Since Meet The Press has gone dark this week, we thought we'd write a little note on the Memorial Day holiday to remind people that this is one of our most solemn and should be recognized as such. In the most general of terms, we honor those soldiers that have given their lives in defense of this country. For specific indicators we've listed the number of deaths for all of the United States' major wars since its founding.
American Revolutionary War: 25,000
War of 1812: 15,000
Mexican-American War: 13,283
U.S. Civil War: 625,000
Spanish-American War: 2,446
Philippine-American War: 4,196
World War I: 116,516
World War II: 405,399
Korean War: 36,516
Vietnam War: 58,209
The Gulf War: 294
Afghanistan: 2,031
Iraq War: 4,487
Total: 1,308,377
While keeping those numbers in mind (and those are just the major conflicts), we'd like to focus on the last two wars, one of which as we all know is still going on, and the soldier fatalities that are not being honored, the deaths unrecognized. We conducted a quick search and came across an article on Forbes.com that reported on a study that said 22 Iraq-Afghanistan veterans commit suicide every day in this country. Over the course of one year, that is 8,030 soldiers, more than who have died overseas.
President Obama stated this week that the United States has to take itself off of a perpetual war footing, and we would agree as it ultimately dishonors the memories of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. For our most recent veterans, this tragic epidemic that for them even though they are not on military footing, the war is perpetual.
We as a country need to recognize this unspeakably horrible circumstance and put what ever resources we have to work to stop this epidemic from continuing so that we can honor more of our Iraq-Afghan vets' service, instead of their memories.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
5.19.13: Dog Whistling
The president was accused of overseeing a sinister 'culture of intimidation' against his opponents on the one hand and then on the other, not having control over investigations or knowledge of events conducted by independent agencies, unaware of what going on around him in his administration. The only reason that we're revisiting these criticisms of the Bush Administration is due to former Secretary Rumsfeld's appearance today. Ok, sure we're guilty of the old bait-and-switch tactic, but that's just so we all keep things in perspective.
In doing so, you realize that the great disappoint in the Obama Presidency isn't these immediate controversies but that he's conducted his White House pretty much the same as those men prior. It shouldn't come as any surprise that this is the case as it is the nature of being President because people are coming at you at all angles (see the above example). What you always hope is that the incoming administration can do it a little bit better than the last, and frankly, that's where Mr. Obama has the advantage. On today's Meet The Press, that perspective was lost.
Case in point, Peggy Noonan said that this I.R.S. misconduct was the worse political scandal since Watergate, and she adamantly defended that opinion. Never mind that David Gregory challenged her directly on that overreach with Iran-Contra, which she was in fact a part of where the Reagan Administration knowingly lied to Congress, something that President Reagan himself knew. But how about the Bush Administration and WMDs in Iraq? They lied to Congress, the American people, and the UN Assembly (where Colin Powell's reputation was forever tarnished) about their existence... Did we forget anyone? Ms. Noonan, Ma'am, you're disqualified from mention for the rest of today's column. This brings us to another example, the most comical statement of the day, courtesy of Mr. Rumsfeld who said that is was worrisome that the Administration supported 'a narrative that didn't exist'... That's all Mr. Rumsfeld did in his time as Secretary of Defense during the Bush years - lie about what was really going on in Iraq. He couldn't characterize it as such, but when Mr. Gregory suggested to Mr. Rumsfeld have sympathy for what's happening with the current administration, he really couldn't give too much for political appearances, but he should have. Mr. Rumsfeld also said that the 'truth leaves on horseback and returns on foot.' We have absolutely no idea what he was talking about there, but it's so meaninglessly funny we just had to mention it.
That implicit understanding, sympathy for the administration, also came from Senator Mitch McConnell with regard to the AP story where the Justice Department accessed reporters' phone records, believe it or not. It's this story that has received the least amount of criticism from conservatives because of the entire national security issue - potentially endangering our agents overseas. The criticism that does exist, and Mr. McConnell channeled it a bit today, is that Republicans as a whole simply loathe the President and Mr. Holder's general modus operandi so they use this for the pile-on effect.
However, for more serious commentary on this issue, we would first ask why the Justice Department didn't come at this from a completely different direction. Instead of gathering AP Reporters' phone numbers without their knowledge, the Justice Department should have turned their focus internally first investigating the outgoing calls from departments involved. This way, if the press then finds out that Justice is doing an internal investigation about leaks - key word internal - and reports on it then the heat gets turned up for Justice's benefit.
