4.5.15: The Iranian Nuclear Deal & Religious Liberty

-->

It's a shame that on an Easter and Passover weekend we cannot speak about the topics from today's program in a more genial tone, but the guests and the subjects did not lend themselves at all well to any sort of conciliatory language.

Here’s the fact:  There is a deal in place.

It is certainly one that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not happy with as he unequivocally and repeatedly stated in his interview with Chuck Todd today that  Iran is the preeminent terrorist state of our time. Mr. Netanyahu, as we know, would like to see a deal that closes Iran's nuclear facilities, entirely rolling back their nuclear program.

But here’s another fact, is that's unrealistic. There is no way that is going to happen as Iran’s program is too far along, so much so that they were only a few months away from total nuclear weapon capability.  Mr. Netanyahu said that he wants a diplomatic deal, but one that is frankly unrealistic.  His only recourse to accomplish what he sees is a good deal would be to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities?  And if indeed that is the course of action, extrapolating out that plan, it would not be Israel that does the bombing, but the United States through authorization of a Republican Congress that frankly Mr. Netanyahu has in his vest pocket.  The deal pushes Iran’s capability back to a year’s time.

At the top of the program Mr. Todd summarized reactions on both sides: the hardliners in Iran felt that their Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, gave away too much and elected officials critical of the Obama administration in the United States said that the United States did not get enough concessions, so what we can surmise is that both sides felt some pain.  The other consideration, a big one, is that there were five other countries involved in negotiations. And this is key for the United States, in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. It does the United States well to be partnered with Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia and China. However, if the U.S. Republican-controlled Congress does not go along with this deal – doesn’t ratify it – essentially killing it then we've lost some key allies and significant partners, not only on this deal but in others where we'll need their cooperation. They will know that the president doesn’t have the ability to negotiate on behalf of the country, rendering the United States an unreliable partner that other countries will cease to seek out.

Given that Iran was only months away from constituting a nuclear weapon, this was a critical time and a deal had to be struck or the United States would have to be willing to go to war with Iran, and it would certainly go it alone, with only Israel as a partner, as none of those other five countries would support a war against Iran. Not to mention that, frankly, the American people simply don't want it.

Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT), who called the deal ‘remarkable,’ provided minor consolation for the deal, when he explained that other sanctions related to other issues at hand would remain in place.  Only sanctions as they are related to Iran's nuclear capability would eventually be lifted.  Mr. Murphy also offered the opinion that perhaps if the United States can show it can negotiate with Iran on this issue; perhaps it could negotiate with them on others. That’s a overly optimistic in our opinion.

When it comes right down to it the opinion of this column is one of pragmatism. Given the facts, as they are now, the question at hand is what the U.S. Congress should do now? As we’ve said, if Congress nixes this deal, which they probably will, it puts the United States in a very difficult diplomatic spot.

[Though were not really ready to comment on presidential politics at the moment, if in 2016 a Democrat is elected president and Republican Congress is still in control; will this sort of diplomatic negating tactic stay in place, essentially rendering the United States’ ability to negotiate with other countries completely null and void because of its unpredictability? Point being, is that this could set of very bad precedent that would only get worse moving forward.

And unfortunately speaking of the concept of ‘things-can-only-get-worse’ in the of presidential politics, we think of governors running for president in terms of how they run their states. So when we consider Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal: we ask ourselves: do we want to live Mr. Jindal’s Louisiana? The answer is clearly ‘no.’]

The above supplemental commentary aside, the essential question that Mr. Jindal was on today’s program to answer was in consideration of the validity of these religious liberty laws that have come through Indiana and Arkansas in the past week.

The first amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

In his defense of religious liberty laws, Mr. Jindal quoted referred to the founding fathers and the First Amendment, what is disturbing is that he would have you believe an incorrect reading of the first sentence of the first amendment.  (And frankly, Cardinal Dolan in his interview, was also incorrectly spoke about what the first amendment means.) In the first sentence, it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” What that means is Congress should make no laws with regard to religion, and making a religious liberty law is making law about ‘religion,’ which Congress shouldn’t do under any circumstance. The invocation of liberty is open to interpretation, but it's a non-issue regardless because the First Amendment it says no law should be made with respect to religion. That is most rudimentary answer as to why it is unconstitutional.

