1.18.15: Free Speech Isn't Easy

As Chuck Todd noted, we are 10 days removed from the terrorist attacks that occurred in Paris and since then Charlie Hebdo has published a new edition of its magazine; of course not surprisingly followed by mass protests in several Muslims countries around the world, and not just against the publication but also against the West.

The protests are due to Charlie Hebdo's new cover which depicts the Prophet Mohammed (a definite no-no for Muslims) saying, “All is forgiven,” and holding up a sign that says “I am Charlie,” a cover by the way that NBC and many other news organizations are not showing in its entirety. 

Protests against the magazine are obvious, but Muslims are also protesting the West because of the rallies that occurred in support of the publication. Those rallies are being wrongly interpreted as people in the West supporting the defamation of the Prophet Mohammed.  That logic is misplaced and misunderstood on such a grand scale by so many people, it is not accidental. There is no way that that happens by accident. Usually you only have to look as far as to see who profits from such conflict whether that be in monetary terms or populist terms and you'll get your answer. 

Democracies believe in free speech, and free speech isn't easy. People aren't necessarily saying that they agree with what the magazine says or represents, with the exception of it representing free speech. For those who are uncomfortable with the content of the magazine and therefore are reticent to support it, need to show a little bit more of a backbone and support it wholeheartedly (if you truly believe in free speech.)

We, at this column, do believe in free speech and we believe that Charlie Hebdo has the right to say what it wants editorially. Would we always take them seriously? Of course not.

However, given our belief in free speech we believe that you do have the right to see the cover and make your own assessment. Below is the latest cover of the publication, Charlie Hebdo:

This brings us to the interview with Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Gerard Biard, the main point you take from that it, and the comments from the panel that followed, is that free speech isn’t always pleasing, and again never easy. Mr. Biard explained that one of the philosophical tenets of the magazine is that religion entering into politics is wrong and should be challenged because it leads to totalitarianism. We understand what he's saying in as much as that forcing people to live by a narrow set of prescriptions doesn't allow for divergent opinion and oppresses it.  He also said that this perspective is applied to all religions and not just Islam. The very concept that he is explaining is a problem for people in many countries, and not just predominantly Islamic countries. There are many in the United States, evangelicals, that would disagree with what Mr. Biard is saying. In fact, in the United States, given that, many people disagree with the first amendment, which says that no law shall be made relevant to religion. Then there are the obvious Muslim country examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran whose governments are theocratic.

This is the debate; this is the conversation; this is not the reason to resort to violence. Another notion that comes to mind is that you have to ask, “How strong is your belief if you feel threatened by someone who disagrees with you. Sometimes, you can interpret anger as insecurity.  To not feel angry or insecure in your beliefs it takes a more evolved thinking, the deeper your understanding.

Reeling in all the esoteric discussion, we return to comment on what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had to say about the current state of the Middle East. Once again, he believes that the cause for all this chaos happening now is that President Obama made the wrong decision in withdrawing US forces from the country. Mr. Graham still believes that the Iraq war was the right thing to do, and given that base thinking, the prism through which he looks at the US policy in the Middle East is warped, and that’s because going into Iraq in the first place was a mistake. 

Sen. Graham explained that there should be a coalition force led by the United States on the ground in Iraq battling ISIS, training the free Syrian army, and essentially becoming directly involved in the Syrian Civil War, which does not exclude fighting the Assad government directly. What Mr. Graham is advocating for is perpetual war. Not to mention the fact that the American people want to see less military intervention instead of more.  Mr. Graham would tell you that sometimes decisions like this aren't popular but they are necessary. No, that is incorrect. We find it funny that based on Mr. Graham's foreign policy views he feels that he would be a good candidate for president, which is simply ridiculous.

And this leads us to ending this week's column on a lighter note, which is the notion of Mitt Romney running for president a third time being comical. The Wall Street Journal in an editorial asked, “if Mitt Romney is the answer, what is the question?” That says it all and the only reason for Mitt Romney to run for president, and for you to vote for him to be president, is simply to see Mitt Romney be the president. That's it; there's no other reason for him to be president aside from his simple sole desire to hold that office. There are so many reasons why he should not do it that it would be incredibly difficult to go through them all in any reasonable amount of time.  Too many reasons to count, however we would speculate that at least 47% of those reasons would be enough to persuade him not to run.

Panel: Michael Steele, fmr. RNC Chair; Robert Gibbs, fmr. Obama Administration Press Secretary; Kelly O’Donnell, NBC News; Carol Lee, The Wall Street Journal

1.11.15: 'Standing Together' Must Mean 'Working Together'

On a day like today, it's impossible not to note the significant action and significant statements, as Meet the Press rightly did. The action, of course, is the incredible million-person gathering in Paris in a show of support for all the victims of this week's tragedy, and for free speech - going on as we write this. The statement, which comes from the French government, is that they are at war with Radical Islam.

