Many of the President's critics say that he is taking on too much at one time and ask how can he be effective in taking on so many things simultaneously. The simple reason that he has taken so much at one time is that he has to. When you look back at the years of the previous administration, you feel inclined to ask, what really got done domestically? The signature example that someone would give you is the prescription drug benefit for senior, which most seniors would tell you the 'donut hole' aspect of the legislation is a tremendous physical and mental burden on them. Outside of the two wars and the 'war on terror,' nothing else got done so that's why President Obama has many things to tackle.
By that same measure, HIllary Clinton, in the first six months of her tenure as Secretary of State, has logged in over 100,000 miles traversing the globe repairing America's reputation around the world. No easy task given our recent unilateral approach to foreign policy. Mrs. Clinton rightly noted that, 'Our priorities for the last eight years did not seem to include other countries or consider them.' Unilateralism is leadership by 'follow us or else,' which by nature sparks resistance.
However, where the unilateral approach should be maintained is with North Korea, which Mrs. Clinton addressed first in today's exclusive interview. The rudimentary policy toward North Korea is contain, sanction, and deny. Mrs. Clinton stated that North Korea's behavior would not be rewarded. This column would take it further and not reward bad or good behavior by Kim Jung Il's regime. The writing is on the wall, so to speak, for North Korea. Kim Jung Il appointed his youngest son to succeed him. It has been reported that the Great Leader has pancreatic cancer. When he passes, there will most certainly be a power vacuum, and like Rome, once Caesar is gone, those who are left will squabble for control and things will crumble. This will bring the generals to the table and not unwillingly. This is the waiting game being played.
With regard to Iran, a country which this column believes is a linch pin for a more stable world. Secretary Clinton's statements were mixed on the regime and taken at face value, could negatively effect any thawing of relations between the U.S. and Iran. She first stated, "We want to affect The internal calculus of the regime." There are a myriad of interpretations for a statement like that. Knowing how sensitive Iran to such statements, it can be troubling given the tenuous situation post-election in the country. To 'affect the calculus,' or in other words, try to overtly stir the public ire for the regime could see a backfiring effect. The people of Iran, it seems, have come to a conclusion. The people have moved and are fighting past the regime, oppression is no longer tolerable to the Iranian people. Mrs. Clinton's concluding statement should be the tact we take at the moment, which is to say that 'the people deserve better.' Mr. Gregory asked her if the regime was illegitimate, which she wisely circumvented when answering the question.
The other significant topic that needs to be touched on is Afghanistan and the fact this is month has been the most deadly since we entered the country in 2001 - an unsettling fact given that we've been in country for 8 years. David Gregory questioned when Mrs. Clinton pointed out that we are there with the goal to dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda, but that we are fighting the Taliban. Instead of asking this obvious leading question, which only leads us to an answer we already know, why not ask what the depth of the relationship is between Al Qaeda and the Taliban at this point. How much of a proxy are the Tabiban to Al Qaeda now? How coordinated are they? Are they, in fact, what stands in the way of us capturing Al Qaeda leadership?
Mrs. Clinton said that a key strategic change has been that we are clearing and holding areas of the taliban while and training people in those towns/villages to live without a Taliban presence. The United States has to at some time stop the strategy of 'going in, destroying everything, and then leaving things as a crap show' as has been our history. The administration's approach is the right one, but because of this absolutely necessary 'hands-on' approach, proximity is risk and there will unfortunately, but inevitably, be casualties. And had the focus always been on Afghanistan and not Iraq, this month would not carry that statistic.
--
Much has been made, yet not of late, of how the working relationship would be between Secretary Clinton and President Obama. To hear Mrs. Clinton say that the real story should be the common cause that the two officials share is reassuring to say the least, but you also believe it. It's like people of the same zodiac sign, if you believe in that sort of thing. Two people of the same sign get along very well but also occasionally butt heads pretty hard. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share the same political sign, not to mention a mutual respect. Mrs. Clinton also mentioned decisiveness and dedication in describing Mr. Obama - these are two qualities Madam Secretary also possesses. Something important should be pointed out with regard to shared philosophy. As we said, everyone wants a piece of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton and what they both do is talk to ordinary citizens [people] home and abroad. It's not a forum that many politicians are comfortable with and most only meet with country officials when visiting, but this continued effort to connect with the people has immeasurable dividends. This is the dream team - world famous people that others gravitate to - tasked with restoring the American Dream home and abroad. As our parents always said, 'We'll see.'
Pertinent Link from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html?_r=1&hp
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
7.12.09: The Tale of Two Tails
This week's Meet The Press boils down to the tale of two political figures - President Barack Obama and Governor Sarah Palin. Some conclusions can be made simply from the nature of the topics discussed in relation to each individual. When discussing Mr. Obama, healthcare, the economy, the deficit, international trips and goals while with Ms. Palin the discussion veers toward weather or not stepping down from the Governor's office in Alaska was the right thing to do.
Roger Simon said on today's program that if the Republicans had to choose a candidate for 2012 today, it would be Sarah Palin. He explained that all she would have to beat is Governor Tim Polenty (R-MN), Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (R), and Mitt Romney (R). The pragmatic reading of Mr. Simon's assessment is that those other individuals don't have enough political clout, popularity, or charisma to win the nomination over someone who just quit her political post.
Today's first guest, the MTP champ, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) he was not shocked but a bit surprised that she stepped down. He explained that the Palin family have had to endure unprecedented, sustained person attacks from the media establishment. In the case of Mr. McCain, all of his Palin statements are a defense of self - simply defending his choice of Ms. Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2008. David Gregory asked Mr. McCain if her if resigning as Alaska's Governor was a poor reflection on her leadership ability. He deferred to the Palin line that stepping down was in the best interest of the state. Andrea Mitchell, one of today's roundtablers, said that the residents of Wasilla feel she quit on them and that the label of 'quitter' is going to stick with her.
How could it not? That is what she, in fact, did. Also, I do not think we've gotten the true reasoning for her decision. Personal attacks are a part of being in public office and not being able to stand that heat doesn't speak at all well of one's leadersthip meddle. Project hypothetically, for a moment, Ms. Palin in the Presidential position - how would she react to a serious crisis or to a scandal (inevitable for any administration)? Mr. McCain said that he was confident that she would make a fine President, but again refused to give her any kind of endorsement for future office.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is actually taking heat for his policy decisions - on healthcare, the economy and deficit spending, actions in iraq and afghanistan. Now, granted, he is the President and his feet should be felt to the fire but putting these two individuals in the same arena is ridiculous. How many times does it need to be said that these are serious times and serious people need to make serious decisions. Ms. Palin's doings and actions are those of self-interest and despite her saying it is in the best interest for the people of Alaska that she step down is such an illogical argument, that it throws all of her decisions and motivations into question.
On to more serious topics, Mr. McCain called it 'generational theft' again when referring to Mr. Obama's healthcare plan. But how about the bill for two wars? We'll be paying for those for a long time to come - into the next generation so what does that actually mean. 'Generational Theft' is a catchy political phrase, but no politician right now is immune from that charge. He actually called for lower taxes on corporations and said to focus on small businesses. Hmmm... isn't it the corporations that create an untenable situation for many small businesses to survive, making them unable to compete? Karen Hughes, another on today's roundtable, said that there is a fine line between 'mavericky' and quirky (in referring to Sarah Palin), and in the case of Mr. McCain, maverick has succumbed to empty political bluster.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) followed Mr. McCain to defend Mr. Obama's policy choices and recent statements that the administration misread the economy. To this point, we've all learned by now that there is not an instant fix and the complexity is so vast that no one has a solution or an amount of sufficient cash to correct any one of the various problems. Mr. Schumer defended the President by saying that he wasn't going to be deterred by an one statistic this week or another, but has his eye on the goal of long-term economic stability - gradually but certainly he said. However, the statistics from week to week are daunting and in front of our face, making them impossible to ignore.