What these religious liberty laws were designed to do in a practical sense is protects businesses if they wanted to refuse service to a gay couple on the grounds that it goes against the religious values of the business owner. For example, if there is only one florist in town and a gay couple wants to get married – in that town in a state where same-sex marriage is legal - and they go to that florist to get flowers for the wedding.  The florist says, “I don't believe in that kind of marriage for religious reasons, so I am not delivering the flowers,” that business’s discrimination is protected under the law.  It’s protects the business’s right to discriminate based on sexual orientation.   Again - Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion.

Not to mention that throughout the entire interview, Governor Jindal spoke only in terms of Christians.  He didn’t speak at all in terms of all religions, just the Christian religion, which was sad. (And it didn't go unnoticed that Cardinal Dolan only referred to Christians and Jews as practicing religious peacefulness.) We understand and have sympathy for Cardinal Dolan's point of view because he is a cardinal in the Catholic Church, catering to Catholics! However with respect to Gov. Jindal, he signed up for PUBLIC office – public meaning everyone without respect to religion, not the office of the Christian public only. 

Panel:   Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Perry Bacon, NBC News

-->

3.29.15: Is The Obama Administration A Player or Just Being Played?

-->

It's a predictable notion that we’ll comment on the Germanwings plane crash which turned out to be a deliberate act, because we want to share our perspective on what some are calling an inexplicable act.  But before we get into that, we must skip over to the subject of Yemen and what is happening in the greater Middle East along with what the United States is doing in the region. The proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been going on for the better part of 30 years, and now that Cold War in the Middle East could become quite hot.

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir, said on today's program that the Saudi military was conducting airstrikes in Yemen against Iranian-backed Shia militias at the invitation of the Yemeni government with the goal being, as the ambassador stated, to protect the Yemeni people from these extremists. The ambassador also explained that they are conducting these airstrikes with the full support of the United States. Meanwhile on the other side of things, the Obama administration is in talks with the Iranian regime over its nuclear program. It was outlined on the program that the United States is presenting a pessimistic view of the negotiations while the Iranians are framing things in an optimistic light.

Here’s what we have to say:  At this point in time, there can be no deal no nuclear deal with Iran.

First, as former Ambassador Christopher Hill said, the mullahs in Iran have no interest in normalizing relations with Israel, let alone recognizing the country's right to exist. He used the phrase “a bridge too far” when Chuck Todd asked him why recognition of the Israeli state is not on the table for these negotiations.

Of course this column is a strong supporter of Israel, but, that is not the sole reason why we say that there should be no deal.  The other is that we just don’t see the wisdom in enabling Iran in extending its reach across the region by putting this deal in place, which would essentially lift sanctions give them greater resources. Now, it was brought up that if there is no nuclear deal then that would allow Iran to try and constitute its nuclear program freely as they would be able to kick out U.N. inspectors. The essential problem is that Iran is not acting in good faith – it will say what it has to so that the sanctions are lifted but still pursue a nuclear weapon.

The discussion on today’s program explained that while the US is supporting the Saudi's in their airstrikes against Shia militias in Yemen, the United States is also on the same side as Iran in the fight against ISIS. However, just to stay up to speed, it was reported in the New York Times this morning that Iranian led militias in Iraq left the fight for Tikrit in protest because of United States involvement in the form of airstrikes.  

Unless the Obama administration has some sort of Jedi chess move that we're not seeing, it seems like to us that it is being played by lead by both sides.  The Saudi's and the Iranians are essentially war with one another – hot, cold, lukewarm, covert, overt, whatever - and the U.S. is enabling both of them, but to what end?

The United States in no way should help Iran accrue the resources it needs to spread more of its control throughout the Middle East. What's tricky is that what you are left with is partnering with a regime that protects individuals that export extremism and terrorism targeting the United States, and that is Saudi Arabia. And that's not even to mention the Saudi's horrible human rights record and the way that they treat women.

The United States military in the Middle East should take a stance and posture of support. And what we mean by that is no airstrikes on ISIS. If the Iranians want to take that fight, let them, but the United States should keep the hefty sanctions in place as a certain deterrent to interfering with Kurdistan, Jordan, or of course Israel.

Because in this fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran, one which both sides clearly want to have, the United States shouldn't be fighting for either side. However, we've already thrown our support to the Saudi's, that's clear, but at the same time appeasing Iran is not the way to go.  Why be played by both sides?