In his interview with Chuck Todd, US Atty. Gen. Eric Holder said that the United States is at war with terrorism and not Islam. Mr. Holder is a professional - he's very measured in his statements for good reason and though he mentioned radicals he purposely kept the focus on the terror aspect. We also found it very prudent of Mr. Holder not to comment on the French government's capabilities of what they could have done, what they knew and didn't know prior to this week's attacks. That's the right thing to do. As Andrea Mitchell noted later during the panel discussion, when Boston was attacked during the marathon, people rallied around the city and we didn't ask who didn't do what so that we can point blame.

To see the actions today of so many world leaders in Paris was heartening. French Pres. Françoise Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, among many others standing together and walking together is what the world needed to see.

But what concerns this column, is the statement. We understand what the French government meant, but it's dangerous to simply say ‘radical Islam,’ for the fact that everyone's definition of ‘radical’ is different. Reza Aslan, the religious scholar on today’s program, defined Wahhabi-ism, the version of Islam adhered to by the Saudi royal family and hence the religion of Saudi Arabia, as radical.

By his definition that would mean that France would be at war with Saudi Arabia, but that's not the case of course. Does Mr. Aslan have a point? He does, and it is that Saudi Arabia has spent millions of dollars promoting this very conservative interpretation of Islam that manifests itself violently around the world, which is not shared by the majority of the world’s Muslim population. Yet they have the money and the resources to promote this, as Mr. Aslan had described. 

The statement rightly comes from a place of anger, frankly. And that's okay because it's anger at a double standard. The double standard that the French government that, the people of France, gave this person the right to practice whatever religion that they wanted to, gave that right to his family, and then he turns around and kills in the name of intolerance.

We fully understand the implication of using a phrase as ‘fascism’ but really what the French government have a war against is Islamo-fascism – a perverted interpretation of authority under the guise of religion.  This is exactly how ISIS is being described.  To govern by, “follow this religion and in the way that we interpreted or be punished or dead,” is not the way the vast majority of the world works.  Yet, it is what ISIS and Saudi Arabia have in common, as Mr. Aslan pointed out, but keep in mind the major difference is that the Saudis themselves, as a government, aren’t attacking the west like IRIS. Nonetheless, there lays the other double standard - that the west still does business with Saudi Arabia and looks the other way when the Saudis punish someone with 1,000 lashes because that person said something that angered a priest.  One could say that to stop the result of one double standard, you have to stop the other as well.

It’s simply a point, and we’re not trying to blow things out of proportion.  As the panel discussed, in addition to ISIS, there’s the more murderous Boko Haram in Nigeria. Also as has been noted the attackers in Paris were trained in Yemen, which has to be now considered an Al Qaeda stronghold. In the interview Mr. Holder did purposely adjust the previous statement by the administration. And that was when he said that the United States had decimated "core" Al Qaeda in place of saying “Al Qaeda” meaning all.  Either way, they are there and it needs to be confronted.

David Brooks said that commentary like what comes from Ann Coulter (in the United States) and Charlie Hebdo is “kiddie table” type of the stuff, meaning that their commentary is lowest common denominator and only meant to offend. He did note that sometimes it’s worth listening to those people, and it is good that they have a platform. This is typical David Brooks condescending commentary.  Mr. Brooks also said that a magazine like Charlie Hebdo would not exist in the United States because it would be labeled hate speech and closed down.

However, if you are publishing a satirical magazine, one that obviously has a readership, and you're trying to go about your day then all of a sudden two men with Kalashnikovs burst in and shoot 12 people in the office provoking more than one million people to rally to your cause, we would say you don't sit at the “kiddie table.”

As we said, it was good to see so many of the world's leaders standing together, but really we need to know that they're going to stand together beyond this day and work together for all of our collective interest.  Until that actually starts happening, and the hope is that today is the starting point, we’ll never stop the heinous, evil acts from reoccurring. 



Panel: David Brooks, The New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Helene Cooper, The New York Times

1.4.15: The Semi-Permanent State

We’re a little behind today on our column for this week because we must have missed the memo – the one that said “Meet the Press” was starting a half an hour earlier than normal on the East Coast, the region from which this column is generated.

Our thinking heading into 2015 isn’t quite as optimistic as Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tom Barrasso's (R-WY) that they shared at the end of their joint interview. Call us a bit pensive, a little skeptical but that’s because  we have a wait and see attitude toward the 2015 Congress.

