8.10.14: Continuity of Mistakes - Back to Iraq

President Obama said in an interview with The New York Times Tom Friedman that (and we're paraphrasing) the president engage in the Middle East when the goals reflected 'inclusive' politics, that there would be no victor and no vanquished.

As President Obama has done with domestic issues, he's going to have to negotiate off of that utopian position because that just isn't happening.  As Andrea Mitchell pointed out, the administration is being held hostage by the negotiations, or lack thereof, to remove Maliki as the Iraqi Prime Minister.  This serves as a pointed example of how the administration has continually acted in a lackadaisical
manner with all of these crises in the Middle East.

The air strikes that the president has ordered are now of the sort of a last resort.  Though they're meant to keep ISIS from slaughtering the trapped Yazidi Christians in Northern Iraq, a sect that ISIS has deemed devil-worshipers, that should not be the signal that air strikes send.  The administration and the United States should clearly state that these air strikes will greatly intensify if ISIS advances closer to Erbil, the capital city for the semi-autonomous Kurdish region. 

As nice as it sounds when Senator Dick Durbin says that only Iraqis can save Iraq, but it's just not realistic.  Iraq at this moment barely exists as a country and if we don't help the Kurds, there will absolutely be nothing that we left of any good after our incomprehensible military mistake in Iraq if we don't help establish this territory for a nature ally.  That doesn't mean troops on the ground; we're happy that they're out, but that they were there, we now have a moral obligation to help them.  And as it was pointed out on the program, the U.S. is going it alone with these air strikes, no friends to help us.   If that's the case then build up the friends you have there and that's the Kurdish people, send as much aid as possible - immediately, which is one criticism Rep. Peter King (R-NY) had of the president that we agree with, that Mr. Obama is too slow to act.

Chuck Todd explained that the administration has been modulating on the notion of stability versus democracy [for the region] meaning that stability in the Middle East comes in the form of brutal dictators and democracy leads to utter chaos and anarchy.  When you think of it in those terms, it's a false choice.  It's also false at this point because neither are part of the equation.

As Robin Wright pointed out, the Obama Administration never solved the diplomatic/political objectives in Iraq, which the need to complete were inherited from the Bush Administration.  The United States is so politically divided that we no longer act as one country even when it comes to foreign policy.  The continuity we illustrated is a continuity of mistakes.

Our last president made atrociously poor military decisions and this current president has followed suit on the diplomatic side.  Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry is embroiled in Israeli/Palestinian diplomacy that is going utterly nowhere, to the point where 'diplomacy' isn't even the word for it anymore.  It used to be that if you could solve this conflict the rest of the Middle East would reside in peace, but even that is no longer the case. 

Where that leaves us - our new objective - is how The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg described it and that is to keep ISIS from spreading because as former Director of Counter-terrorism Center Michael Leiter explained, he and most analysts believe that ISIS will do nothing but expand if not deterred. Rep. King's hyperbole and panic-button striking temperament aside, this includes attacks on the west.  What's sad, is that Senator Durbin said it was a reality of war today that enemies of the United States would be using U.S. military hardware to fight us.  We realize, as Mr. Durbin said, that this is nothing new in history, but this seems different, vastly different.

Iraq is now being described as the graveyard for American ambition, and through the course of 4 United States presidents we've dropped approximately 40,000 bombs and missiles on that country, left with tens of thousands wounded and dead for our troubles, and this is the state it's in.  We should be appalled, but not surprised.


Round Table: Chuck Todd - Political Director, NBC News; Andrea MItchell - Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News; Rich Lowry - Editor, The National Review; Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)

8.3.14: Stopping the Spread...

Stopping the Spread... the Ebola Virus

The bad news is that the Ebola virus is deadly, infectious and incurable; and we're in the midst of the worst outbreak of the disease in history with over 1,300 people infected and more than 700 dead in West Africa, primarily in Liberia where an American doctor (Dr. Kent Brantley) was infected. And given that in a globalized world, diseases are also global, given our transportation systems, and everyone should be concerned as Director & CEO of the Cleveland Clinic Dr. Toby Cosgrove explained on the program.

The good news is that the virus is not as infectious as others, also pointed out by  Dr. Cosgrove, and it can be contained. Also, the chases of an outbreak in the United States is slim, but with that the government is taking precautions regardless. Not as much good news, we admit - that seems to be the tread these days.