It's not so much that we have a problem with the goals that the Obama Administration is trying to achieve – peace in the region. The problem we have is no one's listening to the Obama Administration; no one cares what they have to say; they are basically just in the way in the minds of the major regional players and are carrying no clout. No one is listening to them. 

Update: We want to add here that there could be a deal but there shouldn't be when all of the players involved are presently firing rockets and dropping bombs.

***

And now will briefly comment about the Germanwings plane crash, to try to provide a little insight. It's been reported that the co-pilot Andreas Lubitz had been suffering from depression, and The New York Times reported this morning that he was having problems with his eyesight.  The latter possibly causing Mr. Lubitz anxiety about losing his job, possibly ending his flying career.   Whether the concern about eyesight is legitimate or not, make no mistake the depression was there first. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker said on today's program that she wasn't completely convinced that the deliberate act of crashing the plane was due to a mental health issue. We don't have all the evidence so it is possible that there was a motivation that hasn't been identified as of yet.

But if, in fact, it was due to mental illness on the part of Mr. Lubitz, let's put that into a little perspective. Think about society today and how individuals are so physically cut off from one another. We live predominantly communicating through screens -the information that we give and the information that we receive.  We are more and more isolated, living inside our own heads too much and pre-occupied with self, especially true of younger people who have grown up in this technological isolating context. On top of that, take into consideration a general feeling around the world that economically life is never going to be easy, throwing a shadow of foreboding for massive amounts people.

It’s reasoned that someone who is suicidal will go and commit this act, and given that analysis, Mr. Lubitz should be considered a mass murderer of 149 individuals.  While he is, indeed, a mass murderer, maybe he was also (wrongly) thinking that for anyone to sympathize and understand his pain – to hear the cry - he had to bring spectacular attention to it and himself.  For him, the way was to down a passenger jet with all of those people on it.   That in no way explains away anything, serving no justification, but the notion that it was some inexplicable act we just don't buy.

Panel: Joe Scarborough, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe;” Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Sam Stein, The Huffington Post; Neera Tanden, CEO of the Center for American Progres

3.22.15: Conditions on the Ground Dictate

There will not be a two-state solution while Benjamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister.  That's what candidate Netanyahu said to court the hard Israeli right wing to win reelection.  He walked those comments back two days after the election, but it's his initial statement that is correct and will turn to be fact.  The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, explained that under current conditions on the ground, there will not be a Palestinian state, and that's what Mr. Netanyahu meant, and not that he wasn't in favor of one. 

In sorting this out, let's be clear - Mr. Netanyahu does not want a two-state solution, and it's curious that he doesn't see that it's in Israel's best long-term interest that there be.  However, where we agree with Mr. Dermer, Israel should not give statehood to the Palestinians if Israel is not getting peace in return.  If the Palestinians can not see their way in getting along peacefully with Israel then what's the point?

And this is where Mr. Riyad Monsour, Palestinian Observer at the United Nations, lost the argument. He said on today's program that Israel could not negotiate because Mr. Abbas's government in the West Bank didn't represent all Palestinians.  However, later when Mr. Abbas partnered with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, bringing the two factions together, Israel still couldn't negotiate.  That's the best he can do?  Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist as a state, which is an instantaneous deal-breaker. Their dual purpose of a free Palestine that can attack and destroy Israel is farce, and if actualized, is really the first step to their destruction.

Subtracting all the rhetoric, the reality is that a two-state solution is NOT the road to peace, but the end of the road of peace. But Hamas can not get with that program so two states are highly unlikely to happen on Mr. Netanyahu's watch, and there after.

And as Mr. Dermer pointed out, the prospect of another Iranian-backed extremist group on your doorstep - Hamas as junior partner - provides little incentive to do a deal.  And now that Iran has essentially taken control of another capital - Sanaa in Yemen - their growing influence begs the question of what point is it to sit down with a group when it's another country that really makes the decisions?

And speaking of Yemen, the country has broken down into the chaos of a sectarian civil war between Saudi-backed Sunni militias and Iranian-backed Shiite militias.  And though, as we alluded to above, this seeming victory for Iran looks good in the short-term, but it's right at Saudi Arabia's border, which makes it a completely different set of circumstances.  The Saudis will ruthlessly do anything to keep Iranians off the peninsula.  And while the Iranians will be weathering more crippling sanctions because of a failed nuclear deal, the Saudis, though deplorable human rights violators yet enjoying good international standing, will freely put even more money into Sunni extremist groups, like ISIS, to fight the Iranians.  The collateral damage of those extremist groups be damned in the mind of the Saudis.