Why do we think it's can be more of the same seven abrazo gave us that indication when he said the top priority was to repeal the health care law. If that's their top priority then they're going to have a lot of symbolic votes, nothing is really going to get done, and we’ll be hanging on to nothing for another two years.

Having their sole attention on repealing health care would be a mistake, especially given this rough start that the Republican-controlled Congress is having.  Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA),  part of the new leadership that's coming into the House at the beginning of the year, is a Louisiana politician - we would have to agree with Matt Bai from Yahoo News  - there is no way that Mr. Scalise could not have known that EURO (European-American Unity and Rights Organization) was a group founded by David Duke, and has a philosophy of white supremacy. There's no way that he could not have known that.

Senator Klobuchar actually gave Republicans very sound advice if they want to clean this up, so to speak, by going  ahead with the Voting Rights bill, immigration reform, tax reform - other things beside healthcare that would assist in endearing them a little bit more to minority communities.

The big elephant in the room for Republicans right now – what they cannot mention - is that the economy is picking up and it's doing well and it will probably continue through 2015. This is something that gives us reason to be semi-optimistic about the coming year. The problem we have is our semi-permanent state of trepidation because we don't know what Congress is going to do next that would upset that trend. 

Another key aspect of the Republicans’ agenda is going to be energy, and central to that policy is the Keystone pipeline. Our feeling right now is that we don't really need the Keystone pipeline. It is said that it'll create 42,000 jobs, which is a lot of jobs, but those jobs will be temporary and over the years it will net out to be about 21,000 jobs. Is it worth it for the potential environmental damage that the pipeline can do? Probably not because the job argument isn't a very solid one.  If the United States is to perpetually profiting from the pipeline, in a big way, then we could understand doing it. But, as it stands, the pipeline is going to be used by Canada to ship its oil to the Gulf to be picked up and then sold to the rest of the world, not the United States. That's not really a great deal for the U.S., however it will bear the cost of any damage done to the drinking water or our soil. This column does not consist of gooey environmentalists, however on this point practicality and long-term potential damage are two key aspects that need to be considered. We just don't think the pipeline is the priority that Republicans say it is. The only question is  - will the United States get a long-term positive from this pipeline, and to that we would have to say, “no.”

And speaking of “semi-permanent," there's the United States finding itself in a semi-permanent state of war. We've been in Afghanistan over 13 years and Iraq over 11 years. We still have 11,000 troops in Afghanistan and 3,000 now back Iraq.  One of today's guests Lieut. Gen. Daniel Bolger (ret.), appearing on today’s program, wrote a column about why the United States has lost the war. He said that right now we are in a salvage and damage control mode in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We were never clear to begin with what the definition of "winning" was. Is winning defined as building democracies in these nations that we've invaded? That is setting the bar very high for the definition of "win."

With regard to Iraq, we can't help but think of the strategy that the United States employed with Japan in 1945. The United States bombed Japan into complete and utter destruction and then we built that country, a country in which then became a democracy that we were friends partners and deep allies with ever since. Was that our hope for Iraq?  With Japan, it was a strategy that worked. However in Iraq, the weakness of different groups of people coming together to form a stable government simply doesn't exist in Iraq. Then you factor in rogue elements like ISIS, Iran, and oil dictatorships like Qatar, the goal that the United States has set for that region to have flourishing democracies in that region is a long shot.

With regard to Afghanistan and Iraq there are things to be salvaged. Whatever the government is in Iraq salvaging the situation means that there would not be an extremist government in power that limited human rights. With regard to Afghanistan salvaging means not having the Taliban take control of the country again. 

As far as damage control, we are frankly beyond the point of reconciliation there. The damage that has been caused by the United States's invasion of Iraq specifically is irreparable. The only real influence that the United States hats in Iraq is through the military. Culturally and economically, Iran exerts much more influence over the Iraq he government. In short, as we've said many times in this column, the invasion of Iraq was folly because it was motivated by greed.

These aren't full-scale wars anymore but we are in a state of semi-permanent war. The United States continues to fire missiles and drop bombs on our enemies even though we are winding down military operations in both these countries.

Given this state, there is reason to carry some optimism about the United States's foreign policy. As we've seen Pres. Barack Obama once our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And we also know that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) once the United States to move in a direction in which we intervene militarily in every conflict around the globe. Then there is former Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) who was a Republican and is now a Democrat, probably running for president, who also doesn't want to see the United States on a perpetual war footing. So the glimmer of optimism is in the fact that there is bipartisan support for the US to adjust its military interventionist policy.

We've always said that when it comes to US foreign policy our congressional leaders should speak with one voice. With the state of things as they are a little bipartisan cooperation in this regard would go a long way.

Here's to everyone having a great 2015.

