3.1.15: Homeland Security and Immigration... and Stupidity

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

Coun-ter Pro-duc-tive…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.22.15: The Ripple Mr. Giuliani's Insidious Statements

The main topics of today's program all carried a whiff of xenophobia and the ‘ol ‘otherness’ or ‘us and them’ aspect, and once again, unfortunately, it’s was driven by Republicans.

First, there were the stupid comments this week by former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R), in which he said that the president was not as patriotic as he should be; and that he didn't grow up loving the country like, say, you and me. To not endlessly rehash what we feel our readers already know of Mr. Giuliani’s statements, they were insidious at the least or as Nia-Malika Henderson of The Washington Post summed it they were ‘despicable.’  Indeed.

These kinds of statements have no place in sensible political discourse, as doesn’t Mr. Giuliani anymore, who is senselessly trying to remain relevant. But in trying to do so has, in fact, rendered himself completely irrelevant and cannot be taken seriously. Ms. Henderson also was correct when she described how most New Yorkers know Mr. Giuliani's reputation before 9/11 was not all that great, and that’s understating it. Everyone is grateful for his stout leadership on the worst day in New York City's history, but he has now crushed that legacy. Now Mr. Giuliani is simply a right-wing crank that doesn't represent the views of the people he once represented.

We would call Mr. Giuliani a joke but that would be inaccurate. More appropriately, Mr. Giuliani is the punchline to the bad joke on Scott Walker (R), the governor of Wisconsin.

We’re of the mindset that if you call the president unpatriotic or say that he doesn't love America hat is also to indirectly say that everyone who voted for him also doesn't love the country which is insulting to the majority of Americans who elected Mr. Obama twice.  So for Mr. Walker to not denounce Mr. Giuliani's statements, given at a dinner that was in fact for Mr. Walker's benefit, he is deservedly going to get beaten up in the press for such cowardice.

Today's panel also discussed a question asked of Mr. Walker as to whether or not he believed Pres. Obama was a Christian. Chuck Todd accurately described that the answer seemed to leave an opening that suggested that the president may not be a Christian. What is very obvious is that Mr. Walker needs to be schooled up very quickly if he's serious about contending for the presidency of the United States because right now he is certainly not ready for prime time. These ‘I’m-not-qualified-to-judge’ answers aren’t going to cut it anymore.

Republicans like to say that Scott Walker is a great Republican governor in a largely Democratic state, but the fact is that Mr. Walker despite having won three elections in four years – Republicans like to point out - has put the state of Wisconsin into debt.  And despite what Republicans say, not having unions is bad for middle-class families that earn money in manufacturing.  ‘Right to Work’ legislation simply gives all leverage to the employer that means you can be let go from your job arbitrarily.

And we can't let this go without mentioning Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). The governor said that if you are looking for someone to criticize Mayor Giuliani, go someplace else. This column is of the mindset that Bobby Jindal is delusional if he thinks he would be a good president. He has pretty much run the state of Louisiana into the ground, increasing debt and cutting education funding.  And speaking to which, he’s flip-flopped on common core education. When we think about Bobby Jindal, we don't think about how he won't criticize a fellow Republican, our aim goes directly to his policies.

The second semantic "controversy" stems from the fact that Republicans are condemning the president because Mr. Obama is not labeling ISIS as Islamic extremists. The president is calling them, rather, radical extremists. ISIS is an extremist group that follows an extreme interpretation of the Koran, which would indeed make them Islamic extremists. That’s what this column will call ISIS, but we completely understand why the Administration would not use that term. We agree that the Administration should not use that term.

This opinion column has the luxury to use such as description, just as we have the luxury to use the term “Christian extremist” when describing the West Baptist Church for example. That congregation takes an extreme view of the Bible. Can the president talk about Christian extremists? Of course he cannot because politically that's just a terrible thing to do. Our allies in the Middle East are Muslims and we have to show them, as a country represented by the Obama Administration, that we understand that not all Muslims are extremists. Even, conservative columnist, Michael Gerson agreed that you cannot alienate your allies in the region in such as way that lumps a billion Muslims world-wide with ISIS.

So we don't have a problem with Sen. Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, saying that he's going to call ISIS Islamic extremists. What we would ask is that people understand why Pres. Obama won't use that term.

On today's program video clips showed President George Bush saying that “Islam is peace,” and one of the fmr. Vice-President Dick Cheney saying that the Iraq war was not a war against Islam. So there is precedent for Mr. Obama’s tact.