There are complaints that the stimulus has not been used for its intended purpose, that it's not enough, that it's a waste, that it contained too much pork, etc. One thing specifically is that the states have used their respective stimulus amounts to sure up the respective state governments instead of creating jobs. This was to be expected because all the states are short of cash. What people don't know or have seem to have forgotten is that during the Bush Administration, the President drastically cut federal aid to all the states, leaving them to borrow and create bonds that are now worth nothing and hence in grave debt as is the case of California and Pennsylvania to name a few.
The stimulus will take time to work, the American people will have stopped waiting and given up on it when we actually see the fruit of it. Roger Simon said that Mr. Obama now owns the economy, it is no longer a Bush mess to clean up. The President's poll numbers are down and it seems as though nothing at the moment is really working. It almost seems like too much for any one individual to carry on his shoulders. Some relish in saying that Mr. Obama is failing in doing so. What do you think Barack Obama is likely to do in the face of all this? Quit?
Hardly.
Roger Simon said on today's program that if the Republicans had to choose a candidate for 2012 today, it would be Sarah Palin. He explained that all she would have to beat is Governor Tim Polenty (R-MN), Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (R), and Mitt Romney (R). The pragmatic reading of Mr. Simon's assessment is that those other individuals don't have enough political clout, popularity, or charisma to win the nomination over someone who just quit her political post.
Today's first guest, the MTP champ, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) he was not shocked but a bit surprised that she stepped down. He explained that the Palin family have had to endure unprecedented, sustained person attacks from the media establishment. In the case of Mr. McCain, all of his Palin statements are a defense of self - simply defending his choice of Ms. Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2008. David Gregory asked Mr. McCain if her if resigning as Alaska's Governor was a poor reflection on her leadership ability. He deferred to the Palin line that stepping down was in the best interest of the state. Andrea Mitchell, one of today's roundtablers, said that the residents of Wasilla feel she quit on them and that the label of 'quitter' is going to stick with her.
How could it not? That is what she, in fact, did. Also, I do not think we've gotten the true reasoning for her decision. Personal attacks are a part of being in public office and not being able to stand that heat doesn't speak at all well of one's leadersthip meddle. Project hypothetically, for a moment, Ms. Palin in the Presidential position - how would she react to a serious crisis or to a scandal (inevitable for any administration)? Mr. McCain said that he was confident that she would make a fine President, but again refused to give her any kind of endorsement for future office.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is actually taking heat for his policy decisions - on healthcare, the economy and deficit spending, actions in iraq and afghanistan. Now, granted, he is the President and his feet should be felt to the fire but putting these two individuals in the same arena is ridiculous. How many times does it need to be said that these are serious times and serious people need to make serious decisions. Ms. Palin's doings and actions are those of self-interest and despite her saying it is in the best interest for the people of Alaska that she step down is such an illogical argument, that it throws all of her decisions and motivations into question.
On to more serious topics, Mr. McCain called it 'generational theft' again when referring to Mr. Obama's healthcare plan. But how about the bill for two wars? We'll be paying for those for a long time to come - into the next generation so what does that actually mean. 'Generational Theft' is a catchy political phrase, but no politician right now is immune from that charge. He actually called for lower taxes on corporations and said to focus on small businesses. Hmmm... isn't it the corporations that create an untenable situation for many small businesses to survive, making them unable to compete? Karen Hughes, another on today's roundtable, said that there is a fine line between 'mavericky' and quirky (in referring to Sarah Palin), and in the case of Mr. McCain, maverick has succumbed to empty political bluster.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) followed Mr. McCain to defend Mr. Obama's policy choices and recent statements that the administration misread the economy. To this point, we've all learned by now that there is not an instant fix and the complexity is so vast that no one has a solution or an amount of sufficient cash to correct any one of the various problems. Mr. Schumer defended the President by saying that he wasn't going to be deterred by an one statistic this week or another, but has his eye on the goal of long-term economic stability - gradually but certainly he said. However, the statistics from week to week are daunting and in front of our face, making them impossible to ignore.
There are complaints that the stimulus has not been used for its intended purpose, that it's not enough, that it's a waste, that it contained too much pork, etc. One thing specifically is that the states have used their respective stimulus amounts to sure up the respective state governments instead of creating jobs. This was to be expected because all the states are short of cash. What people don't know or have seem to have forgotten is that during the Bush Administration, the President drastically cut federal aid to all the states, leaving them to borrow and create bonds that are now worth nothing and hence in grave debt as is the case of California and Pennsylvania to name a few.
The stimulus will take time to work, the American people will have stopped waiting and given up on it when we actually see the fruit of it. Roger Simon said that Mr. Obama now owns the economy, it is no longer a Bush mess to clean up. The President's poll numbers are down and it seems as though nothing at the moment is really working. It almost seems like too much for any one individual to carry on his shoulders. Some relish in saying that Mr. Obama is failing in doing so. What do you think Barack Obama is likely to do in the face of all this? Quit?
Hardly.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
6.28.09: The Democrats Need One More Idea
David Axelrod, on today's Meet The Press, once again hammered the Republicans for not having any new ideas. Some would say that this is beyond the point of bullying as these kinds of statements are echoed by every other Democrat. In all frankness, until the Republicans actually come up with one... we say hammer away. However, with all that hammering, the Democrats really need to build something. But are they? That's the real story.
This week, President Obama's Climate Bill went to the floor of the House and came out with a three-vote victory. Forty-four Democrats didn't vote for it. Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) said later in the program that Democrats were jumping off from the President's agenda faster than Republicans. To say that's a bit of hyperbole is a modest understatement, but nonetheless the victory was a narrow margin. Mr. Graham also made a point of saying that the bill would go no where in the Senate.
On the healthcare issue, Senator Graham analogized that the Obama Administration was using Rovian and Tom Delay-type tactics to make people vote for something they don't want to vote for. In that statement, he basically threw most of George Bush's policy wins under the bus. Using those tactics pushed their entire agenda through the Congress. Now, a Republican Senator is invoking those names as negatives. He used bullying as a criticism instead of offering a solution.
However, Democrats seem to be getting sheepish about their agenda and this is an area of grave concern. It is the Democrats who actually need a new idea, which is that, as a party, they have to not be afraid of upsetting the other side. The need to lead and ignore the kicking and screaming of the Republicans while stepping through the door. Additionally on healthcare, today's first guest David Axelrod, President Obama's senior advisor, said that he thinks there will be a public option in the bill.
Mr. Gregory phrased the question to today's panel, a good one, (New York Times' David Brooks, Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Vanity Fair's Dee Dee Myers & Republican Strategist Mike Murphy) this way: Is this pragmatism and the art of compromise on the part of this president, or is it weakness? The Obama Administration needs to remain pragmatic, but comprise less. Mr. Axelrod needed to make it clear that a public healthcare option is essential to the bill and that they is no way the President will not sign it into law without this provision - Senator Graham's statement be damned. Say it today and start fighting for it or the rhetoric will nosedive in credibility.
And a note on credibility, this column gives more reverence to Mr. Mike Murphy then any other Republican Strategist that appears on the program or otherwise so it is reassuring to have The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne as his foil on today's panel to... well, frankly to call 'bullshit' on some of Mr. Murphy's statements. Case in point being the Wyden Bennett Healthcare plan, which basically stipulates that healthcare would be available to everyone through private insurers who are mandated to become more cost efficient and not adding insanely to the deficit. Mr. Murphy said that this is a much better plan than the public option and that the Democrats could pass that instead. At this point, Mr. Dionne rightly pointed out that the bill, which is law in Massachusetts, could have been passed at any time while Republicans held the majority.