Panel: John Stanton, BuzzFeed Media; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Matt Bai, Yahoo News

12.28.14: Accountability and Reality - the Community and Its Police

Given that it was an end-of-the-year edition of "Meet The Press" with a long segment about satire, entertainment and politics, we won't discuss such a general discussion but instead just refer to a few observations made during the taped panel in relation to the most pertinent topic at hand which is tension between the community and the police; more specifically between the African-American community and the police.

As New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton stated, the goal is to reach common ground between the community and the police, and as we commented in last week's column (reprinted below), that initiative needs to be undertaken by the police. As the commissioner outlined, common ground consists of keeping lawful protests from becoming police riots, the police showing restraint, and talk consisting of more dialogue and less rhetoric.

That last bit pointed in the direction of New York City Police Union leader Patrick Lynch whose rhetoric has pitted the police department against Mayor Bill De Blasio and City Hall.  Every time we think of Mr. Lynch we think of Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men when he says, "...I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom [safety in terms of this conversation] I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.  I would rather you just said 'thank you' and went on your way..."  The problem is that it doesn't work that way in America.

There are certain accountability and realities that the citizenry expects and deals with when it comes to the police.  In wrongful police shootings, individuals need to be held accountable, and even as diverse a force as New York's is, there is still a disproportionate bias against young black males.  And by no means are these points singularly directed to New York City - this is every where.  Hence, people like respected Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio have to give 'the talk' to their sons about how to act around police.

And that's why the police department's union members turned their backs en masse to the mayor when he gave his speech at the funeral of Officer Rafael Ramos.  As Commissioner Bratton said, the rift will go on a while longer.  We believe this act was wrongheaded.  The professional and more honorable thing to do is to steadfastly protect and serve all of the community, even the individuals you disagree with. 

With all this said, make no mistake - we have the utmost respect for the New York City Police Department because we know first hand what they have to deal with on a daily basis, and the incredibly difficult work they successfully accomplish.  However, Mr. Lynch has to acknowledge that the department is not infallible and needs to recognize its mistakes.  

Commissioner Bratton made mention of the many national societal issues that play a part in the tension between the community and police.  Let's face it, for most Americans it's continually getting harder and harder to maintain a decent living, a decent life. Many are scrambling, which only means that those at the bottom of the economic ladder are getting more desperate in their acts in attempt to provide for themselves.  This coupled with the sense of disenfranchisement that Lewis Black mentioned during the program, and the result is anger (on all sides), and then the despicably senseless shooting of two brave men.

In New York City, until the mayor's office and the policeman's union make their peace, the community will continue its slide into distrust of both.


Panel: Amy Walter, National Editor of the Cook Political Report; Eugene Robinson, columnist for The Washington Post; Luke Russert, Congressional Correspondent NBC News; and Ken Blackwell, fmr. Ohio Secretary of State


Michael Tomasky's Noted Article:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/21/the-ny-police-union-s-vile-war-with-mayor-de-blasio.html


(reprinted from last week)
Before we get to the discussion the respective dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba, we are compelled to first say this with regard to the murder of two New York City police officers yesterday; officers named Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, whose families have this column's condolences.
  
Why does it have to take such a heinous act to illustrate and convince people that this is not the answer, that revenge for Eric Garner and Michael Brown as the shooter proclaimed, against law enforcement only leads to more tragedy and ruined lives?  This is not what the communities in Ferguson and Staten Island (New York City) want as a resolution. And to think otherwise only serves to lower and degrade our American societal morale.  There needs to be a coming together of the community and the law enforcement structures (include district attorneys et al.) on a local level and the engagement has to start with the police - they have to make the first overture because they are the organizing principal for the community.  

Sadly, the New York City Police Union President Patrick Lynch seems to have no interest in reconciliation.  He's advised police officers to turn their backs on Mayor Bill De Blasio and has blamed him for condoning violence under the guise of protests essentially saying the that protesters are responsible for the murders.  These statements help no one.

12.21.14: North Korea and Cuba - Where Do We Go from Here? & Sen. Rubio - Not Presidential Material

Before we get to the discussion the respective dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba, we are compelled to first say this with regard to the murder of two New York City police officers yesterday; officers named Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, whose families have this column's condolences.
  
Why does it have to take such a heinous act to illustrate and convince people that this is not the answer, that revenge for Eric Garner and Michael Brown as the shooter proclaimed, against law enforcement only leads to more tragedy and ruined lives?  This is not what the communities in Ferguson and Staten Island (New York City) want as a resolution. And to think otherwise only serves to lower and degrade our American societal morale.  There needs to be a coming together of the community and the law enforcement structures (include district attorneys et al.) on a local level and the engagement has to start with the police - they have to make the first overture because they are the organizing principal for the community.  

