2.1.15: Considering Broader Strategies

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates used a phrase to serve as the theme for this week's column. He talked about was the lack of “broader strategies” in the Middle East. He went on to say that there seems to be a disintegration of state-type systems in that region, which is also spreading into the north of Africa, i.e. Libya.

In all the topics discussed on today's program the notion of "broader strategies" permeated throughout. Staying with the topic of the Middle East for a moment, it is reported that ISIS has executed the second Japanese hostage. Sadly, if an individual appears in an ISIS video, clothed in an orange jumpsuit, that person's fate has already been sealed. Government officials understand this harsh reality, however people being ever-hopeful believe that there is always something that can be done to rescue that individual when in truth it's quite the opposite.

Former Secretary Gates illustrated another reality, which is the United States' strategy as it stands is not broad enough to defeat ISIS – this is the context of discussing that words like ‘defeat’ and ‘destroy’ are not realistic as goals in fighting these terrorist organizations. All of the things that Mr. Gates pointed out – that there would have to be some boots on the ground to roll ISIS back; that there isn't a sense of vision for the future as to how the region will look; and that tribalism is taking over in the Middle East creating easy de facto sanctuaries for jihadists are accurate, but Mr. Gates has the luxury of not having political contentions in making these assessments.

In terms of ISIS, we don't fully agree with Mr. Gates that the president doesn't have a broader strategy to combat them because the president's broader strategy hinges getting some kind of resolution from Congress, which would give him the option to employ some of the strategies that Mr. Gates had outlined.   You be the judge as to whether you think the president consulting Congress on this is a good idea or not.

In combating, containing and disabling these terrorist organizations there isn't an effective broader U.S. strategy because everyone is skittish about putting on paper the option of boots on the ground, which would perceived as ‘going back in’ to Iraq. However, to achieve the U.S.’s stated goals, that option has to be put on the table, and no one wants to do it whether a number is outlined or not. No one, especially in the Obama Administration is signing on to that. Unfortunately Mr. Gates is correct and some number of U.S. personnel, in a significant role, is required to be on the ground if the United States wants to overwhelm ISIS.

This brings us to Congressman Paul Ryan's statement during his interview, in which he said, “it is wholly appropriate” for the Congress, and equal branch of government, to invite the head of state of another country without informing the president first.

We liked most of what Mr. Ryan had to say in today's interview (tax reform and finding common ground), however, it is wholly inappropriate for House Speaker John Boehner to invite the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to address a joint session of Congress with out consulting the president first.

This column has no problem with ninety-five percent of U.S.-Israeli policy, relations, and support.  However, we have a serious problem with Prime Minister Netanyahu coming to the United States and sticking his thumb in the eye of our president, playing political games, by accepting Mr. Boehner’s invitation. It’s so self-serving and so self-interested that we find it pretty disgusting, frankly. Constitutionally, fine, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives can invite a leader of another country to come and speak, but it's a stupid and shortsighted move to accept that invitation. In this sense, there is no sense of a broader strategy on the part of the Israeli Prime Minister or the Republicans who control the Congress.

This lack of a broader strategy theme would also make you think of Vladimir Putin in Russia and how it seems like he does not have one, as discussed today as well. However he does have a broader strategy and its simply one that Americans don't understand.

He's broader strategy is to isolate and consolidate power at home, by what ever means are available to him. For Mr. Putin it’s all a matter of control and restoration.  Mr. Putin wants the Ukraine back in the sphere of a greater Russia - it's that simple - and that he'll use propaganda to win public support an obvious notion. Mr. Gates said that Mr. Putin's approval rating was 80%, to which Mr. Todd questioned the reliability of that poll considering it comes from state-controlled media. His broader strategy is to back in time and restore/create an alternately named new Soviet-type entity.

Another quick note on the interview between Mr. Gates and Chuck Todd is that Mr. Todd asked the former secretary, "If you could ask a presidential candidate one question what would it be?" Mr. Gates' reply focused on the people that the candidate would put around him or herself. He went on to say that "great presidents have a first-class temperament." Mr. Todd will certainly be bringing that up Mr. Gates’ answer during future debates and interviews with presidential hopefuls – a little cheap foreshadowing.

Also in terms of broader strategies, we liked Mr. Ryan's tone and answers in terms of trying to find common ground with the president on tax reform. One of the things discussed on the subject was the "trust fund loophole," in which the president would like to eliminate. Broadly explained, this loophole would be when you inherit assets, you would have to pay a tax that you now do not. Mr. Ryan’ argument was a very effective one that we happen to agree with. This type of tax would make it more difficult or prohibitive to pass along a family business so that it can continue generationally. When the argument is framed like that, it makes a lot of sense not to "close that loophole," doesn’t it?  A small business these days is a million-dollar enterprise – that's considered small scale while not being a small amount of money to most Americans.