Conditions on ground (in the region) dictate, and the one sure conclusion is that the conditions will not be getting better any time soon, certainly not in the time that Mr. Netanyahu is prime minister. 

***

 Conditions on the ground...

It's an all-too-nice segue into commenting on the interview with Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA), who said that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who will officially be the first person to declare a candidacy (tomorrow) for president of the United States in 2016, is completely unfit to hold the office on the basis of simply being a climate denier.  For this reason and a host of others, we couldn't agree more with Governor Brown. For the sack of some brevity, we'll just stick with climate change for today.

First, whether you believe climate change exists or not, the fact is that ice melt in the Arctic has set records this year, and with that fact here's a scientific fact that we all agree on - when ice melts it turns to water.  If you don't believe in climate change, then how about coastal change because that what's going to happen - that water has to go somewhere when all that ice melts.

Governor Brown mentioned extreme weather, which includes years-long drought that California is experiencing, as an effect of climate change, which shouldn't be confused with global warming.  We've pointed this out before, but it's worth reiterating and that is this:  when the climate changes in one region of the world other regions will be affected so when it gets warmer in the Arctic, it will become even wetter in tropical and coastal areas.  In the case of the East Coast of the United States, it is becoming wetter but the air remains cold hence the increase in snow fall.  However, one day decades from now the air will become warmer thus rain instead of snow.  So getting back to the case of California, it's dry and becoming worse. (And it will not get better before water is an emergency in the state.

If you're following Mr. Cruz's lead on this subject, we'll understate, being charitable, in saying their you're having an impairment of judgement.

Panel: John Stanton, Buzzfeed Washington Bureau; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Jane Harman, the Wilson Center

3.15.15: Congressional Killing of Time

Mr. Todd asked fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen the same question that he asked Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last week, and he was surprised that he got the same answer.  The question being who they feared more - Iran or ISIS, and both men answered Iran.  But the problem is not with the answer, it's with the question. 

Given Mr. Graham's track record of ill-advised foreign policy positions in the past, we'll still give him the benefit of the doubt here along with Admiral Mullen of course, that they are answering the question from a long-term strategic perspective, whereas the question is framed in terms of fear [of being attacked]. 

If you look at it that way, which seemed evident in Adm. Mullen's interview, then it makes perfect sense because the fact is that ISIS has too many enemies and Iran has too much influence. It's the expansion of that influence that prompts answers from these types of people.  Not too mention the other significant point that Andrea Mitchell brought up, which was the question of Iran's deliver systems and how advanced those are. So on a more macro level, their answers are well-founded because beside nuclear weapons ambitions, Iran wants the same oil influence in the world as Saudi Arabia has, which makes many vested parties more than uncomfortable - summed up by NBC's Bill Neely.  And lastly, Iran's position that Israel doesn't have the right to exist is completely unacceptable.  It has the right, it does exist - get over it and deal.  Maybe that seems trite, but if Iran only has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program then why the provocation?  And it's a continuing one, because Iran must know that before the first of anything hits the ground in Israel, the United States will have already dropped hundreds.  From the Iranian perspective, they play a dangerous foolish game, provoking the United States.

Tough talk... which should be delivered by the president, not by Congress in a sophomoric letter, in which it now has been established that neoconservative Bill Kristol consulted freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) on the idea.  Disappointingly and not surprisingly, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) has not second thoughts about signing it even given this week Senator John McCain admitting it wasn't thought out well unlike some of Mr. Kristol's other ideas like Sarah Palin for VP or the Iraq War.

And here's why Senator Tim Kane's (D-VA) co-sponsored bill that Congress must ratify any negotiated nuclear deal with Iran is a bad idea.  First, we want to point out that Senator Kane specifically said that the letter was "an unacceptable level of contempt of the office of the presidency," the very point we touched on in our last post.  In spirit, it's a good idea actually, but in practicality, a complete embarrassing disaster waiting to happen.  Keep in mind that the negotiations with Iran also involves the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, England, The United States, and France) and Germany.  If the bill languishes in Congress, which is likely - passing in the Senate and dead in the House where does that leave the deal?  The others go ahead and the U.S. is left out? We impose sanctions and no one else does while Iran continues on with it's nuclear program? If the bill does pass both Houses and the president vetoes it, then what? All this only to make the United States look fractured and indecisive - very problematic.