Sadly, the New York City Police Union President Patrick Lynch seems to have no interest in reconciliation.  He's advised police officers to turn their backs on Mayor Bill De Blasio and has blamed him for condoning violence under the guise of protests essentially saying the that protesters are responsible for the murders.  These statements help no one.

And now to North Korea and Cuba.

There are many points to bring into focus, but first and foremost is that the film should be released and American business and government should in no way buckle to the threats of the North Korean dictatorship of Kim Jung Un.  This has progressed way beyond exposing embarrassing e-mails, but as Chris Matthews said, "Americans have to be resilient."  The reported threat of attack on movie theaters that show the film is in fact a terrorist act, and because the FBI has determined that the computer hacking came from North Korea, that seems to say that it is state-sponsored.  

We wholeheartedly agree with Sarah Fagen, fmr. political director for George W. Bush, that we can not have American businesses being threatened.   Howver, it is worth pointing out that Sony is a Japanese company so getting the Chinese to crack down on North Korea for their actions as the various guests discussed is unlikely.  

Mr. Todd received varying answers about using the word 'terrorism' in discussing the matter of the release of the Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy, The Interview.  Sony's lawyer, David Boies, stayed away from it while fmr. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff clearly stated that this was an act of terror. 

The United States will respond there is little doubt because the message that is sent to other countries and Al Qaeda types will be that they can get away with it.  The hypothetical of attacking a power grid in the United States could certainly become very real and very dangerous.  With the prospect of a response, Mr. Todd posed the question as to whether or not it was ethical for United States to participate in cyber warfare.  We would end that debate here by saying that the question is really a matter of the battlefield.  If the United States is attacked at sea, would it be ethical to respond with a naval counter attack? Yes.  If the United States, including its companies and citizens, are attacked on the cyber battlefield then it is not unethical to respond in kind.  In saying that, it does preclude using other means of retaliation as Bill Richardson suggested by squeezing the dictatorship's finances.

Most certainly, fmr. Ambassador to South Korea, Christopher Hill, will be consulted on what type of response, and he used the words 'punitive' and 'punish.'  The U.S. needs to send a clear message to the North Korean dictatorship that the United States when it comes to threats isn't playing around; it's not a game.

North Korea is a dictatorship that doesn't understand any other way, while Cuba is really a different story.

This is column is understanding and sympathetic to the families of Cuban-Americans who have suffered at the hands of the Castro regime and to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaking on their behalf, but it is time to move toward normalizing relations with Cuba.

Senator Rubio stated that his goal is for democracy on the island nation, but we disagree with him on how to achieve that.  Like President Obama and Senator Rand Paul, we think that overwhelming that country with the influence of our democracy and captialism will create the result desired that Mr. Rubio seeks.  Cuba's size and proximity make this strategy a very reasonable possiblilty for success.  The constituency that Mr. Rubio speaks for is increasingly in favor of normalizing relations with Cuba, and his strategy hasn't worked. 

And here are a couple of things to think about.  1) Vladimir Putin has made some renewed overtures to Cuba earlier this year  in the hopes of establishing a base of operation to spy on the U.S.  2) China has approached Cuba about drilling for oil off its coast.  Would the United States want those two countries having such leverage of a country 90 miles from our border? 

Not at all, and we understand that Mr. Rubio can't go back to his passionate donor base to explain these things, but that lack of leadership is not why Marco Rubio, in our view, is disqualified as a legitimate leader in this country.

Chuck Todd asked Senator Rubio about comments he made with regard to President Obama and left-wing dictatorships, doubling down and essentially saying that the president is a left-wing dictator himself because in Mr. Rubio's view, the president is helping to build up left-wing dictatorships. 

We don't have a problem that Mr. Rubio has a different view on how to approach Cuba (debate it on its merits), but this other line of thinking is way out of line.  Mr. Rubio in continuing this kind of left-wing conspiracy rhetoric, trying to once again delegitimizing Mr. Obama's presidency, is presenting politically pandering ideas that are inaccurate, divisive, gutless and just plain stupid. (Harsh, but we're calling it as we see it here.)

He's so NOT presidential material.


Panel: Chris Matthews, MSNBC; Bill Richardson, fmr. Governor of New Mexico and U.S. Ambassador to the UN; Sarah Fagen, ; John Nolte, columnist for the Breitbart News Network -

12.14.14: Mr. Cheney's Warped Perspective

Where to even start in discussing today's interview with fmr. vice-president Dick Cheney?

A few things are clear, Mr. Cheney has no remorse; he would do it all again if need be; and that he knew about and or authorized everything documented in the Senate's torture report.  However, Mr. Cheney at times seemed defensive, which must indicate some degree of concern on his part, concern that fmr. CIA Director Michael Hayden visibly and verbally has shared this week.