Speaking of Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney, Senator Graham's companion guest today, pointed out the success of the program passed under his leadership. Mr. Romney relies on people's short term memories in the hopes that they will forget some very liberal stances (being a pro-choice Republican Governor) he held while Governor of the state. Credibility remains an issue for Mr. Romney and will dog him when he attempts another unsuccessful run for the Presidency.
So, lastly, when he says that public figures should be held to a higher standard, in reference to the revelations of Governor Mark Sanford's (R-SC) behavior this week, we agree with him but for completely different reasons. Affairs are personal matters, a tragedy of family life that no one is immune to, and most people understand this. Where Mr. Sanford should be held accountable is in his duties as Governor of South Carolina. He left the state without informing anyone as to where he would be and then had his staff lie about his location. This is irresponsible behavior - obviously if there were an emergency while he was away, it leaves a leadership void in the most crucial hours of any crisis - the first few.
This week, President Obama's Climate Bill went to the floor of the House and came out with a three-vote victory. Forty-four Democrats didn't vote for it. Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) said later in the program that Democrats were jumping off from the President's agenda faster than Republicans. To say that's a bit of hyperbole is a modest understatement, but nonetheless the victory was a narrow margin. Mr. Graham also made a point of saying that the bill would go no where in the Senate.
On the healthcare issue, Senator Graham analogized that the Obama Administration was using Rovian and Tom Delay-type tactics to make people vote for something they don't want to vote for. In that statement, he basically threw most of George Bush's policy wins under the bus. Using those tactics pushed their entire agenda through the Congress. Now, a Republican Senator is invoking those names as negatives. He used bullying as a criticism instead of offering a solution.
However, Democrats seem to be getting sheepish about their agenda and this is an area of grave concern. It is the Democrats who actually need a new idea, which is that, as a party, they have to not be afraid of upsetting the other side. The need to lead and ignore the kicking and screaming of the Republicans while stepping through the door. Additionally on healthcare, today's first guest David Axelrod, President Obama's senior advisor, said that he thinks there will be a public option in the bill.
Mr. Gregory phrased the question to today's panel, a good one, (New York Times' David Brooks, Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Vanity Fair's Dee Dee Myers & Republican Strategist Mike Murphy) this way: Is this pragmatism and the art of compromise on the part of this president, or is it weakness? The Obama Administration needs to remain pragmatic, but comprise less. Mr. Axelrod needed to make it clear that a public healthcare option is essential to the bill and that they is no way the President will not sign it into law without this provision - Senator Graham's statement be damned. Say it today and start fighting for it or the rhetoric will nosedive in credibility.
And a note on credibility, this column gives more reverence to Mr. Mike Murphy then any other Republican Strategist that appears on the program or otherwise so it is reassuring to have The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne as his foil on today's panel to... well, frankly to call 'bullshit' on some of Mr. Murphy's statements. Case in point being the Wyden Bennett Healthcare plan, which basically stipulates that healthcare would be available to everyone through private insurers who are mandated to become more cost efficient and not adding insanely to the deficit. Mr. Murphy said that this is a much better plan than the public option and that the Democrats could pass that instead. At this point, Mr. Dionne rightly pointed out that the bill, which is law in Massachusetts, could have been passed at any time while Republicans held the majority.
Speaking of Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney, Senator Graham's companion guest today, pointed out the success of the program passed under his leadership. Mr. Romney relies on people's short term memories in the hopes that they will forget some very liberal stances (being a pro-choice Republican Governor) he held while Governor of the state. Credibility remains an issue for Mr. Romney and will dog him when he attempts another unsuccessful run for the Presidency.
So, lastly, when he says that public figures should be held to a higher standard, in reference to the revelations of Governor Mark Sanford's (R-SC) behavior this week, we agree with him but for completely different reasons. Affairs are personal matters, a tragedy of family life that no one is immune to, and most people understand this. Where Mr. Sanford should be held accountable is in his duties as Governor of South Carolina. He left the state without informing anyone as to where he would be and then had his staff lie about his location. This is irresponsible behavior - obviously if there were an emergency while he was away, it leaves a leadership void in the most crucial hours of any crisis - the first few.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
5.31.09: Justice Needs Cataracts Surgery
The controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is due to a speech she made in 2001, which contained a statement that could be interpreted that a Latina woman, as a judge, could make a more informed decision than a white male. The second 'worrisome' statement is that she will use the perspective of her race and heritage in making decisions. We have screen-captured the statement from today's program to ensure accuracy.
The concern amongst Republicans is that this statement suggests that Judge Sotomayor will not be an impartial justice, once again, because of her heritage and race. First, in this excerpt, there seems to be a context missing when Ms. Sotomayor refers to 'that life.' To whose life is she referring? This is fair game for questioning and if a satisfactory answer isn't given, then there can be legitimate concern. justice should be blind - fair and impartial. As far as using her heritage, in other words her background, in decision-making it would suggest that she is inclined to activism instead of unbiased interpretation.
However, let's look at this through a different lens. If a justice were presiding over a case that involved malpractice and a cancer patient, and had previously had cancer or had a family member with the disease then wouldn't experience come into play in the decision making process? Regardless of the ruling, if the justice has had a personal experience with cancer, wouldn't that justice want to know as much as possible to make the correct decision? Experience is affecting the decision-making process.
Or simply, maybe Ms. Sotomayor gave the speech to a predominantly Latino crowd, and feeling particularly proud with others in the room voicing their approve, she played it up a bit. Who knows?
But racist? Consider the source of these most vocal attacks - Rush Limbaugh. In a defensive and wounded position, an animal can be at its most dangerous. From this stance, Mr. Limbaugh is achieving his goal - to focus and get more of the attention on him. That's it. Not to mention, but it must be, that Mr. Limbaugh makes many veiled racist statements daily on his program so this sort of hypocrisy can not even be cut with a knife.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking Republican on the Judicial Committee and its chair, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) were on the today's Meet The Press. What is mystifying to this column and I'm sure many others, is why can't an elected official from The Republican Party, a leader, step up and echo Mr. Sessions' measured statements of today and his call to stop labeling Ms. Sotomayor as a racist. More than anything, the absence of an elected Republican leader is what is holding the party back. Ideologues such as Mr. Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, have insufficient experience to truly affect positive change. The lens, from which they view the world, is too narrow and limits one's perspective. Republicans are becoming fond of saying that justice should be blind, and a justice to just call balls and strikes, but that's not how it is in the real world, the changing human condition demands that the law be given perspective. Relentless dogma is what we should strive to avoid. Instead, Justices should keep their eyes wide open to the changing reality to apply the law most accurately.
By the way, Ms. Sotomayor will be confirmed as a United States Supreme Court Justice. Barring some sort of Larry Flynt type evidence, she will be confirmed.
Also, as a side note, doesn't Senator Sessions look an awful lot like Defense Secretary Robert Gates? Having more fun with pictures this week, see below and decide for yourself.
The concern amongst Republicans is that this statement suggests that Judge Sotomayor will not be an impartial justice, once again, because of her heritage and race. First, in this excerpt, there seems to be a context missing when Ms. Sotomayor refers to 'that life.' To whose life is she referring? This is fair game for questioning and if a satisfactory answer isn't given, then there can be legitimate concern. justice should be blind - fair and impartial. As far as using her heritage, in other words her background, in decision-making it would suggest that she is inclined to activism instead of unbiased interpretation.