One other thing that Senator Corker said that that we agree with was about the long-standing policy of the United States that it will not pay ransoms for American citizens captured by a group like ISIS. As we've said before in this column, we have great sympathy for Kayla Mueller’s family, but it must be said that Ms. Mueller knew the risks in going to Syria. She had to have known of those risks because to go there with out knowing those risks would have been unwise. No matter how much one's heart is in the right place one still has to go into something like that with eyes completely open. So, no, the United States should not change its policy on not ransoming captured citizens.

The next instance of frivolous non-inclusion is the Republicans stance on immigration inasmuch as they are tying it to funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The Congress has four days to resolve the funding issue of this department while demanding that the president revoked his executive orders on immigration.

In the interview that Chuck Todd conducted with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, he outlined a threat to the nation's malls, specifically the Mall of America in Minneapolis, a city with a large Somali population.  The threat came from Al-Shabab, a large terrorist organized based in Somalia. He said that people going to the mall should be more alert than they normally would be.  He said there will be extra security - visible and not. So in the face of these threats and in the matter of protecting American borders and enforcing border policy, which Republicans insist on, they are threatening a shutdown that would furlough 30,000 people in Homeland Security. Decide for yourself whether that's smart or not.

And finally, the last in this string of disenfranchisement has to do with voting laws.

It is heartening to know that there are many Republicans, more than Democrats would think, that can compromise and move forward bipartisan legislation – case in point is this new voting legislation, in light of the Supreme Court dismissing pre-clearance in changing voting laws in certain states, cosponsored by one of today's guests Congressman Charlie Kent (R-PA).  The legislation even has the support of Civil Rights icon Congressman John Lewis.

What we didn’t like about what Congress Kent said is that new voting rights legislation would have to contain a provision for voter IDs, which he agreed with. The congressman did give examples of voter fraud in his argument for requiring voter IDs, but there was a serious problem with his two cited examples. Both examples were of politicians who committed the fraud, not about the average voter. Yet, voter IDs penalizes the average voter and says nothing of the politician who is more apt to commit the fraud. If that's his best argument that he can make for voter ID then the argument is deeply flawed.

Sherrilyn Ifill, legal defense counsel for the NAACP, described and example of where a judge in Texas ruled that the state’s voter ID laws were specifically put in place to disenfranchise minority voters. Whether you agree with that judge's ruling or not, the mere conversation of votes being restricted runs counter to what the base goal really should be which is to have as many people focus possible. The goal should always be to increase voter turnout, not restrict it. If you think democracy is a good thing then why not encourage more of it.

Panel: Amy oh Walter, Cook Political Report; Nia-Malika Henderson, The Washington Post; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post; Robert Gibbs, fmr. White House Press Secretary

2.15.15: U.S. Responsibility to Engage ISIS

One of the central questions on today's “Meet The Press” was whether the United States is responsible for what is going on right now in the Middle East and should it be its fight at this point? There is broad consensus in the United States that soldiers should not be sent back into Iraq. This debate comes as President Obama is asking Congress for resolution to formalize its engagement with ISIS. 

First, today's Meet the Press in terms of format, guests and smoothness in its pacing [read: no awkward stumbles at all] was perhaps one of the best that Chuck Todd has done since taking over as moderator. We would still like to see interview guests on the program actually meet the press and have the journalists on the panel asking some questions. However, today that was unnecessary as Mr. Todd asked direct concise questions that elicited insightful and candid responses. One clear example of this was when Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said that the American people did not elect Republicans to majorities in both houses to see them fight within their own ranks – over tying funding for the Department of Homeland Security to the president’s immigration executive orders. 

When Mr. Todd was interviewing Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), he asked the senator if the United States responsible to stay in the Middle East with a military presence to try to stabilize the region. The senator did feel that United States did bear some responsibility to be there, but not to go it alone.  To which, Mr. Todd then switched to Russia and whether or not the United States should arm the Ukrainians. (As we stated in prior columns, we are not for arming Ukraine as that would be a mistake. Rightly, Mr. Todd noted that the Russian army would crush Ukrainian Army.

However, it is a bit of a false equivalent to put Russia and its aggression in the Ukraine side-by-side with what is essentially chaos going on in the Middle East. The reason is because the United States went into the Middle East and broke it even more than it already was. Whereas in the Ukraine, Russia has essentially invaded that country with covert troops and tanks and whatever hardware support that the Russian nationalists need. 