However, take heart because the U.S. government takes these situations incredibly serious as you can tell, having the Director of the Ceners for Disease Control Dr. Tom Freiden making the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit to get information to the public as to not cause alarm.  (They outlined on the program, via graphic, that all major points of entry in the U.S. have medical personnel on hand for any emergency.)  This is where the United States is the undisputed leader in our opinion.  No other country is as prepared for such emergencies as the United States and act as quickly.  To this point, Dr. Frieden said that the CDC was sending experts to West Africa to assess the situation and assist in containing the disease - a 'surge in response' he called it.  And Dr. Cosgrove stated that he was very confident in all the actions the CDC has taken.

Just another existential threat to throw on the pile.

[Thank you David Gregory for asking Dr. Cosgrove about the toxicity of the drinking water because of what's happening to Lake Erie.  The toxic water is from an algae build-up in Lake Erie caused by fertilizer run-off from farms - the further price the environment pays under the weight of economic 'progress.'  This worries us more than the spread of Ebola!]

Stopping the Spread... Israeli/ Palestinian Violence

In considering the two sides of the crisis in Gaza and the points made by the foils appearing on today's program, Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer for Palestine to the UN and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer respectively, it's easier to understand why Israel has a clear conscious about this.

Mr. Mansour is a UN representative to the UN for the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, not Hamas in Gaza; therefore leaving the PA with no leverage or influence a decrease in the violence.  However, as Mr. Dermer pointed out and what we all know, the PA and Hamas do not see eye to eye  and actually have different goals, yet have a supportive pact with one another.  And as the ambassador explained, when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Mansour about Hamas and their tactics, he could not condemn their actions.

Mr. Mansour said that the international community must empower the PA as to govern Gaza, but our question would be: How does that empowering get done?  For that to happen, that means you have to take on Hamas and the only ones doing that are the Israelis.  And in a round about way, Mr. Mansour is saying he agrees with Mr. Dermer when he said that the road to peace goes over Hamas not through it.  Everyone knows this and that's why Arab leaders in other countries are quietly routing for Israel.

And even if you agree with Mr. Mansour when he stated that Hamas using the civilian population as human shields is false, you would have to agree with Mr. Gregory's use of the phrase 'exploiting civilians' because that certainly is the case.  You can not lose site of the fact that it was Hamas who initiated this latest conflict, indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel.

By the way, we aren't studied up on the nuances of the Israeli appropriations bill to continue funding for Iron Dome, however, we disagree with Rep. Ellison's no-vote on the funding.  We should encourage and support the signature defensive measure the Israelis have to protect themselves from rocket fire.  Mr. Ellison  needs to remember that rockets can not only come from Hamas in Gaza but also from Hezbollah in Lebanon.  What you would vote 'no' on would be giving Israel free offensive military weapons.  More cynically, don't give them money to buy weapons, have them use their own money to purchase them.

From what we've outlined above, it's easy to understand that the Israeli response is going to be disproportionate to what Hamas can retaliate with, and the Israelis should do what ever they can to mitigate civilian deaths - they're not targeting civilians, yet there are more and more protests around the world against Israel's actions.  In last week's column we displayed pictures of the devastation in Gaza City, which at that level is completely unacceptable and punitive response is intolerable, but Hamas, given the history, has left Israel little choice.  The rest of the world knows that it is not Hamas that is going to stop the spread of violence - it's a fact that the world has to come to realize.

And you can certainly take one thing, if anything, from the joint interview with Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and John Thune (R-SD) and that is that the United States, no matter how unpopular that actions, the United States will support Israel... as it should.


Round Table: Carolyn Ryan, Washington Bureau Chief, New York Times; Mike Murphy, Republican Political Strategist; Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN); and Kristen Soltis Anderson, Partner & Co-Founder Echelon Insights


One Last Thing...

We here at The Meet-The-Press Opinion do not think that anyone from the program actually reads this column.  Why would they, right?  However, today's program was refreshingly sharp and informative - cruising through the hour.  There weren't any distracting prerecorded segments; with the exception of Chuck Todd there were no other correspondents; there were serious guests on either side of serious issues; and Mr. Gregory 'owned' the hour.  What's odd it that today's format and pacing reflected an outline we had put together in a previous column.  (http://meetthepressopinion.blogspot.com/2014/05/51114-short-sighted-separatists-in.html)

We'd be incredibly, humbly flattered if we didn't know for a fact it was coincidence.