Like Congressman Ryan, we don't know where the points of common ground are exactly between the president, Democrats and the Republicans. However, also like Mr. Ryan, we do remain hopeful that common ground can be achieved somewhere. But will it get done?

Here we turn to CNBC's Jim Cramer who when asked if tax form will really happen, his answer was "no way." The reason that he was so definitive on tax reform not happening is easy to understand. Any compromise on tax reform inevitably is going to hit big corporations so the heads of those corporations have little incentive to support tax reform on any level. When you take the reformation of an individual's taxes off the table then you are only left with corporate and the top one-percents’ taxes to play with, and are the most difficult to alter, politically.

Up until this point, this column has been reluctant to comment on presidential politics, but we will weigh in on the subject today because of the news that Mitt Romney has decided not to run for the office for a third time. This news prompted today's panel to conclude that the Republican field is now pretty much set. We find that so interesting because the Democratic field is so up in the air. Hillary Clinton has not declared her candidacy and no one is sure who else is interested in running from the Democratic side. So as it stands right now, one party has a set field and the other has no field.

With Mitt Romney out of the running now, Jeb Bush becomes the establishment candidate for the Republican nomination – that’s who is getting most of Mr. Romney’s former key donors. Everyone on the panel seems to like Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin – Iowa polls like him too. In Wisconsin, as Congressman Ryan said, Mr. Walker is so popular that he was elected three times in four years, playing off of the fact that he won his first election, won a recall vote, then won reelection. This joke can carry him a long way, possibly to the nomination. Note what Jim Cramer said – Scott Walker is good for stock prices. Kathleen Parker, the syndicated columnist, said that Scott Walker's attractiveness stems from him being able to play in both pools - the very conservative base and the establishment, more corporate, donor class of the Republican Party. When you take all that into consideration, you would have to say that Gov. Walker is a form of formidable candidate.

One note here, despite the Iowa polls showing Mr. Walker at the top and given our stated conclusion, this column has decided that Iowa in terms of being a bell weather or king maker does not represent the electorate and is hence a poor one.  This is especially true with the Republican base in that state.  When your leader is Representative Steve King, you should simply not be taken seriously.  The Iowa political tradition should be rethought.

(Back to it.) By contrast with Governor Walker, Mr. Bush has had his problems with the Republican base  - common core and immigration as Kathleen Parker mentioned.  There is also New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who definitely has his problems with temperament – the kind Mr. Gates described earlier. And ultimately that's his downfall. There’s former governor Mike Huckabee, the cultural warrior, who hasn't figured out that for the most part, in this country, the culture war has been fought and Mr. Huckabee's side has lost. Young Republicans are more libertarian in a truer sense than Mr. Huckabee ever will be. Naturally then, this leads you to think about the Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul. The problem with Sen. Paul as a president is that at one moment he has good ideas then comes back with a crazy idea.  In both cases, he’s unable to court any friends. To succeed, a president needs more alliances than what Senator Paul would be able to widely cultivate.

It's kind of what happened to President Obama in a way. Over the course of his presidency, his alliances have dwindled – ebbed and flowed – but ultimately have been reduced. Now he finds himself having to work doubly hard to build up those broad alliances again in the last two years of his term to accomplish anything.  We’ll see how he does.


Panel: Mark Halperin, Bloomberg News; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Savannah Guthrie, NBC Today Show; Jim Cramer, CNBC

1.25.15: Loud, Local Purists

Where we should begin this week's column is with what is going on in Yemen and the Middle East, but instead we are compelled to comment about the beginning of the Republican primary season starting in Iowa with the American Freedom Summit.

We genuinely have a distaste for the fact that Republicans wrap their conferences in these patriotic names that are supposedly justify a false ‘more Americanism’ than everyone else. Prospective Republican presidential candidates were trying to out conservative one another, today’s panel noted. By that measure, it was a good decision on the part of both Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney not to attend this "Summit" in Iowa.

 

It’s ‘summits’ like these that advance a notion that we’d like to address and that is the idea of the religion of conservatism. You can't paint all Republicans with a single brush – we know this, but the base of their party is so purist and vocal that they exercise disproportionate control.  So things like this American Freedom Summit are really disappointing to Americans of all stripes. Republicans spending time trying to out-conservative one another is a waste of time.