Believe it or not, there is a part of this column that appreciates individuals who covet American lives above all at all costs. Mr. Cheney certainly takes an extremist view of that notion.  But the problem with that view is that those costs negate the very essence of what it is to be an American, and as Americans we don't believe in paying the price of our principles.

As fmr. president George W. Bush said, "America doesn't torture people," if you agree with Mr. Cheney's definition.  But the fact is that water boarding, despite what Mr. Cheney will tell you, is torture.  When Chuck Todd described a prisoner being put in a coffin like box for a grossly extended period of time, Mr. Cheney responded that the [enhanced interrogation] technique had been approved.  But that sounds like torture to us as does the technique of rectal feeding, which Mr. Cheney tried to defend as medically legitimate.

"It absolutely worked," is how Mr. Cheney responded to the question as to whether enhanced interrogation was effective.  But did it work absolutely?  Mr. Todd cited the statistic that 25 percent of prisoners who were subjected to enhanced interrogation were later found to be innocent.  One in four. Mr. Cheney had no reservations - the fmr. vice-president of the United States had no moral reservation about the fact the innocent people were tortured in the name of all Americans.  That provokes a visceral reaction.

There aren't going to be prosecutions of any individuals of course, though Mr. Cheney would be a candidate if there ever was one, and you have to concede the point.  But we agree with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) in that going forward torture will be prosecuted, and that includes people who use water boarding as a tactic.

The reason that we mention the above is because in this column we try to figure out the insight by looking at something from all angles.  But the fact is that in the case, we can not defend the indefensible, who is Dick Cheney.  His views on how America should go about keeping themselves safe is completely warped.  How are we enhancing our own freedom while stripping everyone else of theirs?

Make no mistake, the American people will have to live a long time with the sins committed by Mr. Cheney in the name of the American people - the biggest of which we surely know.  

Helene Cooper mentioned that the Chinese press has been all of this story and one of the comments is that 'America wants it both ways,' meaning that we condemn China for human rights abuses but then we go and torture people.   No, the Chinese have it wrong, Dick Cheney wants it both ways, but Americans don't, that's why we released the report.

(There's so much more to be said, and it is important to comment certainly.  However, it's the holiday time - stressful enough - so why go on and on about it.)


Panel: Dan Senor, Republican political advisor; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; David Axelrod, fmr. senior advisor of the Obama Administration
1.1 Trilion budget bill

12.7.14: The Forgotten Notion of Protect and Serve; Congress Out of Touch

To those who understand and or subscribe to 'trickle down' theory know that it all starts at the top.  Chuck Todd rattled off a series of statistics regarding Congressional wealth: annual salary $174,000 (average American $54K), income growth of 15.4% (average American 3.7%), average net worth without real estate $1,000,000 (average American with real estate $166,000) so when he said that 50.2 percent of Congress consisted of millionaires, we were surprised it was that low. 

It's no wonder that 81 percent of Americans think Congresspeople are out of touch.  Let's face it, for most of Congress if it isn't about the money, it's about the power, but for more than half it's both.  Not only does Congress NOT reflect the American people politically as Amy Walter correctly pointed out, they for the most part definitely don't understand the economic struggles of the populace that they created. 

But getting into Congress is a golden ticket, and once you're in you feel like you have a license to do anything.  Just like some individuals feel when they have say... a badge.

And these inexplicable grand jury decisions not to indict either police officer in Ferguson or Staten Island perpetuate that sense of license.  As to whether or not it's a question of race or poor policing, the answer is both in both cases though we thought it profound that the widow Mrs. Esaw Garner said that she felt like her husband was murdered (by officer Daniel Pantaleo) and that it didn't have that much to do with race.

Mrs. Garner, showing herself to be a genuine person, did not sugar coat the description of her husband in the slightest saying that he 'had a past' referring to past trouble with the law and that he was lazy, but he didn't deserve any of the treatment you see on the video footage.  Whether or not Eric Garner was selling loose cigarettes or not, the Garners didn't deserve to be harassed by police being called 'cigarette man' and 'cigarette man wife.'  Mr. Garner's civil rights were clearly violated and Mrs. Garner deserves her day in court - it's that clear.

Mrs. Garner, referring to police in a familial way - 1-2-O, said she was afraid of them; she fears for her children in the face of the police because they now know who they are.  If our nation's police departments can't change that perception for ordinary citizens [not dangerous criminals] then ultimately equal justice in the United States will collapse - it's failing right now.  What ever happened to the notion of "protect and serve?" Unfortunately, it seems quaint now.  It's certainly not what Patrick Lynch, President of the New York Police Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, is focused on when he despicably blamed Mr. Garner for resisting arrest, which Mr. Garner didn't do.