But then we went to the Meet The Press web site this morning and saw this:

Coincidence is all good with us.

7.27.14: The Advancing Wolves

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

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

But could he be also referring to Israel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

7.23.14: Meet The Press, David Gregory Rumors

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

Here's our take on that...

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

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

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

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

Does Chuck Todd taking over get you there?

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiev will become the new Berlin in Cold War II. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

7.13.14: Coming Back to Bite US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.29.14: Who Has Standing / the Bill Clinton Interview

You shouldn't be at all surprised that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner (R-OH) is intending to file to sue the President of the United States.  It's a very rare move, but  Republican National Committee Chair  and lawyer Reince Priebus said that the speaker does have standing.

The lawsuit being brought against the president contends that Mr. Obama has committed overreach of his office in executing executive orders. However, that's not really what the suit contends because as  Former White House Counsel Suing the President Kathy Ruemmler pointed out, the Speaker hasn't actually filed a specific complaint so maybe he still has standing but it's on shaky ground.

We've become accustomed to Republicans in Congress taking every opportunity and avenue available at anytime to try and derail any policy achievement by the president or Congress itself.  The Republicans are using this strictly as a campaign season tactic to weaken the president attempting to make him toxic campaigning for other Democrats, which they are free to do and it could be effective.  However, what they do not see is that once again, their image will take a definite hard hit the longer it were to go on ultimately not helping their cause.  

Republicans will make the last two years of Mr. Obama's presidency difficult without a doubt - sans lawsuit or not - but they'll will suffer for it because as well because when they take things as far as they do, they are unwise in their execution, just like they were with Ted Cruz and the government shutdown.  They basically punched themselves in the face with that.  

During the round table, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) pointed out that the president can not just delay the employer mandate for a year by executive order for example.  And to answer to the rarity of the move, the congressman explained that historic action was needed because of this president's historic overreach.  The congressman also needed to be reminded by Andrea Mitchell that Congress' recourse against such actions is that it has the power of the purse.

With that bit of weak hyperbole, we agree with Ms. Ruemmler that the suit is frivolous.  Not because we think that the president didn't attempt to reach beyond what he is allowed to as the president - we would say that's actually part of his job description and what president Democrat or Republican hasn't done that?  It's frivolous because it's not constructive only adding to the American people's frustration with Congress.  Realistically, the speaker has no standing.


***

 The Bill Clinton Interview - Excerpts

First, it's not a big deal to use the expression 'dead broke,' but it is a big deal when you're name is Hillary Clinton. However, Bill Clinton as he does so well explained her way out of it.  It's a 'momentary reaction' he explained that takes away from the real question of what to do about the economy and jobs.  That's Bill.

Reince Priebus didn't do his side any favors by saying the words 'out-of-touch' and 'Romney' in the same ten second soundbite.  And on a slightly related note as it pertains to income inequality David Gregory asked Mr. Priebus about a division in the party due to establishment vs. tea party politics, which among other things is the higher income Republican vs. lower income Republican - as serious dilemma for Republicans. In the end, we have to admit that Mr. Priebus has a point that there is no division if Republicans pick up seats in the House and also take control of the Senate.

What had already made news during the week from the interview was Mr. Clinton's comment that he found Dick Cheney's assessment of President Obama's handling of Iraq 'unseemly,' given the history.  Mr. Cheney rebutted saying that Mr. Clinton is certainly one to understand what unseemly means.

Please...

Dick Cheney certainly has no standing, as it were.  And to a large degree, but not entirely, Mr. Clinton is correct to say that if Dick Cheney hadn't pressed for the invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't be in this situation with ISIS in Iraq.  Just ask Rand Paul.

Speaking of whom, Mr. Clinton also discredited Mr. Paul's Benghazi comments by pointing out that during the Bush presidency, 10 diplomatic personnel had died.  Again, what Republicans have done, this time with Benghazi, is that they have lingered and picked at it for so long with no real results, it's easy to be cynical because it's evident that Republicans have lost sight of the tragedy that it was.