Senator McConnell is the Republican Leader in the Senate but when he starts talking of this particular administration's 'culture of intimidation' he begins to exhibit qualities that run completely counter to that moniker of 'leader.' His commentary about the 25 year-old clip of himself saying that 501(c)(4) 'social welfar' tax exempt groups were a problem was very telling. He said that 25 years ago he was wrong and for the past 20 he has been right, and now the twenty-year evolution of a leader into political operative is complete. He was correct 25 years ago, as Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA) noted during the panel discussion, that we were asking the I.R.S. to make political calls - on both sides of the aisle and that's problematic, obviously. Mr. McConnell mentioned the danger of disclosing contributors' lists for these 'social welfare' organizations for fear of political retribution, but not seeing the larger picture, he's advocating for big amounts of secretive money to remain in politics, which is the main cause of legislative dysfunction.
Adding to that, when asked by Mr. Gregory about his Republican colleagues calling Benghazi a massive cover-up, Senator McConnell said that he never said those things. Citing Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel's column that the President implicitly encouraged these practices and creating this climate due to his repeated public statements critical of such tax exempt groups - dog whistling to call up action against his enemies. The same can be said for Senator McConnell on Benghazi, a master dog whistler who can conduct an entire interview without really putting anything on record. With regard to Benghazi, all he would commit to was that the security was inadequate. We have to not pay attention to the reasons according to Mr. McConnell, in which it could be argued that Congressional budget cutting played a a part.
The entire 'dog-whistling' argument by Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel and others is really the product of the other end of the dog.
As we're going through the writing of this column thinking about these controversies and the 'righteous' indignation displayed by conservatives on today's program, we can't help but think of their collective complacency during a particular incident - the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. (Mr. Gregory cited Abu Ghraib, which was good too.) The Bush Administration's disclosure of her identity was all three of those 'Obama' controversies rolled into one. It was a 'cult of intimidation' against politic opponents, sinister manipulation of the press, and it endangered the lives of Americans overseas... to say the least.
In saying all this, these are serious issues that need serious solutions and we've had some critical questions of the President and his cabinet, especially Mrs. Clinton, but this barking at the rain is the exact thing that will turn the public sour on the Republicans' cause for accountability.
President Obama’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer appeared on the program today (and all the others) to mitigate damage of course with reporters' hope that he'd slip and make news, but he didn't. As a foil,
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) answered questions just before the panel discussion. His introductory clip contained a soundbite from the Congressional hearing about the I.R.S. in which he talks about a culture of cover-up. As we said last week, the I.R.S. specifically targeting anyway is unacceptable so we're on the same page as Mr. Camp as far as that is concerned, but not the 'culture of cover-up' hyperbole. He reasonably talked about the tax code and how the reformation of it would help this country's economy, which is true and we appreciated that fact that he recognizing the burden that the tax code presents for average Americans - 13 hours for one family to do its taxes is ridiculous (6 billion hours in total). But let's extrapolate that a bit and realize that the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision opened the floodgates for so many of these organizations, probably conservative leaning organization outnumbered progressive ones (nothing wrong there) so the I.R.S. is inundated with the tax exempt status requests. Wrongly, they group them together and then someone becomes skeptical of them all and starts targeting. Dog whistling? We don't hear it.
Round Table: Rep. Camp joins the discussion along with the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA); Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward.
[An interesting dynamic is that Mr. Camp answered Mr. Gregory's questions while the panel participants were present, which tempered his comments quite considerably. Meet The Press seems like it has taken a page out of the Bill Maher format where the second featured guest becomes part of the panel. It makes for a smoother transition in the show, but what it also does is force that guest to answer questions more sensibly, truthfully, and realistically.]
In doing so, you realize that the great disappoint in the Obama Presidency isn't these immediate controversies but that he's conducted his White House pretty much the same as those men prior. It shouldn't come as any surprise that this is the case as it is the nature of being President because people are coming at you at all angles (see the above example). What you always hope is that the incoming administration can do it a little bit better than the last, and frankly, that's where Mr. Obama has the advantage. On today's Meet The Press, that perspective was lost.