However, let's look at this through a different lens. If a justice were presiding over a case that involved malpractice and a cancer patient, and had previously had cancer or had a family member with the disease then wouldn't experience come into play in the decision making process? Regardless of the ruling, if the justice has had a personal experience with cancer, wouldn't that justice want to know as much as possible to make the correct decision? Experience is affecting the decision-making process.
Or simply, maybe Ms. Sotomayor gave the speech to a predominantly Latino crowd, and feeling particularly proud with others in the room voicing their approve, she played it up a bit. Who knows?
But racist? Consider the source of these most vocal attacks - Rush Limbaugh. In a defensive and wounded position, an animal can be at its most dangerous. From this stance, Mr. Limbaugh is achieving his goal - to focus and get more of the attention on him. That's it. Not to mention, but it must be, that Mr. Limbaugh makes many veiled racist statements daily on his program so this sort of hypocrisy can not even be cut with a knife.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking Republican on the Judicial Committee and its chair, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) were on the today's Meet The Press. What is mystifying to this column and I'm sure many others, is why can't an elected official from The Republican Party, a leader, step up and echo Mr. Sessions' measured statements of today and his call to stop labeling Ms. Sotomayor as a racist. More than anything, the absence of an elected Republican leader is what is holding the party back. Ideologues such as Mr. Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, have insufficient experience to truly affect positive change. The lens, from which they view the world, is too narrow and limits one's perspective. Republicans are becoming fond of saying that justice should be blind, and a justice to just call balls and strikes, but that's not how it is in the real world, the changing human condition demands that the law be given perspective. Relentless dogma is what we should strive to avoid. Instead, Justices should keep their eyes wide open to the changing reality to apply the law most accurately.
By the way, Ms. Sotomayor will be confirmed as a United States Supreme Court Justice. Barring some sort of Larry Flynt type evidence, she will be confirmed.
Also, as a side note, doesn't Senator Sessions look an awful lot like Defense Secretary Robert Gates? Having more fun with pictures this week, see below and decide for yourself.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
5.17.09: The Wrong Debate
For us wonks at the MTP Opinion, the anticipation for the program is only growing at the moment with all the talk during the week of the rating challenges, which Meet The Press has dominated forever... Now, it's a toss up so we were anxious to see how David Gregory would respond. Today's first two guests, the respective chairmen of our two major political parties, Tim Kaine (D) and Michael Steele (R) discussed the positions from the party perspective and how they were at odds with individuals in each party.
It's amazing how this country can't seem to get past things without being able to maintain a perspective on history. What that means is that we collectively keep going back to the same old debates that, frankly, cripple progress in this country, and today's first topic has wrongly come to be one of the defining pillars in each of the party's platforms - abortion, referring to Mr. Obama speaking at the Catholic university Notre Dame today.
Here's why we have to move on from this. First, the President actually has lead on this debate in discussing ways of preventing unwanted pregnancy. That should be the real focus instead of weather it should be illegal or not, and it shouldn't be. Most people would say that they would hope that the circumstances don't drive a woman to an abortion - the sympathy. However, it is a woman's individual right... signed into law. It should be taken out of the political debate. Take the two chairmen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat, is pro-life. And Michael Steele, though he says he's pro-life as well, he has made some statements that contradicted that position. Given this division, when the subject of abortion is brought up, the first thing that should be talked about is the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and what can be done to reduce it. It's the harder road to go down and that's why the debate remains 'legal or illegal.' It's the easier road and you crash either way.
And speaking of crash, this column, on many occasions, has cited Nancy Pelosi as the major train wreck of the Democratic Party leadership. Part of being a good politician is knowing what questions are going to be coming at you and having an answer prepared before you're hit with it. Ms. Pelosi needs to work on this. 'Dazed and confused is not good way for the speaker of the house to look,' Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal) aptly stated on today's panel. Ron Brownstein from the National Jounal postulated that arguments made of the past are used to shape the future.' If this is the case for Ms. Pelosi then it is an argument that is lost because she unnecessarily escalated the argument as Mr. Brownstein also observed.
If she was not told about waterboarding, just say so without making accusations. As soon as she did that, Republicans pounced and effectively changed to focus of the debate. Michael Steele's answer on today's program with regard to the subject is a clear illustration of the conservatives' cavalier attitude to one of the platforms of this nation's moral fiber, which is that we, The United States, does not torture. First, his focus, he admits, is not weather we should torture or not, but what did Speaker Pelosi know and when she knew it. 'She stepped in in big time,' he said. Great for 'gotcha' politics and nothing else.
But Mr. Steele also said that we used techniques that we're appropriate at the time. What does that mean exactly? This is where Mr. Gregory as moderator needs to address that, but this column gets the feeling that unfortunately, where Mr. Russert listened, Mr. Gregory simply waits to talk. So 'appropriate at the time,' but according to whom? A lawyer instructed by the Bush Administration to craft a memo? And when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Steele what his personal view is to torture, he didn't answer and said his personal opinion did not matter. Rarely does this column use such verbiage but Michael Steele is a bullshitter; he rarely gives a straight answer and given he takes that tack too much he instills no confidence or trustworthiness. That's the case for any political animal that does that. Hypothetically, if he 'personally' disagrees with torture, but tows the party line that it is all right in some circumstances, doesn't that speak negatively of his integrity?
And one last thing on this for today. Mr. Steele, when asked about a truth commission, said that we should put it on the table. This would be another dog and pony show that would result in nothing. Instead of a commission, there should be an investigation and until the latter word gets swapped out for the former, we'll never know what happened.
OK, one more thing... speaking of not knowing what happened, an extension of the whole torture issue is the debate on whether or not the additional pictures of military misconduct from the Abu Ghraib prison. One today's program (part of the panel), Richard Haass, Council on Foreign Relations and author of War of Necessity, War of Choice felt that President Obama made the correct decision in not releasing the photos. Mr. Obama's primary reason was that it would further endanger the American military personnel. This angered the left and those whose goals is to use such things to press for Bush Administration indictments. However, in this instance we do know what happened and we have already seen many pictures and unless they show something further that we don't know, then it's just sensationalism, and this column commends the decision not to release them because even the whiff of sensationalism is not anything this administration needs.
Switching topics, the ever popular 'State/Fate of the Republican Party' came up again, but we'll be a bit forgiving here because this is certainly a topic that has to be addressed when you have the chairman of the party on the program. We'll start with a flurry of quotes and phrases from today's program...
'I want both Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh,' Michael Steele.
'I didn't know Colin Powell was still in the party,' Former VP Dick Cheney via videotape from Face The Nation.
'Great Parties Evolve, and this one is still rocking from the hits it took,' Peggy Noonan.
'Cycle of contraction,' Ron Brownstein.
'Closer to a purer base,' Jon Meacham, Newsweek.
'What about Charlie Crist, Republican Governor of Floriday, campaigning with Mr. Obama on the stimulus?' David Gregory.
'Scary,' Mr. Steele's comment with regard to Democratic Party consolidation of power.
It is true that the Republican party is becoming purer to its base, hence they are contracting. With the population demography changing in the country, how could it not when a purer base means solidifying identification with big business and the Christian right? It seems as though the Republican Party will look the other way for Mr. Crist because of his popularity in a state that is a perpetual election battleground, but not with Arlen Spector, a 'traitor,' according to all Republicans. However, Mr. Brownstein did point out that Mr. Spector did vote with Republicans two-thirds of the time. Yes, Senator Spector's move was for self preservation, that is to be expected - he's a politician. But why this feeling on his part that his survival was in jeopardy? A less inclusive party perhaps could be the reason.