With what seems like a Congressional majority for the legislation that gives them a ratifying say in the matter, Congress is completely hands off when it comes to a formal authorization for the use of force against ISIS, which at least on the surface seems like there would be broad consensus, but instead just killing time.

Speaking of legislation and 'problematic,' how about Congress pass a law that limits the amount of times Congress can investigate an incident of government scale, like Benghazi.  Before Mr. Todd's interview with Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who heads up the Benghazi investigation.

The sixth one.

Now, fmr. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton clouded the issue with the personal e-mail controversy, but as Congressman Gowdy explain, she is but a very small part of the overall investigation.  He also said that his committee was the first one to interview Mrs. Clinton and several others.  This leads one to ask what the other committees that conducted investigations were doing.  Mrs. Clinton did testify in front of Congress so we'll presume he's differentiating between Congressional testimony and an interview.  It still makes no sense to do five investigations without interviewing all relevant officials.  Admiral Mullen was part of one of those investigations and he said on the program that he was completely comfortable with what his committee did and the conclusions they came to.  Mr. Gowdy's committee is doing work that should have already been done, what a waste.  And bringing it full circle, Mr. Todd mentioned that Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) wants an investigation into Mrs. Clinton's e-mails.  Not the most judicious use of time, wouldn't you agree?


Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Karen Finney, fmr. DNC Communications Director; Kevin Madden, fmr. senior advisor for Mitt Romney; Matt Bai, Yahoo News


A Note to the Producers:  On "Meet The Press," viewers, and the panel itself, are better served when it consists of only journalists, reporters, op-ed writers, et. al.  In other words the press, and not strategists.  The discussion of Mrs. Clinton's e-mails became a verbal joust between Kevin Madden and more egregiously Karen Finney (in Mrs. Clinton's defense), in which Mr. Todd has to shift from moderator to referee, which is inappropriate for "The Meet Press." That's for cable.

3.10.15: Seven Dwarfed By Forty-Seven Idiots

Forty-Seven Republican Idiots...

If you actually think that what these forty-seven Republicans Senator did in signing an ill-conceived letter written by freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) then you have no idea of how foreign policy should be conducted and the signal that this sends allies and adversaries alike.

Here are the seven still worthy of the office (the adults in the room):  Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  If he didn't think it was a good idea, then why would his forty-seven colleagues not heed that advice.

How did all of these supposedly experienced legislators with names like Hatch and McCain think this was a good idea?  We expect counterproductive legislators like Ted Cruz or James Inhofe to sign onto such stupidity.  But not the Republicans that have in fact shown some common sense like Rand Paul or Kelly Ayotte. 

Way to lead your Senate caucus Mr. McConnell...  Why don't you just thrown the gavel over your shoulder like a bouquet for anyone to catch.

And why are we so angry with this move? These Republican senators not only embarrassed themselves with this stunt, but all of us.  Secondly, not matter what these individuals think of the president, you do not disrespect the office of the presidency.  If you believe that the United States is an exceptional nation, for good or ill, you do not disrespect the lead office that is the face of our foreign policy.

Idiots...

And if you don't believe us that it was stupid and dangerous then read David Ignatius's (someone who is very critical of Mr. Obama's foreign policy) column in today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/10/gop-senators-letter-to-iran-is-dangerous-and-irresponsible/

Maybe you think it's farce... like how Dan Milbank describes Republicania, also from today's Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-set-up-their-own-breakaway-nation/2015/03/10/1618f6d4-c749-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html?hpid=z3

As idiotic and deplorable as this stunt was, we wouldn't go quite this far (but we love the provocation):

Wow, what's next?

3.8.15: Knowing Your Adversaries

“Embarrassing, humiliating and very arrogant” are the words that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) used to describe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress this past week.  Say what you will about that description, but there’s no doubt about another one of her comments, which was that no American ally would have done what he did.  Israel does enjoy a special relationship with the United States, that’s not at issue, but that the Prime Minister taking advantage of that to win re-election is deplorable.

However, in light of the above commentary, the one thing we agree with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on is that Iran is a much more dangerous adversary than ISIS.  That’s proven by the influence that Iran wields in the region – Shiites throughout the Middle East follow Iran’s lead.  Mr. Graham used to the term ‘enemy,’ which connotes that no negotiation or agreement can be reached.  Like Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Graham doesn’t want any agreement with Iran at all, but more severe sanctions and the use of military action always on the table.  Mr. Netanyahu seems to dictate the Republican view (with the exception of Senator Rand Paul who didn’t applaud enough… please) of Middle East policy.  The result of all this will be more instability in the region, which will then lead to more U.S. intervention, not less.