[On a bit of a side note: Senator Reed said he was in favor of supplying defensive weapons to the Ukrainians in the form of radar and anti-tank missiles along with economic assistance.  This is a strategy to bleed the Russians, a 'Vietnam-ing" of them if you will.  After we defined it in the sixties and seventies, the United States vietnam-ed Russia in Afghanistan and will employ a bit of that strategy in Ukraine.  (Just as the U.S. does to itself in the Middle East.)]

To answer the question as to whether or not the United States bears responsibility and should be in the Middle East fighting ISIS, we would put it this way. The worst foreign policy decision since going into Vietnam full force has been the invasion of Iraq in 2003, so yes. It has been the source of endless problems abroad and at home. If we hadn't spent $1 trillion in Iraq, think of all the bridges and roads that could have been repaired, the people put to work, and the lives saved.  There may not even have to have been an interview today with the Sec. of Veterans Affairs, Robert McDonald, if had it not been for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There would be no need for this president to have to go to Congress and ask for resolution to formally fight ISIS.

Incidentally, in discussions like the one that was conducted today, it’s where Sen. John McCain is at his most levelheaded best. Sen. McCain mentioned that in the administration's proposal for this resolution there was no mention of Bashar Al-Assad of Syria and what to do with the regime that has killed well over 100,000 of its citizens. We may not agree with Sen. McCain on how the United States should engage that dictator, but he indirectly brought up a valid point that if the administration wants a formal resolution then it has to provide a serious proposal with details. What does it mean to formally engage ISIS? Does that mean that there will be US ground forces fighting them are we prepared for to see more casualties coming home from Iraq?  The details have to be outlined and the timetable has to be, to use Mr. McCain’s term, ‘conditions-based.’ 

Now many in Congress don't want to give the president the resolution for political reasons - that they don't want to share in the responsibility if things go wrong. As Sec. McDonald said in his interview, these people need to be held accountable (900 fired for not doing their jobs), but they have not been in the case of Congress. Congress needs to take responsibility as well, and use the power of the purse, again noting the Mr. McCain.  But again, the administration has to present a serious proposal for this resolution. In actuality, what the administration really seems to want is a formal okay from Congress to keep doing what the military doing, which is bombing the hell out of ISIS while putting no boots on the ground.

The United States does bear responsibility for what is going on right now in the Middle East but not for everything, not the Syrian civil war. While the discussion on the program continued, we recalled Joe Biden who had the idea way back when that will probably end up being the end solution - that Iraq will become in essence three different states in loose union with one another. Think about it, if any one group has deserved to have its own state that would be the Kurds. I think most people would agree that the Kurds are the only ones who have kept up their end; perhaps because they are the most determined, and self-determining people among those in Iraq. 

When Mr. Todd interviewed Sec. McDonald he showed a video clip of the secretary verbally sparring with Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO), and we were glad to see. The former CEO Procter & Gamble did not sit idly by while a member of the House of Representatives went off on some bellicose rant to simply show up the secretary in a hearing. The secretary is holding people accountable, and by the answers that he gave it seems as though things are improving at the Veterans Administration. The man is obviously not motivated by money so maybe this graduate of West Point feels the obligation to give back and fight for the veterans, which we would call admirable. You have to give props when they should be given, we guess. And on a final note, he illustrated that admirability when he responded that he encouraged the administration being listed as ‘at high risk’ to bring light to what the problems are, but what he's also done for himself is set goals to correct those very problems. See the graphic below: 

Panel: Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist, The Washington Post; Joe Scarborough, MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" April Ryan, White House correspondent for the Urban Radio Network ; David Axelrod, former senior advisor to President Barack Obama

And just one more thing. There was another act of terror perpetrated last night in Copenhagen, Denmark, in which three people died where the shooter pledged allegiance to Isis in the name of Islam. But here's the truth about these individuals who commit these horrible acts for ISIS and Al Qaeda – they are all going to lose in the end, and the reason is because what they really believe in is nothing. Ideology is not religion. Religion is faith and faith is hope and that is something that these people have none of.

 

2.8.15: Strategic Patience

Before we go in-depth for this week's column, we are listing two names at the top here - two very significant names:

Lieutenant Muath al-Kasaesbeh
Sidi Bouzid

Years from now, when discussing beginning, 21st-century Middle East, these two names will be the touchstones.