The American people have a serious lack of trust and confidence in their law enforcement and the justice system, from the Supreme Court with it's idiot 'corporations are people' type decisions on down the line, and frankly, Americans are tired of feeling at the mercy of a system that they increasing perceive as unfair.

Chuck Canterbury of the Fraternal Brotherhood of Police came off a little too defensive when it came to holding officers responsible, but one valid point that he made was that it all starts with poverty or eliminating it as the case may be.  It's something the Reverend Al Sharpton also touch on the same point saying that infrastructure investment could lead to jobs and training for those on the low end of the economic scale.

Does the connection between these tragic incidents and economic hardship even register with most Congresspeople?  The focal point of 'service' seems out of their focus so obviously not. 


Panel: Rick Santelli, CNBC; Kaseem Reed (D), Mayor of Atlanta; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; John Stanton, "Buzzfeed" Washington Bureau Chief


Mr. Todd noted the 73rd Anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day, the day that entered the United States into WWII, and he said that if you haven't been to the memorial in Hawaii, it's worth seeing.  It is, but it's not so easy to get there so here you are... (our tribute)...

11.30.14: Managing Our Own Biases

To paraphrase The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, President Obama is damned every which way when talking about race in America, and he also succinctly commented that 'it's the lot of the first African-American President of The United States' aka the 'least aggrieved black man in America.'

With that in mind, when the non-indictment of Officer Darren Wilson (now a household name) by a grand jury came to pass, all that's left for the president to essentially say is that we have to follow the rule of law. Some may not like that but when someone like Rich Lowry of the National Review says that the president's comments were pretty much right on you can see the fine line Mr. Obama has to walk though rightfully so, the expectations for him are higher when it comes to discussing race.  Meanwhile, the citizens of Ferguson, MO rage in frustration and unwantedly serve as the epicenter for other protests and demonstrations around the country.

Unfortunately it seems as if we have to reprogram our brains for a new reality.  If you connect some of the statements presented on today's program everything comes into focus.   Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP first stated what we all know which is that discussing race is an uncomfortable conversation, difficult to maintain and thus is not had frequently enough.  That conversation was cut in Ferguson by the prosecutor and grand jury of St. Louis County in not going forward with an indictment and subsequent trial.  Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) explained why he wanted to see an indictment because he believes that transparency of a trial is essential.  That's true but what is also true is that the press would blow up the trial in the media and if a not guilty verdict came down, then it could potential be even worse.  Despite this, the conversation needs to continue.

The New York Times columnist David Brooks said that it was the white community's responsibility to go the 'extra mile' when it comes to race relations.  So does that mean he agrees with Gov. Patrick that there should have been indictment handed down by the 'white controlled' judicial institutions?  In terms of Ferguson, what else could it suggest?  Carry that a step further with The "Meet The Press" Colin Powell clip in which he says that there is a 'dark vein of intolerance inside the [Republican] party. 

You tie it all together and it presents quite a darker image of America than we'd like to imagine and don't believe in the sinister nature that rubs off.  But no one has a good answer as to why as a society what can not explain ourselves when some one like  Pharrell Williams says in Ebony we're not talking about the causes of why Michael Brown thought it OK to act as he did in the first place. 

As Mr. Brooks spoke, one of his comments was that racial issues are very much intertwined with social ones, which is true but doesn't fully account for or comprehend the fact the one is a cause and the other a result.  It's why most African-Americans don't believe that race relations are any better than they were five years ago.  All this leads to Harvard professor Charles Ogletree's conclusion that incidents like Ferguson are going to continue and we'll have more Michael Browns. 

That's the reality that we having real trouble reprogramming our brains to accept because it's so unacceptable. 

We have to stem the tide, keep the conversation going, and as Ms. Ifill mentioned manage our own biases. 


Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Rich Lowry, The National Review.

(Great panel - all press.)


...And speaking of managing our own biases, Senator-elect Tom Cotton (R-AR) spoke about immigration legislation only in terms of southern border security and security inside the country.  If this sole thrust of his understanding of immigration reform there's little reason to think anything will get done because it perpetuates an undue prejudice of Hispanics in American and shows a lack of understanding the full scope of undocumented immigration into the United States, but let's get to work on that border fence anyway.

11.23.14: Backs Against The Wall - Immigration and Ferguson

The distilled view of the executive action that President Obama took this week is that most people agree with the measures, but they do not agree with how the measures were put in place.  The president acting alone doesn't sit well with the American people because the people that represent them make a big stink about the fact that they weren't included.  Hence, you get sound bites of people like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) accusing the president of being a monarch.