Round Table: Kathy Ruemmler Former White House Counsel, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), Andrea Mitchell NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Nia-Malika Henderson National Political Reporter, The Washington Post 

Good Point of the Program:  

Andrea Mitchell in reaction to what Mr. Gregory referred to as the Edward Snowden Effect.  On the ruling by the Supreme Court that the police can not search your cell phone without a warrant:

Supreme Court Justices have smart phones.

6.22.14: The Notion of Doing Nothing in Iraq

In considering what to do in Iraq, from an American perspective, what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said made a lot of sense.  Mr. Netanyahu said that both the Sunnis and the Shiites are enemies of the United States so neither should be given an advantage over the other.  In essence he means that they should just be left to kill each other.  Senator Paul explained that we've armed the allies of ISIS, a group more violent than Al Qaeda, in their fight against Assad in Syria, and if you extrapolate that out it means that ISIS is using weapons/money that they got from us and are now fighting the Shiite government that we are supporting.  What both men are saying is that the United States should be engaged but not involved.  

But here's the rub?  The United States has a sense of responsibility to make it work in Iraq because 1) we set all these events in motion thinking that we could set up Iraq as a democracy, and 2) in these same interviews today, both men unequivocally stated that they do not want Iran to have a dominant influence over Iraq.  The Powell doctrine is seemingly our moral obligation that if we broke it, we bought, and we have to fix it.  Erika Harold put it very well during the round table discussion in saying that Americans are 'not proud of the notion of doing nothing.'  How true.

Given all these contradictory circumstances and motivations, you're seeing a myriad of opinions on what should be done along with a huge helping of criticism for Presideent Obama. The centerpiece of that criticism came in the form of an op-ed written by former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/articles/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522).  Highlighted by the following quote that starts the second paragraph (discussed on MTP):

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.

With all due respect to Mr. Cheney, we fear that his transplanted heart is not pumping enough blood and oxygen to his brain because to say that about President Obama without applying that to yourself or former President Bush, absolving yourself of responsibility is delusional and not of sound mind, plain and simple.  And at the very least, it reassuring to hear Senator Rand Paul say that the same questions of competence being asked of President Obama could be asked of the original supporters of the Iraq war, namely Mr. Cheney.  He went as far as to say that the Iraq War emboldened Iran, which flies directly in the face of Mr. Cheney's assessment.  And to use Mr. Paul's term, we shouldn't be nick-picking the president's decisions right now.  The one page that everyone seems to be in agreement with is that we're not going to send troops back into Iraq.  

As in Cheney op-ed, they stated the following:

Despite clear evidence of the dire need for American leadership around the world, the desperation of our allies and the glee of our enemies, President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne described this as practically accusing the President of treason.  In fact, that's exactly what that statement implies - treason against the Cheney neo-con philosophy.  And when 'leadership' is mentioned in this context what is really meant is a military intervention.  Mr. Cheney, hawks and other neo-cons believe that we should go back in or should have left a large force in country.  Senator John McCain has suggested that a military presence similar to that of Japan in longevity would be the right move.  But the American people wanted our troops out of Iraq because the reasons why we went in were proven to be false, and they also don't have the appetite to occupy another country for 70 years.  

Really Mr. Obama is trying to save face for Dick Cheney.  Mr. Obama ran on getting our troops out of Iraq and that's what the American people overwhelming wanted, but in doing so, he also had to maintain the 'wisdom' of what the administration before his had started.  However, having it both ways is an impossibility.

As we've said in our previous column, air strikes against ISIS are tricky because as soon as collateral damage happens, it will seem like the U.S. is not just fighting extremists but Sunnis in general.  And as Katty Kay, Anchor of BBC World News America, smartly questioned - where does that leave us in 8 months time?  It leaves us mired in Iraq all over again. The solution is diplomatic of course, hence Secretary John Kerry being in the region, but unless moderate Sunnis can be brought to the table all you're going to see is the escalation of a religious civil war.

Round Table: E.J. Dionne Columnist, The Washington Post; David Brooks Columnist, The New York Times; Katty Kay Anchor, BBC World News America; and Erika Harold Former Congressional Candidate (R-IL)