Michael Steele wants both - conservative and those a bit more moderate - but other forces in the party are dictating that you have to choose. This speaks to a philosophical problem in the Republican party, alluded to above in this column. The Republican party wants all its individual members to be on the same point on every page. Whether it be torture or abortion or taxes, it must be lock-step, but the world doesn't work like that and nuance is required in the face of complexity. This philosophy is unrealistic.
And what's really scary is that Mr. Steele's goal, as chair, is for Republican Party dominance and opines a sense of loathing at the possibility of Democratic Party dominance, but expresses this with seemingly no regard or recollection of recent history, namely the past eight years of Republican control and the disastrous outcomes due to their policies.
It's amazing how this country can't seem to get past things without being able to maintain a perspective on history. What that means is that we collectively keep going back to the same old debates that, frankly, cripple progress in this country, and today's first topic has wrongly come to be one of the defining pillars in each of the party's platforms - abortion, referring to Mr. Obama speaking at the Catholic university Notre Dame today.
Here's why we have to move on from this. First, the President actually has lead on this debate in discussing ways of preventing unwanted pregnancy. That should be the real focus instead of weather it should be illegal or not, and it shouldn't be. Most people would say that they would hope that the circumstances don't drive a woman to an abortion - the sympathy. However, it is a woman's individual right... signed into law. It should be taken out of the political debate. Take the two chairmen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat, is pro-life. And Michael Steele, though he says he's pro-life as well, he has made some statements that contradicted that position. Given this division, when the subject of abortion is brought up, the first thing that should be talked about is the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and what can be done to reduce it. It's the harder road to go down and that's why the debate remains 'legal or illegal.' It's the easier road and you crash either way.
And speaking of crash, this column, on many occasions, has cited Nancy Pelosi as the major train wreck of the Democratic Party leadership. Part of being a good politician is knowing what questions are going to be coming at you and having an answer prepared before you're hit with it. Ms. Pelosi needs to work on this. 'Dazed and confused is not good way for the speaker of the house to look,' Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal) aptly stated on today's panel. Ron Brownstein from the National Jounal postulated that arguments made of the past are used to shape the future.' If this is the case for Ms. Pelosi then it is an argument that is lost because she unnecessarily escalated the argument as Mr. Brownstein also observed.
If she was not told about waterboarding, just say so without making accusations. As soon as she did that, Republicans pounced and effectively changed to focus of the debate. Michael Steele's answer on today's program with regard to the subject is a clear illustration of the conservatives' cavalier attitude to one of the platforms of this nation's moral fiber, which is that we, The United States, does not torture. First, his focus, he admits, is not weather we should torture or not, but what did Speaker Pelosi know and when she knew it. 'She stepped in in big time,' he said. Great for 'gotcha' politics and nothing else.
But Mr. Steele also said that we used techniques that we're appropriate at the time. What does that mean exactly? This is where Mr. Gregory as moderator needs to address that, but this column gets the feeling that unfortunately, where Mr. Russert listened, Mr. Gregory simply waits to talk. So 'appropriate at the time,' but according to whom? A lawyer instructed by the Bush Administration to craft a memo? And when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Steele what his personal view is to torture, he didn't answer and said his personal opinion did not matter. Rarely does this column use such verbiage but Michael Steele is a bullshitter; he rarely gives a straight answer and given he takes that tack too much he instills no confidence or trustworthiness. That's the case for any political animal that does that. Hypothetically, if he 'personally' disagrees with torture, but tows the party line that it is all right in some circumstances, doesn't that speak negatively of his integrity?
And one last thing on this for today. Mr. Steele, when asked about a truth commission, said that we should put it on the table. This would be another dog and pony show that would result in nothing. Instead of a commission, there should be an investigation and until the latter word gets swapped out for the former, we'll never know what happened.
OK, one more thing... speaking of not knowing what happened, an extension of the whole torture issue is the debate on whether or not the additional pictures of military misconduct from the Abu Ghraib prison. One today's program (part of the panel), Richard Haass, Council on Foreign Relations and author of War of Necessity, War of Choice felt that President Obama made the correct decision in not releasing the photos. Mr. Obama's primary reason was that it would further endanger the American military personnel. This angered the left and those whose goals is to use such things to press for Bush Administration indictments. However, in this instance we do know what happened and we have already seen many pictures and unless they show something further that we don't know, then it's just sensationalism, and this column commends the decision not to release them because even the whiff of sensationalism is not anything this administration needs.
Switching topics, the ever popular 'State/Fate of the Republican Party' came up again, but we'll be a bit forgiving here because this is certainly a topic that has to be addressed when you have the chairman of the party on the program. We'll start with a flurry of quotes and phrases from today's program...
'I want both Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh,' Michael Steele.
'I didn't know Colin Powell was still in the party,' Former VP Dick Cheney via videotape from Face The Nation.
'Great Parties Evolve, and this one is still rocking from the hits it took,' Peggy Noonan.
'Cycle of contraction,' Ron Brownstein.
'Closer to a purer base,' Jon Meacham, Newsweek.
'What about Charlie Crist, Republican Governor of Floriday, campaigning with Mr. Obama on the stimulus?' David Gregory.
'Scary,' Mr. Steele's comment with regard to Democratic Party consolidation of power.
It is true that the Republican party is becoming purer to its base, hence they are contracting. With the population demography changing in the country, how could it not when a purer base means solidifying identification with big business and the Christian right? It seems as though the Republican Party will look the other way for Mr. Crist because of his popularity in a state that is a perpetual election battleground, but not with Arlen Spector, a 'traitor,' according to all Republicans. However, Mr. Brownstein did point out that Mr. Spector did vote with Republicans two-thirds of the time. Yes, Senator Spector's move was for self preservation, that is to be expected - he's a politician. But why this feeling on his part that his survival was in jeopardy? A less inclusive party perhaps could be the reason.
Michael Steele wants both - conservative and those a bit more moderate - but other forces in the party are dictating that you have to choose. This speaks to a philosophical problem in the Republican party, alluded to above in this column. The Republican party wants all its individual members to be on the same point on every page. Whether it be torture or abortion or taxes, it must be lock-step, but the world doesn't work like that and nuance is required in the face of complexity. This philosophy is unrealistic.
And what's really scary is that Mr. Steele's goal, as chair, is for Republican Party dominance and opines a sense of loathing at the possibility of Democratic Party dominance, but expresses this with seemingly no regard or recollection of recent history, namely the past eight years of Republican control and the disastrous outcomes due to their policies.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
5.14.09: From Todays Huffington Post
David Gregory's "Meet The Press" Ratings Hit New Low — The Sunday Morning Horse Race Is On
If the Sunday morning TV throne is empty, then the race for the crown is on.
NBC's "Meet the Press" suffered its lowest ratings since David Gregory became moderator last week, dipping below the 3 million viewer mark for the first time since August 19, 2007*.
"Meet" averaged 2.97 million total viewers for the May 10 broadcast, which featured Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari, Steve Coll and Andrea Mitchell.
Meanwhile, CBS' "Face the Nation," which featured an interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney, averaged 2.74 million total viewers, and ABC's "This Week," which featured interviews with National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Senator John McCain, averaged 2.62 million total viewers.
Compared to this same week last year, "Meet the Press" is down 28% in total viewers, while "Face the Nation" is up 17% and "This Week" is up 4%. And compared to the May 3 show, "Face the Nation" has slashed its viewing gap with "Meet" by 69% (230,000 viewers compared to 740,000 viewers), while "This Week" has cut its viewing gap with "Meet" by 38% (350,000 viewers compared to 560,000 viewers)
In the Adults 25-54 demographic, all three shows were down compared to the same week last year, with "Meet the Press" averaging 1 million viewers (-35%), "This Week" averaging 800,000 viewers (-16%), and "Face the Nation" averaging 760,000 viewers (-6%).