No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, of course, but what Senator Feinstein said about needing Russia and Iran’s help in ridding Syria of the Assad regime is true.  However, that’s simply not going to happen, and it leaves you with Chuck Todd’s question about who are really the U.S.’s Arab allies in the region who are able to fight ISIS and Assad. 

Here’s the problem for the United States: it’s fighting a strategy battle in the Middle East while almost everyone else is fighting a religious war.   What that means is that the U.S. needs to greatly strength its alliances with moderate strategic partners, Jordan and the Kurds to fight ISIS.  (This column has said before that the Kurds should have their own state  - the compromise being that the Kurds don’t get any present Turkish territory.  If this upsets Turkey, so be it.)  The religious war being fought by proxies for Iran and Saudi Arabia respectively cannot include the United States so it has to stop from getting sucked into those battles, which it hasn’t managed to do.

 

But here is what’s also really messed up (understating it), that Republican politicians in Washington will follow Mr. Netanyahu’s lead lock-step, but in Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich (R) committed suicide because of a whisper campaign that he was Jewish.   When conservative try to eviscerate the president for reminding people of the Christianity’s darker days of religious purity, they need to re-examine their collective righteousness because there a conservative political action committee (PAC) that wants religious purity in its candidates.  Senator Claire McCaskill who attended Mr. Schweich’s funeral this week stated that dark undisclosed money needs to be eliminated and that Congress should pass the Disclose Act to institute more transparency as to who is responsible for such messages.

Citizens United did put the final nail in the coffin of honesty or transparency in our politics, without a doubt.  For those who agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling to allow all this dark money in our politics don’t have the high-ground when it comes to Hilary Clinton and this e-mail scandal – that she was being illegally secretive.

 

When thinking about this, always keep in mind Amy Walter’s (from the “Cook Political Report”) notion that it is not at all about the e-mails.  It’s all about the narrative of Clinton secrecy.  Helping that along, Mr. Todd enforced the notion by saying that the Clintons follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Give us a break… What politician doesn’t do that?  To Mrs. Clinton’s defense, what she did is not without precedent (Colin Powell used private e-mail.) and she did not break the law.  However, did Mrs. Clinton not think that this could be problematic and just give Republicans more to dig through?   Even though the law wasn’t broken, you may with agree with Senator Feinstein that Mrs. Clinton should clarify and shed light on all this.  If so, then as The New York Times Jonathan Martin said, it must be before the announcement of her candidacy.  Then again, if she didn’t break the law, then what’s there to explain?

What’s funny about this is that we don’t blame Mrs. Clinton for setting up her own server for communication purposes while Secretary of State given how much more efficient the private sector is over government in trusting that it will work well.  When you think of it like that, it’s a good idea.  And if she did use the server for official business, has anyone just asked for access to the whole server, because that would be justified.   If she cannot do that, then you have to agree with Kathleen Parker that Mrs. Clinton has poor judgment or is hiding something.  Our feeling is that it’s a political story that the press ate right up, simply because it is about Hillary Clinton.  

 

And here’s another funny notion, slightly related.  Lindsey Graham in his interview today said that he never sends e-mail, doesn’t use it.  Mr. Graham may run for president but does he know that not using e-mail disqualifies him for the office.  Follow us here… You don’t use e-mail, which says to anyone under 35 that you are not tech savvy, don’t understand the internet or social media, and hence don’t understand American life today… why would that person vote for Lindsey Graham?  She or he wouldn’t. 

Panel: Jonathan Martin, The New York Times; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Manu Raju, Politico; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report  

A Note:  Yeah, sure… Obamacare is a disaster… that’s standard critical the line, but because of Obamacare the number of uninsured has decreased in every state, which disqualifies the law as a disaster.

Oh wait; we have our facts wrong.  The uninsured has not decreased in every state as Kansas is the only state that saw an increase of 4 percent.  Kansas’s political body completely opposes the law, didn’t use the federal money to expand Medicaid, and obviously didn’t set up its own exchange.  Way to go.

Program note: Good panel of journalists this week that was underutilized in only discussing presidential politics or Hillary Clinton, which is also presidential politics. 

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.