Case in point, Peggy Noonan said that this I.R.S. misconduct was the worse political scandal since Watergate, and she adamantly defended that opinion. Never mind that David Gregory challenged her directly on that overreach with Iran-Contra, which she was in fact a part of where the Reagan Administration knowingly lied to Congress, something that President Reagan himself knew. But how about the Bush Administration and WMDs in Iraq? They lied to Congress, the American people, and the UN Assembly (where Colin Powell's reputation was forever tarnished) about their existence... Did we forget anyone? Ms. Noonan, Ma'am, you're disqualified from mention for the rest of today's column. This brings us to another example, the most comical statement of the day, courtesy of Mr. Rumsfeld who said that is was worrisome that the Administration supported 'a narrative that didn't exist'... That's all Mr. Rumsfeld did in his time as Secretary of Defense during the Bush years - lie about what was really going on in Iraq. He couldn't characterize it as such, but when Mr. Gregory suggested to Mr. Rumsfeld have sympathy for what's happening with the current administration, he really couldn't give too much for political appearances, but he should have. Mr. Rumsfeld also said that the 'truth leaves on horseback and returns on foot.' We have absolutely no idea what he was talking about there, but it's so meaninglessly funny we just had to mention it.
That implicit understanding, sympathy for the administration, also came from Senator Mitch McConnell with regard to the AP story where the Justice Department accessed reporters' phone records, believe it or not. It's this story that has received the least amount of criticism from conservatives because of the entire national security issue - potentially endangering our agents overseas. The criticism that does exist, and Mr. McConnell channeled it a bit today, is that Republicans as a whole simply loathe the President and Mr. Holder's general modus operandi so they use this for the pile-on effect.
However, for more serious commentary on this issue, we would first ask why the Justice Department didn't come at this from a completely different direction. Instead of gathering AP Reporters' phone numbers without their knowledge, the Justice Department should have turned their focus internally first investigating the outgoing calls from departments involved. This way, if the press then finds out that Justice is doing an internal investigation about leaks - key word internal - and reports on it then the heat gets turned up for Justice's benefit.
Senator McConnell is the Republican Leader in the Senate but when he starts talking of this particular administration's 'culture of intimidation' he begins to exhibit qualities that run completely counter to that moniker of 'leader.' His commentary about the 25 year-old clip of himself saying that 501(c)(4) 'social welfar' tax exempt groups were a problem was very telling. He said that 25 years ago he was wrong and for the past 20 he has been right, and now the twenty-year evolution of a leader into political operative is complete. He was correct 25 years ago, as Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA) noted during the panel discussion, that we were asking the I.R.S. to make political calls - on both sides of the aisle and that's problematic, obviously. Mr. McConnell mentioned the danger of disclosing contributors' lists for these 'social welfare' organizations for fear of political retribution, but not seeing the larger picture, he's advocating for big amounts of secretive money to remain in politics, which is the main cause of legislative dysfunction.
Adding to that, when asked by Mr. Gregory about his Republican colleagues calling Benghazi a massive cover-up, Senator McConnell said that he never said those things. Citing Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel's column that the President implicitly encouraged these practices and creating this climate due to his repeated public statements critical of such tax exempt groups - dog whistling to call up action against his enemies. The same can be said for Senator McConnell on Benghazi, a master dog whistler who can conduct an entire interview without really putting anything on record. With regard to Benghazi, all he would commit to was that the security was inadequate. We have to not pay attention to the reasons according to Mr. McConnell, in which it could be argued that Congressional budget cutting played a a part.
The entire 'dog-whistling' argument by Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel and others is really the product of the other end of the dog.
As we're going through the writing of this column thinking about these controversies and the 'righteous' indignation displayed by conservatives on today's program, we can't help but think of their collective complacency during a particular incident - the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. (Mr. Gregory cited Abu Ghraib, which was good too.) The Bush Administration's disclosure of her identity was all three of those 'Obama' controversies rolled into one. It was a 'cult of intimidation' against politic opponents, sinister manipulation of the press, and it endangered the lives of Americans overseas... to say the least.
In saying all this, these are serious issues that need serious solutions and we've had some critical questions of the President and his cabinet, especially Mrs. Clinton, but this barking at the rain is the exact thing that will turn the public sour on the Republicans' cause for accountability.