Law professor and commentator, Hugh Hewlitt, on today’s panel, covered the summit and said that Common-Core education was talked about much more than immigration. The panel didn't discuss same-sex marriage, though it was between Chuck Todd and Mike Huckabee in their interview, and we’re sure it didn't come up a lot in Iowa this week amongst conservatives. The reason why is that immigration and same-sex marriage are viewed in large part by the majority of people in the country as civil rights issues. All people no matter what your sexual orientation or where you have come from should be treated humanely, decently, and equally.

On the other hand, the Common-Core education debate is more philosophical and political because now you're talking what information we impart to our children. Do we teach creationism or do we teach evolution, for example. Honestly, for us, this is the silliest debate we've ever heard in terms of educating our kids. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee said that he agreed with the original intent of Common-Core, as it pertained strictly to language arts and math. He explained that when it extended beyond that, into the entire curriculum, that is where he turned away from it. 

In theory we agree with him, but we would strongly oppose something like creationism beubg taught in public schools in any state. That concept is based on a religious belief, and that religious belief should not be part of the public education system. To restate, the notion of creationism is make-believe and not based on any science. 

This is the danger of not having Common-Core education in an entire curriculum because outside of math and reading, depending on who runs the school district, ridiculous notions like the world is only 6,000 years old, which is scientifically untrue, can be introduced as if it is fact, which would be doing a disgraceful disservice to our children. This type of politics especially, conservative politics, is playing a huge role in misinforming school students in the United States.

This is the Republican debate because Jeb Bush, looking as if he is running for president, is for Common-Core education, which makes sense to achieve the goal of all American public school students to have a base knowledge in math, reading, writing, American History and geography.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rollins-Blake accurately described it as going against logic so that what they're saying does not stray outside of a very conservative way of thinking.  Most Republicans, again, are not like that; however most Republicans are perceived that way. And when it came to the topic of same-sex marriage, Tom Brokaw pointed out that Mr. Huckabee discussed it in purely procedural terms, and did not bring up the religious aspect of the debate. 

Conservatives, who are mostly Christian, understandably have a problem with same-sex marriage. Christian conservatives believe that marriage is between a man and woman; however, as you listen to Mr. Huckabee, he is very much about strictly following the Constitution. But the Constitution says that all men (and women of course) should all be afforded the same rights under the law. If that is the case then you cannot allow some people benefits of society while discriminating against others, benefits and rights can extend from taxes to visitation rights in the hospital to wills as they relate to marriage. 

Loud local purists, the kind that espouse a religion of pure conservatism, are no doubt damaging the Republican party by extension also damaging the United States. 

To say again, most Republicans do not want to be painted with such a brush understandably, just as most Muslims around the world do not want to be painted with the jihadist brush. 

Tom Brokaw noted that Pres. Sissi of Egypt stated in a speech recently that there is a problem with Islam, referring to the violent ideologues. This continuing turmoil in the Middle East will not cease and unless the governments of these countries can run their countries in non-theocratic ways.

Governments who managed to maintain peace under a theocracy do so by repression of their citizenry; for example as in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The major difference between the two is that you have an overwhelming majority of one denomination of Islam over another. In the case of Iran, people are predominantly Shia and in Saudi Arabia, they are predominantly Sunni. 

This brings us to Yemen, which was run by a U.S.-friendly Sunni government that has now been overthrown by Shia militant, backed by Iran. Yemen is quickly deteriorating into, as noted on today's program, is a Civil War between Shia and Sunni Muslims on the Arabian Peninsula.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said the United States has to up its intelligence and continue its operations in Yemen and Syria; intelligence, by the look of what's happening on the ground, seems spotty at best. 

We found the interviewee, Ahmet, in Richard Engel’s segment, to be somewhat credible. It’s difficult to believe that he was not tortured so for survival purposes, when beating prisoners as he said, he is most probably bending the truth when he said he was forced to do it.  That doesn’t at all discount the validity of his statements describing how people in Syria and people in Europe were in frequent communication.  This is something not to be taken in any other way than with grave seriousness. Isis feels legitimized by the United States attacking it, and it would feel further legitimized by successfully committing a major attack against either a Western European country or the United States, neither of which can be allowed to happen.

In Mr. Todd’s interview, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar described these radical jihadists as insane, and not religious adherents of Islam, and as a political ideology.  We can wipe out ISIS militarily and we can militarily end these religious conflicts. However, as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said, the dissension into hateful ideology (that has nothing to do with Islam) will continue because of the absence of one universal right – hope.

Panel: Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Stephanie Rowlings-Blake, Mayor of Baltimore; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, commentator

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)...