Last month, Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace (who averaged 1.32 million total viewers last week) told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "the throne is empty" (in regards to Tim Russert's successor as the Sunday morning TV king). The LA Times that same day focused on Stephanopoulos as the main threat to NBC's ratings dominance. Last week, the LA Times wrote that "Meet the Press" may soon lose the top spot in the Sunday morning ratings.
*"Meet the Press" did average 2.17 million total viewers on June 8, 2008, but it was only at 86% coverage then and thus is not a fair comparison.
If the Sunday morning TV throne is empty, then the race for the crown is on.
NBC's "Meet the Press" suffered its lowest ratings since David Gregory became moderator last week, dipping below the 3 million viewer mark for the first time since August 19, 2007*.
"Meet" averaged 2.97 million total viewers for the May 10 broadcast, which featured Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari, Steve Coll and Andrea Mitchell.
Meanwhile, CBS' "Face the Nation," which featured an interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney, averaged 2.74 million total viewers, and ABC's "This Week," which featured interviews with National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Senator John McCain, averaged 2.62 million total viewers.
Compared to this same week last year, "Meet the Press" is down 28% in total viewers, while "Face the Nation" is up 17% and "This Week" is up 4%. And compared to the May 3 show, "Face the Nation" has slashed its viewing gap with "Meet" by 69% (230,000 viewers compared to 740,000 viewers), while "This Week" has cut its viewing gap with "Meet" by 38% (350,000 viewers compared to 560,000 viewers)
In the Adults 25-54 demographic, all three shows were down compared to the same week last year, with "Meet the Press" averaging 1 million viewers (-35%), "This Week" averaging 800,000 viewers (-16%), and "Face the Nation" averaging 760,000 viewers (-6%).
Last month, Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace (who averaged 1.32 million total viewers last week) told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "the throne is empty" (in regards to Tim Russert's successor as the Sunday morning TV king). The LA Times that same day focused on Stephanopoulos as the main threat to NBC's ratings dominance. Last week, the LA Times wrote that "Meet the Press" may soon lose the top spot in the Sunday morning ratings.
*"Meet the Press" did average 2.17 million total viewers on June 8, 2008, but it was only at 86% coverage then and thus is not a fair comparison.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
5.10.09: Talk The Game
With Pakistani officials claiming they've killed 200 Taliban militants as this morning's Meet The Press was airing, it's safe to say that the meetings President Obama had with Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai were productive at the least. The Obama Administration performed damage control for the Afghans and offered incentives for damage against the Taliban for the Pakistanis. The respective heads of state said agreed when agreements were needed and declared when declarations were called for. Once again, this column's praise goes to MTP Executive Producer, Betsy Fischer, for securing exclusive interviews with the two middle east heads of state. Despite that, the Program of Record faces a ratings challenge and it is directly tied to the moderator David Gregory [see appendix article]. The two respective pre-recorded interviews give an indication as to the reason's why his reception by the public is muddled.
Before we get to that, one of the analyst on the program today - NBC's Andrea Mitchell - summed it up best. "Afghanistan and Pakistan don't realize how weak their governments are." That's what you have to continually keep in mind when reviewing what they said. The New Yorker's Steve Coll (today's other guest journalist) buttressed that observing that the two leaders are very good analysts of the crises in their respective countries, but have no strategy as to how they will combat extremist forces and stabilize democratic government control, especially in Pakistan. These two leaders talked a game but we can't say it was good or bad, because they were both talking the wrong one. They should be talking proactively (strategy) and not passively (analyzing after the fact).
When Mr. Gregory asked the Pakistani President about a strategy to combat the Taliban he explained that he is lobbying Washington, trying to bolster support for the spread Democracy in the country. That's not reassuring in the slightest and what we have observed over the week and again on today's program is that when President Zardari says, for example, 'the nuclear arsenal is very secure,' our reason for concern doesn't drop below the red level. He was surprising forthright about the fact that there is a war in Pakistan with the Taliban, citing 135K troops in the mountains, and you could see the conflict over the weekend coming over the pass. Well, there's your strategy - shot them. However, the President then explained that there are military decisions outside of the parliament.
[At this point, here is an example of how Mr. Gregory 'turns people off' because his questions are asked in an effort to make a headline more often than say to explore the topic deeper and get a better understanding for all of us. It's a quality that subconsciously doesn't instill confidence, conversely illustrating petulance, hence the trust between moderator and audience brakes down. ]
Mr. Gregory asked if the military controlled the country since they control the nuclear weapons. It's a frivolous question in fact. The head politician in any country is never going to admit that anyone else except him or herself is in charge of the country. Also, if asked if your country is on the verge of collapse, the answer is also 'no' obviously but this is more nuanced. If it is an absolute emphatic 'NO,' like the one President Zardari gave today, that means trouble. A more reasoned 'no' suggests fragility, but extreme effort to make that disaster come to fruition... if you get our meaning. One of the counterpoints to this something that both men relied on today when faced with a tougher question - the excuse that it is not a decision the president makes, it a parliamentary one is a sure sign of an ultimately weak leader. He disagrees with his parliament with regard to negotiating with the Taliban, but the parliament approved it so they did and now they are into a military phase - no one direction forward.
President Karzai of Afghanistan doesn't have many strategies either to improve his country, but when he comes to Washington, he inevitably collects about 10 kilos in apologies from the U.S. Government. This time because the U.S. Military conducted airstrikes that killed close to 100 civilians. Not our first time, not our last either. With that said and with the elephant of charity in the room, President Karzai can only cite small isolated successes (roads in Kabul) but offers little when it comes to macro issues such as 60% of Afghanistan's GDP is poppy cultivation and exportation. What the United States could do to stem the production of 90% of the world's heroin is set up a governmental contract to buy the poppies from Afghanistan. Most, if not all, of the processed poppy the U.S. buys for pharmaceuticals is grown in Turkey. Give some of those contracts to the Afghans because It's easier to work an alternative trade deal with Turkey to supplement the lost revenue. Why shouldn't Mr. Karzai lobby for that?
And his true influence over the direction of his parliament and hence his country is the issue of the law recently passed in Afghanistan that permitted men to rape their wives. Mr. Karzai signed this into law and then had some international explaining to do. When Mr. Gregory asked how he was correcting the law, the President deferred to the fact that it is a parliamentary decision and that he consulted with various officials concluding that there are some elements of the law that need to be examined. Here is another point where Mr. Gregory went for the reiteration of an answer instead of probing deeper. Who specifically did Mr. Karzai consult with... his Minister of Health? Who? What specific aspects need to be amended? Specifics of what he disagreed with that he didn't see before when he signed it into law. Instead Mr. Gregory throws out a declarative summation - so rape is against the law in Afghanistan. "Absolutely, like hell!" Mr. Karzai belted.
He got the sound bite.
Before we get to that, one of the analyst on the program today - NBC's Andrea Mitchell - summed it up best. "Afghanistan and Pakistan don't realize how weak their governments are." That's what you have to continually keep in mind when reviewing what they said. The New Yorker's Steve Coll (today's other guest journalist) buttressed that observing that the two leaders are very good analysts of the crises in their respective countries, but have no strategy as to how they will combat extremist forces and stabilize democratic government control, especially in Pakistan. These two leaders talked a game but we can't say it was good or bad, because they were both talking the wrong one. They should be talking proactively (strategy) and not passively (analyzing after the fact).