Sidi Bouzi was the Tunisian fruit vendor who immolated himself that sparked the Arab Spring three years ago. And of course, more recently Lt. Muath al-Kasaesbeh was the Jordian pilot killed by ISIS. 

The Arab Spring, which right now seems like a disaster, will ultimately be viewed positively in history because it was the much needed call for citizens to act and demand just treatment, a more free society, but in the aftermath, people could clearly identify what they didn't want - e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt then, and ISIS now.  Lt. al-Kasaesbeh's death is a turning point in the fortunes of ISIS because moderate Muslims have had enough and Jordan is fully in the fight.

Let's not neglect to mention the Kurdish peshmerga who's actions Secretary of State John Kerry called "brave and courageous."  This is the kind of coalition the United States has to build and support in the region.  In addition, as Secretary Kerry also mentioned, the Iraqi Army needs to be retrained before they are ready to advance.  It just goes to show how compromised that force is that after all these years of U.S. training, they still have to be retrained. 

It's a big wrinkle that doesn't get mentioned much.  Right now, the U.S. needs to be able to work with the Iraqi Army, that is greatly under the influence of Iranian interests.  Wouldn't stand to reason that the Iranians are agreeing to lay off a bit so that the U.S. can train Iraqi soldiers if the U.S. agrees to keep the nuclear negotiations from breaking down with the implementation of additional sanctions. 

In the interview, Sec. Kerry defended the Obama Administration's foreign policy choice of 'strategic patience."  In the case of ISIS, that is a policy that has worked, bearing the mind the criticism that the Obama Administration allowed ISIS to form, but the sectarian force that Sec. Kerry mentioned (what the Iraqi Army turned into) was going to happen no matter what because of Iraqi politics, more particularly the policies of fmr. Prime Minister Maliki.  Sunnis in the western part of the country were going to retaliate, and ISIS results from that.

But all along, the more moderate Muslim community has had to take full control of the situation, with the Americans in a support/coordination role.  But to be vested, it has to be emotional and for the Jordanians, that's exactly what happened. 

Though sophisticated in its propaganda, it's banal to say that ISIS is not a rational actor so it was just a matter of time before the breaking point arrived.  However, Chuck Todd asked if Vladimir Putin should be considered a rational action or completely off the deep end, even bringing up the possibility of Aspergers Syndrome (which is described on the internet as a form of highly functional autism). That last bit about the Aspergers is laughable especially hasn't it come up really when discussing Kim Jung Un for example. Former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul said that Mr. Putin was obsessed with the CIA, but we would amend that with also being obsessed with his own power, described as a megalomaniac.

The 'strategic patience' line of thinking doesn't seem to be the way of logic when it comes to Ukraine, however.  Mr. Kerry said that the United States would supply economic and other aid to Ukraine.  It's the 'other' that one would have to worry about because what that really means is that the United States is going to supply the Ukrainians with arms. 

Interestingly, the panel/guests were divided on whether or not it was a good idea.  David Brooks took the classic cold war position of upping the ante to let them know you mean business.  The BBC's Katty Kay thought it not a good idea reasoning that putting more armaments into an already volatile situation, things will inevitably get worse.  Mr. McFaul said he was in favor of arming the Ukrainians.

Arming the Ukrainians at this moment would be a very bad idea especially given the upcoming summit in Minsk, Belarus between Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany.  What's complicated is that western Europe has to contend with energy concerns because Russia is a big supplier, a factor that carries much less weight for the United States' interests. Arming the Ukrainians should not be taken off the table, but only used as a last result. 

Also, if American politicians are going to keep saying that local actors [read: countries] have to get involved in the Middle East if they want ISIS defeated, then why wouldn't they be advocating for the same in Europe?  Especially since there is the huge difference that France and Germany are fully engaged and more than capable and willing to negotiate in their backyard.  For the sake of all the people that live in Europe, when it comes to arming the Ukrainians, let's have a little more 'Strategic Patience.'

A couple of quick hits...

We're not insightful when it comes to the procedures and happening of weekly prayer breakfast that the President is obligated to attend.  However, the president represents all Americans and unless they are acknowledging prayers for multiple faiths, then we shouldn't have it.  (separation of church and state)

And we agree wholeheartedly with Andrea Mitchell that Senator Rand Paul doesn't get a pass on the vaccination controversy, he's a medical doctor... and now obviously an irresponsible one.  Get your kids vaccinated.

Panel: Katty Kay, BBC America; David Brooks, The New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Stephen Henderson, The Detroit Free Press

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