President Obama’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer appeared on the program today (and all the others) to mitigate damage of course with reporters' hope that he'd slip and make news, but he didn't. As a foil,
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) answered questions just before the panel discussion. His introductory clip contained a soundbite from the Congressional hearing about the I.R.S. in which he talks about a culture of cover-up. As we said last week, the I.R.S. specifically targeting anyway is unacceptable so we're on the same page as Mr. Camp as far as that is concerned, but not the 'culture of cover-up' hyperbole. He reasonably talked about the tax code and how the reformation of it would help this country's economy, which is true and we appreciated that fact that he recognizing the burden that the tax code presents for average Americans - 13 hours for one family to do its taxes is ridiculous (6 billion hours in total). But let's extrapolate that a bit and realize that the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision opened the floodgates for so many of these organizations, probably conservative leaning organization outnumbered progressive ones (nothing wrong there) so the I.R.S. is inundated with the tax exempt status requests. Wrongly, they group them together and then someone becomes skeptical of them all and starts targeting. Dog whistling? We don't hear it.
Round Table: Rep. Camp joins the discussion along with the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA); Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward.
[An interesting dynamic is that Mr. Camp answered Mr. Gregory's questions while the panel participants were present, which tempered his comments quite considerably. Meet The Press seems like it has taken a page out of the Bill Maher format where the second featured guest becomes part of the panel. It makes for a smoother transition in the show, but what it also does is force that guest to answer questions more sensibly, truthfully, and realistically.]
Sunday, May 12, 2013
5.12.13: Tragedy Vs. Scandal
Libya's long-time dictator had just been usurped and the country was in a volatile state. The knowledge of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in country was common. BBC's Katy Kay stated on the program that there were several attacks on the Benghazi facility for the six months prior to Ambassador Stevens being killed. David Brooks said that this consulate revised to mission revision to facility was none of the above. It was a C.I.A. outpost, which explains was there would be so many attacks on it. This diplomatic facility, and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) rightly asked why it was there in the first place, had no Marine guard, protected only by a Libyan militia that (surprise surprise) melted away at the first signs of the attacks. You can see the potential problems and additional questions given those facts.
Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that there were three questions which needed to be answered: why requests for additional security were denied; did we do all that we could to alleviate the situation during the 7 hours of attacks; and why all the changes in the talking points? The third would seem to be the most difficult to answer, but actually the explanation makes sense - different agencies couldn't agree on what to include and not to include, which would dictate how blame would be assigned. The question of the repeated requests for additional security being denied, we have a feeling that the answer can be attributed to budget cuts, which falls on Congress, some that David Gregory touched on in his questioning. As for doing all that we could at the time of the attack - If you look back into it, the closest Air Force base was in Aviano, Italy where fighters could have been scrambled in time, but would have required refueling planes which were unavailable nullifying that possibility.
We don't mean to be disrespectful, but what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place? Given all that know, possibly, in his familiarity and comfort with the country, he underestimated the threat and made a poor decision. If the embassy staff in Tripoli had been sending requests for more security before this happened then where is the common sense to know that the farther you get from the embassy the more risky the situation. That it was a 'diplomatic facility,' what ever that means, it was obvious that he didn't have enough security to be that trip.
That's a hypothetical, but one that could apply to someone walking down the street in any major U.S. city, which is also to say that these things are unpredictable and impossible to anticipate in every corner of the world.
But more on the text changes, it has come to light that Victoria Nuland, a twenty-plus year veteran of the State Department oversaw edits that removed mention that the attack involved an Al Qaeda affiliated group called Ansar Al-Sharia. The reasoning for the omission, it's said, was to not alert the group that the CIA and U.S. officials were on to them. This reason was outlined by then CIA Director General David Petraeus in a hearing last fall so it was something that Congress was already aware of. In such a rare occurrence - the killing of a U.S. Ambassador - where the details are murky and talking points are being tailored, why wouldn't top officials in the CIA, State, and the Administration have a firmer hand on all of this? That would be our question.
The different agencies were at odds with one another over the talking points because each didn't want to take the heat and look bad under Congressional scrutiny, and ironically... ultimately that's who you have to blame - Congress. The reason is because in this hyper-partisan climate that's been created all our legislators are interested in is who is to blame, and not focusing on fixes, prevention, or solutions. For example, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that this is 'the most egregious coverup in American history.' That's so far being true it makes you wonder what good hearings would do at all if there is obviously no will to listen. We would agree with Senator Feinstein that ulterior motives (something sinister) don't exist, as it seems that Senator Inhofe desires. When Mr. Gregory asked Congressman Issa if he was reading into something that isn't there, his answer was no, but he and his Republican colleagues want it to be 'yes' (the nature of the opposition of course). He said that President Obama and former Secretary Clinton were not targets, but they clearly are.