But what really upsets Republicans is the fact that despite crushing the Democrats in the midterm elections, President Obama out-politicked them again with he took executive action on immigration.  But, they only have themselves to blame because the Republicans in the Senate couldn't get the Republican-controlled House to act on the immigration bill passed in the upper chamber.

With only two years left in his presidency, no more elections, and the knowledge that Republicans will not cooperate with him on anything, Mr. Obama's back was against the wall in terms of creating a positive legacy of his time in office.  So he acted on immigration and politically stuck it to Republicans.

Four of the five million people that the executive order affects are the parents of American citizens (kids born in the U.S.) and because the Republican House didn't pass a bill, the Democratic President gets all the credit for helping them out.  And a Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 is going to get those votes because the Republican candidate will have to campaign against this immigration action in the primaries, essentially forfeiting those votes.  

Because of this action, some Republicans are calling for a government shutdown - 'political suicide' is how Joe Scarborough described that on the program today.  He also used that term to describe proposed impeachment proceedings against the president, before explaining that using defunding measures would be very difficult to accomplish.

If in 2016 a Republican is elected president, does that person risk losing the Hispanic vote for at least a decade by revoking the Mr. Obama's executive action without any alternative legislation ready to go?  This brings us to the prospect of the Republican-controlled Congress constructing and passing immigration legislation, which Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said was a necessity for Republicans.  Even there, the president can say that he pushed along Congress to take action, hence take some credit.

In the immediacy of all this, people are talking about the president and not the big win the Republicans just pulled off, and that's why they're so pissed off.  Republicans have no victory wave to ride into the next Congress.  They haven't even arrived in town and people already want them to have things done.

As we've pointed out previously, the actions taken by the president are legal, but are they dangerous in setting the precedent for expanded presidential power?  The answer to the latter point is yes, but again the Congress ceded the power.  They showed a clip of an interview that guest Jose Diaz-Balart did with the president where he said he would not, could not, invoke such action because it was not lawful.  It depends on the range of scope of the actions taken by the president, and what the lawyers say.

But really all of that isn't germane to the fact the president's political counter punch was extremely effective on two fronts - one, that it hurts the Republicans and two, that it personally benefits a lot of people while being an economic booster for the country.

And what goes under-said is the fact the Mr. Diaz-Balart pointed out, which is Mr. Obama has deported over 2 million people, surpassing George Bush's two-term total years ago, the population equivalent to the city of Houston, Texas.  An incredible number.  Another point that is not mentioned enough is that more people illegally immigrate to the United States through airports than across the border.

Despite that latter point, Hispanics coming into the United States via its southern border will always get a disproportionate amount of xenophobic blame in the immigration debate.  As we have always said in this column, they are not to blame - they are trying to create better lives for themselves because their backs are up against it.  The onus on and blame for keeping them out (if that's the goal) falls on the United States.  In other words, fix the laws.

And it has to be mentioned because no one does it enough and that is the unspoken discrimination that makes the whole thing reek ugly.  (If you want to get rid of it, you first have to own it.)

Sadly, it is something that also certainly applies to what is happening in Ferguson, Missouri as the town awaits a grand jury decision on whether or not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

 The debate between fmr. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson quickly escalated into a highly animated tone when Mr. Giuliani cut in with the statistic of cited  the statistic that 93% of violence toward African-Americans is committed by African-Americans.  As Mr. Dyson correctly pointed out that those people do go to jail and that they are not ordained with the public's trust as is the case with Officer Wilson.

The whole thing ended with this exchange, but watch for yourself:

“The white police officers wouldn’t be there if you weren’t killing each other 70-75% of the time,” Giuliani said a few seconds later.

“Look at this! This is the defensive mechanism of white supremacy in your mind sir!” Dyson concluded. 

         
As the young protester in NBC News John Yang's piece said, "people are tired of being pushed up against the wall, and Mr. Giuliani's provocative statements and comparisons only reinforce that feeling amongst the African-American community.  With as much as we object to Mr. Giuliani's positions on this national, cultural issue, we agree with the way he would prepare for the grand jury's announcement.  Instead of the stupid move of declaring a state of emergency and calling in the National Guard like Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) did, Mr. Giuliani would have the police quietly prepared to react at a moment's notice.  Given the history, it's prudent, but it doesn't assume the worst from your citizenry like preemptively calling in the National Guard.  Frankly, it's the extra shove that the people of Ferguson simply don't need.


Panel: Joe Scarborough, Host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Bill Richardson, fmr. Gov. of New Mexico; Jose Diaz-Balart, Host of MSNBC's "The Rundown" (Mr. Todd's old job)NBC News