crossings, and President Obama in his first four years has deported more individuals than George Bush did in his two terms so it's time to move on the rest.
And speaking of getting paid to solve problems, how does that work when you are the problem as Mr. Rubio is on gun safety legislation with his unsuccessful threat to filibuster even debating the issue? In addition to that, Mr. Rubio said that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right that he didn't write, hence he can not change it. We rarely do this but we're going to reference the Founding Fathers in that they called these points of the Constitution amendments for a reason... so that they could be amended, meaning changed. Today's political delusion is that the 'sacred' Constitution can not be changed so we'll get away from that because it's a fruitless discussion.
More in the parlance of our time, Mr. Rubio said that violence in our society is the problem and not guns. What is left out of that equation is that guns perpetuate the violence. Mr. Lee stated that the Manchin-Toomey Bill infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens because of expanding background checks to say gun shows. We just don't understand how that is more of an infringement than a simply safety measure. Also, if the gun laws we have right now are ineffective as Mr. Rubio said, isn't that reason enough to try to make them more effective. We do owe it to the families of Newtown and all the other American families that have fallen victim to such tragedies to do something, no block the process with a filibuster. There's no heroism in that.
We agree with everything Ken Burns said about Jackie Robinson and his mountainous significance in American history. Mrs. Robinson explained that her husband understood the responsibility heaped upon him, which she said made him act and speak carefully with patience, and always with dignity. And after an illustrious baseball career that saw him and his family under constant threat, when Jackie Robinson was asked by Lawrence Spivak on this very program in 1957 about patience with regard to equal rights, he calmly, heroically answered that the Civil War had been over for 93 years, and that "If that isn't patience I don't know what is."
Mrs. Robinson also said that she hoped that many people would go and see the film '42' about her late husband opening this weekend so that they would have perspective on history to make comparisons between then and now. Like the difference between then and now on how we define a hero.
One last thing... We were pretty hard on Senator Rubio today and we make no apologies for that, but we also wanted to point out something we agree with him on. Mr. Rubio said that Che Guevara was a murderer and a killer, and he is correct in that assessment. Che did great things but great doesn't always mean good. If you read Jon Lee Anderson's definitive biography of Che Guervara, you will know without uncertainty that this was not a man to be revered. The admiration Che receives, even in death, from people from afar came at the expense of a country's populace who lived in fear, hardship, and potentially death under his order.
Round Table: Senators Gillibrand and Lee join a discussion with the BBC’s Katty Kay, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd
Additional Guests: Filmmaker Ken Burns and Jackie Robinson’s wife, Rachel Robinson and Harrison Ford (via Press Pass)
Huh? So what he is proposing is that we're going to make it so financially hard on someone to accomplish his citizenship goal that he'll just have to leave? That sounds like you're pushing for self-deportation to us. Where is the compassion or responsibility or principle in that?
Not to mention that his statement doesn't consider a motivation beyond monetary to come here and that is to escape persecution in the country of origin. We may get a little flack for this, but you know who all of this doesn't affect? Cubans. Because of our relations (or lack thereof) with that country, Cubans defect or seek political asylum, they don't go through the immigration system like everyone else. We're not saying that it is wrong to do that given the oppression in Cuba, but other large groups of immigrants, Mexicans for example, can not claim that. Although considering the violent narco-state that is Mexico now, they should be able to.
People immigrate to the United States for a better life, something we all concede because it's true. By extension, one could reason that Mexican immigrants bring their kids here for a better life, but infants are not aware of their circumstances so why not afford those children the Dream Act opportunity? We're kind of big on this here at The Opinion because if you are someone who has been here for most all your life then you're willing to fight and die for this country or become indebted to us by successfully graduating from college then you've earned your citizenship. We'd even go one step further... If you're kid successfully navigates the already daunting steps of the Dream Act, then the parents should be able to apply for citizenship, keeping the family together. However, Republicans view the Dream Act as a pathway to citizenship, which they say is amnesty, which is hence a deal breaker - as Mr. Rubio noted.
New York Times columnist David Brooks had the nerve to say that Marco Rubio was a hero for his efforts on immigration, 'standing up' to his party. 'Acts of heroism' he called them. On a day where they featured Rachel Robinson, wife of a real American hero Jackie Robinson, you put Marco Rubio in the same category? Give us a break. Mr. Rubio said that he doesn't get paid to make speeches but to solve problems. Well, he should tell that to his Senate colleague Mike Lee (R-UT) who said that he wanted a step-by-step approach to immigration where we address boarder security first and then look for other points of reform. As of this writing, boarder security in the United States has never been stricter, we have a net-zero amount on illegal crossings, and President Obama in his first four years has deported more individuals than George Bush did in his two terms so it's time to move on the rest.
And speaking of getting paid to solve problems, how does that work when you are the problem as Mr. Rubio is on gun safety legislation with his unsuccessful threat to filibuster even debating the issue? In addition to that, Mr. Rubio said that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right that he didn't write, hence he can not change it. We rarely do this but we're going to reference the Founding Fathers in that they called these points of the Constitution amendments for a reason... so that they could be amended, meaning changed. Today's political delusion is that the 'sacred' Constitution can not be changed so we'll get away from that because it's a fruitless discussion.
More in the parlance of our time, Mr. Rubio said that violence in our society is the problem and not guns. What is left out of that equation is that guns perpetuate the violence. Mr. Lee stated that the Manchin-Toomey Bill infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens because of expanding background checks to say gun shows. We just don't understand how that is more of an infringement than a simply safety measure. Also, if the gun laws we have right now are ineffective as Mr. Rubio said, isn't that reason enough to try to make them more effective. We do owe it to the families of Newtown and all the other American families that have fallen victim to such tragedies to do something, no block the process with a filibuster. There's no heroism in that.
We agree with everything Ken Burns said about Jackie Robinson and his mountainous significance in American history. Mrs. Robinson explained that her husband understood the responsibility heaped upon him, which she said made him act and speak carefully with patience, and always with dignity. And after an illustrious baseball career that saw him and his family under constant threat, when Jackie Robinson was asked by Lawrence Spivak on this very program in 1957 about patience with regard to equal rights, he calmly, heroically answered that the Civil War had been over for 93 years, and that "If that isn't patience I don't know what is."
Mrs. Robinson also said that she hoped that many people would go and see the film '42' about her late husband opening this weekend so that they would have perspective on history to make comparisons between then and now. Like the difference between then and now on how we define a hero.
One last thing... We were pretty hard on Senator Rubio today and we make no apologies for that, but we also wanted to point out something we agree with him on. Mr. Rubio said that Che Guevara was a murderer and a killer, and he is correct in that assessment. Che did great things but great doesn't always mean good. If you read Jon Lee Anderson's definitive biography of Che Guervara, you will know without uncertainty that this was not a man to be revered. The admiration Che receives, even in death, from people from afar came at the expense of a country's populace who lived in fear, hardship, and potentially death under his order.
Round Table: Senators Gillibrand and Lee join a discussion with the BBC’s Katty Kay, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd
Additional Guests: Filmmaker Ken Burns and Jackie Robinson’s wife, Rachel Robinson and Harrison Ford (via Press Pass)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)