When Mr. Gregory asked the Pakistani President about a strategy to combat the Taliban he explained that he is lobbying Washington, trying to bolster support for the spread Democracy in the country. That's not reassuring in the slightest and what we have observed over the week and again on today's program is that when President Zardari says, for example, 'the nuclear arsenal is very secure,' our reason for concern doesn't drop below the red level. He was surprising forthright about the fact that there is a war in Pakistan with the Taliban, citing 135K troops in the mountains, and you could see the conflict over the weekend coming over the pass. Well, there's your strategy - shot them. However, the President then explained that there are military decisions outside of the parliament.
[At this point, here is an example of how Mr. Gregory 'turns people off' because his questions are asked in an effort to make a headline more often than say to explore the topic deeper and get a better understanding for all of us. It's a quality that subconsciously doesn't instill confidence, conversely illustrating petulance, hence the trust between moderator and audience brakes down. ]
Mr. Gregory asked if the military controlled the country since they control the nuclear weapons. It's a frivolous question in fact. The head politician in any country is never going to admit that anyone else except him or herself is in charge of the country. Also, if asked if your country is on the verge of collapse, the answer is also 'no' obviously but this is more nuanced. If it is an absolute emphatic 'NO,' like the one President Zardari gave today, that means trouble. A more reasoned 'no' suggests fragility, but extreme effort to make that disaster come to fruition... if you get our meaning. One of the counterpoints to this something that both men relied on today when faced with a tougher question - the excuse that it is not a decision the president makes, it a parliamentary one is a sure sign of an ultimately weak leader. He disagrees with his parliament with regard to negotiating with the Taliban, but the parliament approved it so they did and now they are into a military phase - no one direction forward.
President Karzai of Afghanistan doesn't have many strategies either to improve his country, but when he comes to Washington, he inevitably collects about 10 kilos in apologies from the U.S. Government. This time because the U.S. Military conducted airstrikes that killed close to 100 civilians. Not our first time, not our last either. With that said and with the elephant of charity in the room, President Karzai can only cite small isolated successes (roads in Kabul) but offers little when it comes to macro issues such as 60% of Afghanistan's GDP is poppy cultivation and exportation. What the United States could do to stem the production of 90% of the world's heroin is set up a governmental contract to buy the poppies from Afghanistan. Most, if not all, of the processed poppy the U.S. buys for pharmaceuticals is grown in Turkey. Give some of those contracts to the Afghans because It's easier to work an alternative trade deal with Turkey to supplement the lost revenue. Why shouldn't Mr. Karzai lobby for that?
And his true influence over the direction of his parliament and hence his country is the issue of the law recently passed in Afghanistan that permitted men to rape their wives. Mr. Karzai signed this into law and then had some international explaining to do. When Mr. Gregory asked how he was correcting the law, the President deferred to the fact that it is a parliamentary decision and that he consulted with various officials concluding that there are some elements of the law that need to be examined. Here is another point where Mr. Gregory went for the reiteration of an answer instead of probing deeper. Who specifically did Mr. Karzai consult with... his Minister of Health? Who? What specific aspects need to be amended? Specifics of what he disagreed with that he didn't see before when he signed it into law. Instead Mr. Gregory throws out a declarative summation - so rape is against the law in Afghanistan. "Absolutely, like hell!" Mr. Karzai belted.
He got the sound bite.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
4.26.09: All Roads Lead Back To Jerusalem
Among all the various topics discussed on today's program with all four significant guests, the recurring topic - the one that has dominated the news cycle all week - was torture, which has reached a pinnacle moment these days. One of those technological advances (waterboarding) dates back to the Crusades and the Battles for Jerusalem. The sadder fact in the aftermath of torture is that people are calling for, defining, and conducting debates on this. The phrase 'torture debate' in the context of how the public is discussing it almost seems oxymoronic. There should be no debate and it takes some kind of gall in an individual to use the euphemism 'enhance interrogation technique' and frame an argument around that fully knowing that one is referring to torture.
Whatever you want to call it, Robert Gibbs, The White House Press Secretary, duly noted today that on the first full day in office for the Obama Administration, the President signed an executive order banning 'enhance interrogation techniques.' Questions such as 'Should we look back and investigate?' or simply 'Does America torture?' were unfortunately met with nuanced answers.
Jordan's King Abdullah II's (on today's program, but interviewed on Friday) answered were measured and carefully worded (the benefits of a classical education). When asked the latter question from above, he said that it appears the U.S. has used illegal ways of interrogating. He did categorically deny that Jordan took part in the back end of the United States' rendition program. However, when asked about whether or not torture works he said he was not an expert but that it was 'such a grey area for a country at war.' You could just sense from the King's body language that there were some skeletons there in Jordan. They have a representative government but you don't uphold a monarchy for 60 years without exercising some control.
[Note: The support that the United States receives from Jordan's King Abdullah II should be significantly noted. This respected leader in the Middle East walks a thin compromised line between other countries' cooperation in the region and his relationship with America. He, and not the Israelis, is the key to our success in the region.]
The King also reminded us of this, sounding like a broken record, when asked various questions by Mr. Gregory about resolving violence in the Middle East - All roads lead back to Jerusalem. The endless cause celebrae - Palenstinians vs. Israelis. The plethora of tensions in the region would be significantly alleviated by resolving Jerusalem and a two-state solution he contended. It can only be accomplished with significant involvement of the United States, which is a must to provide a strong arm of compromise with Israel. If the United States can facilitate and bring this about, the 'torture debate' would be left for the archeologists.
However, in the most succinct terms, the United States, like the invasion and occupation of Iraq, should not have instituted the policy of torture in the first place.
So what about investigating the past? Politically tricks to be sure, and Mr. Obama seems to be making all the right dance steps at the moment. Mr. Gibbs explained that the Administration is not initiating an investigation of Bush Administration lawyers and that he was not playing to his base on the left. In all fairness, of course Obama officials knew the release of the 'torture memos' would provoke a major public discussion. Mr. Gibbs deferred to the Justice Department and the Congress for such formal initiatives, but did unequivocally state that what ever you call it, it has made us less safe.
Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Godwin, later in the program, that the President should move forward or risk losing the dialogue with the public. She continued that today we're talking about torture instead of his great speech on tax analysis and the new plan, but since the memos are on the table they can not be ignored.
The one-time Pulitzer Prize winner was thankfully straightened out by another newly-awarded Pulitzer winner sitting to her left, Jon Meacham of Newsweek who respectfully disagreed and said that we should look back in a responsible way analyzing all the aspects and programs employed during the last 7 years including the interrogation techniques to learn from history. 'Great war Presidents have always committed great sins,' he stated.
"How could I go against looking back at history?" Ms. Godwin pleaded as she grabbed his arm. The politics of looking back...
Whatever you want to call it, Robert Gibbs, The White House Press Secretary, duly noted today that on the first full day in office for the Obama Administration, the President signed an executive order banning 'enhance interrogation techniques.' Questions such as 'Should we look back and investigate?' or simply 'Does America torture?' were unfortunately met with nuanced answers.
Jordan's King Abdullah II's (on today's program, but interviewed on Friday) answered were measured and carefully worded (the benefits of a classical education). When asked the latter question from above, he said that it appears the U.S. has used illegal ways of interrogating. He did categorically deny that Jordan took part in the back end of the United States' rendition program. However, when asked about whether or not torture works he said he was not an expert but that it was 'such a grey area for a country at war.' You could just sense from the King's body language that there were some skeletons there in Jordan. They have a representative government but you don't uphold a monarchy for 60 years without exercising some control.
[Note: The support that the United States receives from Jordan's King Abdullah II should be significantly noted. This respected leader in the Middle East walks a thin compromised line between other countries' cooperation in the region and his relationship with America. He, and not the Israelis, is the key to our success in the region.]
The King also reminded us of this, sounding like a broken record, when asked various questions by Mr. Gregory about resolving violence in the Middle East - All roads lead back to Jerusalem. The endless cause celebrae - Palenstinians vs. Israelis. The plethora of tensions in the region would be significantly alleviated by resolving Jerusalem and a two-state solution he contended. It can only be accomplished with significant involvement of the United States, which is a must to provide a strong arm of compromise with Israel. If the United States can facilitate and bring this about, the 'torture debate' would be left for the archeologists.
However, in the most succinct terms, the United States, like the invasion and occupation of Iraq, should not have instituted the policy of torture in the first place.
So what about investigating the past? Politically tricks to be sure, and Mr. Obama seems to be making all the right dance steps at the moment. Mr. Gibbs explained that the Administration is not initiating an investigation of Bush Administration lawyers and that he was not playing to his base on the left. In all fairness, of course Obama officials knew the release of the 'torture memos' would provoke a major public discussion. Mr. Gibbs deferred to the Justice Department and the Congress for such formal initiatives, but did unequivocally state that what ever you call it, it has made us less safe.
Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Godwin, later in the program, that the President should move forward or risk losing the dialogue with the public. She continued that today we're talking about torture instead of his great speech on tax analysis and the new plan, but since the memos are on the table they can not be ignored.
The one-time Pulitzer Prize winner was thankfully straightened out by another newly-awarded Pulitzer winner sitting to her left, Jon Meacham of Newsweek who respectfully disagreed and said that we should look back in a responsible way analyzing all the aspects and programs employed during the last 7 years including the interrogation techniques to learn from history. 'Great war Presidents have always committed great sins,' he stated.
"How could I go against looking back at history?" Ms. Godwin pleaded as she grabbed his arm. The politics of looking back...
Sunday, April 12, 2009
4.12.09: Shiver Me Steel Hulls
Outside of the intellectual property definitional context, The New Oxford Shorter Dictionary defines a pirate as 'a person who robs and plunders on or from the sea; gen. a plunderer, a despoiler, a bandit.
Today Meet The Press started with an update from NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski and the chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute, Major General Tom Wilkerson in regard to the fate of Captain Richard Phillips who is at this moment being held prison by Somali Pirates. There's been a daring escape attempt, gun fire, blockades, investigation, debriefings, and now stalemate. Bottom line is that we want our man back, but the conversation only touched on the larger issue of Somalia as a failed state, and more importantly neglected to discuss this is much larger terms, the fact that this is a problem the global community is not addressing as a collective. We realize that corporations who own the ships are being attacked and not countries per se; however, these bandits don't discriminate internationally and after 66 ships and $88 million dollars, where does it stop? Well, these Somali pirates were stopped today by the U.S. Navy who have rescued Capt. Philips. Way to step it up boys and get the job done, restoring a little faith in the training, patience, and skill of our military personnel. If only our civilian leaders would show the same skills when it comes to hostile encounters. Yet they remain impotent.
And the world has taken notice, most obviously Iran who are in no way giving up their goal of dominating the middle-east and by extension the region's trajectory. They want nuclear capability and they're going to get it. The United States doesn't have the stomach for bombing Iran. Besides, we make the distinction between Iran's population and the disproportionate who rule it. Israel, on the other hand, does not make the distinction between such despoilers and it gives the U.S. the shivers. Again, our impotency to do anything is on display.
We engage Iran with the great anvil of Iraq around our neck (now the most expensive war endeavor since WWII) leaving us without any leverage at all - not to mention that Iraq limits our agility to react to our crises - diplomatically or militarily. As former Washington Post reporter, Robin Wright said, words spoken with sincerity will not necessary changes things. And though there has been a slightly more positive vibe from both sides in the area of engagement, agendas and determination solidified during the Bush Administration's time in office on both sides are too far along for any change of course.
That can also be applied to engaging the Taliban as well, which has also been mentioned. It is helpful to be able to look into the eye of your enemy during a fight, but with any time-tested enemy, you won't be able to see its soul no matter what President Bush once said. They remain the enemy - it's a matter of pragmatism. But as Byron York, Washington Examiner, pointed out, this new approach and the apologist stance taken recently in Europe grated on Republicans like nobody's business, and he felt that it was unnecessary because President Obama could have signaled that without issuing such perceived verbal concessions. He and the Republicans have a point, but they're only half right. The Bush Administration was arrogant because they left an important piece of the puzzle on the table - diplomacy - they never touched it. They were looked at as plunder's of Iraq's oil, using the war on terror as a pretext. However, where they are correct, unfortunately they probably don't realize, is that concessions for terrorists do encourage much more emboldened attacks and should not be granted. The next thing you know, you have a whole new recruitment class of pirates with a bigger boat and more AK47s setting out for the deep water of the Indian Ocean.
Postscript: We'd like to wish everyone a Happy and Safe Easter.
Today Meet The Press started with an update from NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski and the chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute, Major General Tom Wilkerson in regard to the fate of Captain Richard Phillips who is at this moment being held prison by Somali Pirates. There's been a daring escape attempt, gun fire, blockades, investigation, debriefings, and now stalemate. Bottom line is that we want our man back, but the conversation only touched on the larger issue of Somalia as a failed state, and more importantly neglected to discuss this is much larger terms, the fact that this is a problem the global community is not addressing as a collective. We realize that corporations who own the ships are being attacked and not countries per se; however, these bandits don't discriminate internationally and after 66 ships and $88 million dollars, where does it stop? Well, these Somali pirates were stopped today by the U.S. Navy who have rescued Capt. Philips. Way to step it up boys and get the job done, restoring a little faith in the training, patience, and skill of our military personnel. If only our civilian leaders would show the same skills when it comes to hostile encounters. Yet they remain impotent.
And the world has taken notice, most obviously Iran who are in no way giving up their goal of dominating the middle-east and by extension the region's trajectory. They want nuclear capability and they're going to get it. The United States doesn't have the stomach for bombing Iran. Besides, we make the distinction between Iran's population and the disproportionate who rule it. Israel, on the other hand, does not make the distinction between such despoilers and it gives the U.S. the shivers. Again, our impotency to do anything is on display.
We engage Iran with the great anvil of Iraq around our neck (now the most expensive war endeavor since WWII) leaving us without any leverage at all - not to mention that Iraq limits our agility to react to our crises - diplomatically or militarily. As former Washington Post reporter, Robin Wright said, words spoken with sincerity will not necessary changes things. And though there has been a slightly more positive vibe from both sides in the area of engagement, agendas and determination solidified during the Bush Administration's time in office on both sides are too far along for any change of course.
That can also be applied to engaging the Taliban as well, which has also been mentioned. It is helpful to be able to look into the eye of your enemy during a fight, but with any time-tested enemy, you won't be able to see its soul no matter what President Bush once said. They remain the enemy - it's a matter of pragmatism. But as Byron York, Washington Examiner, pointed out, this new approach and the apologist stance taken recently in Europe grated on Republicans like nobody's business, and he felt that it was unnecessary because President Obama could have signaled that without issuing such perceived verbal concessions. He and the Republicans have a point, but they're only half right. The Bush Administration was arrogant because they left an important piece of the puzzle on the table - diplomacy - they never touched it. They were looked at as plunder's of Iraq's oil, using the war on terror as a pretext. However, where they are correct, unfortunately they probably don't realize, is that concessions for terrorists do encourage much more emboldened attacks and should not be granted. The next thing you know, you have a whole new recruitment class of pirates with a bigger boat and more AK47s setting out for the deep water of the Indian Ocean.
Postscript: We'd like to wish everyone a Happy and Safe Easter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)