Do we think the Administration orchestrated a cover-up? No. But, we do distinctly note Senator Feinstein's assessment of the Administration. The word she used was 'cautious,' which she explained that she appreciated for the most part, but in regard to Benghazi this approach didn't serve them well. Cautiousness is understandable on behalf of this Administration, given that the American people became very dissatisfied with the last administration because we felt it was too rash and not analytical enough.
After all this, you know who shouldn't be blamed? UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was just following the talking points she was given in an 'audition' to potentially replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State. Unfortunately for her, she was given talking points that were inaccurate to the actual events. But also, it turns out that General David Petraeus, for all the greatness thrust upon him, was incompetent as a CIA chief, who was caught up in his own scandal/cover-up.
And speaking of scandal, the panel discussed two that we feel are more significant than Benghazi, one being the 26,000 sexual assaults in the military last year and the other of course being these new revelations that the Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted groups with 'Tea Party' and 'Patriot' in their names for scrutiny into their tax exempt status.
Wes Moore stated that the military is in most instances ahead of the curve when it comes to social mores, integration, et. al, but obviously not on this aspect of being transparent and direct in addressing this criminality. Twenty-six thousand sexual assaults are 26,000 felonies, and if the military can not police itself, as we've all heard one awful story or another, then we'll have to have an independent body oversee such complaints as Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) has proposed. However, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has already come out against that so we'll see where this all gets us.
And then there is our 'beloved' I.R.S. We'll truthfully put it this way. We believe that Super PACs in general will end up being devastatingly detrimental to our democracy and should not have tax-exempt status at all. Politicians always want full disclosure and transparency when it comes to say talking points with regard to an international tragedy, but not when advocacy groups spend millions of secret (undisclosed donors) money on their behalf to get reelected. You have to call B.S. on that. We will also truthfully say that, in particular, the Tea Party movement, has been one of the worst influences on our democracy, poisoning the well of compromise and crippling this country's ability to move forward. (We're not talking at all about Republicans in general.) With that said, we completely reject and are appalled by these actions of the I.R.S. specifically targeting these groups. If they operate under the law or apply for a status that they are entitled to apply for, regardless of whether you like them or not, they should be given equal opportunity and protections to do so. To have any other position is not American because next time it could be you... as the saying goes. The Obama Administration needs to make a forceful statement condemning these actions. Period. Hard Stop.
Round Table: Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) who is a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan; New York Times columnist David Brooks; the BBC’s Katty Kay; and Afghanistan veteran and author Wes Moore; Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) stayed on from interview appearance.
Postscript: Isn't it telling to know that President Bush didn't write an e-mail in 8 years because of what he called potential 'Congressional Intrusions' into what would be his private papers?
Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that there were three questions which needed to be answered: why requests for additional security were denied; did we do all that we could to alleviate the situation during the 7 hours of attacks; and why all the changes in the talking points? The third would seem to be the most difficult to answer, but actually the explanation makes sense - different agencies couldn't agree on what to include and not to include, which would dictate how blame would be assigned. The question of the repeated requests for additional security being denied, we have a feeling that the answer can be attributed to budget cuts, which falls on Congress, some that David Gregory touched on in his questioning. As for doing all that we could at the time of the attack - If you look back into it, the closest Air Force base was in Aviano, Italy where fighters could have been scrambled in time, but would have required refueling planes which were unavailable nullifying that possibility.
We don't mean to be disrespectful, but what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place? Given all that know, possibly, in his familiarity and comfort with the country, he underestimated the threat and made a poor decision. If the embassy staff in Tripoli had been sending requests for more security before this happened then where is the common sense to know that the farther you get from the embassy the more risky the situation. That it was a 'diplomatic facility,' what ever that means, it was obvious that he didn't have enough security to be that trip.
That's a hypothetical, but one that could apply to someone walking down the street in any major U.S. city, which is also to say that these things are unpredictable and impossible to anticipate in every corner of the world.
But more on the text changes, it has come to light that Victoria Nuland, a twenty-plus year veteran of the State Department oversaw edits that removed mention that the attack involved an Al Qaeda affiliated group called Ansar Al-Sharia. The reasoning for the omission, it's said, was to not alert the group that the CIA and U.S. officials were on to them. This reason was outlined by then CIA Director General David Petraeus in a hearing last fall so it was something that Congress was already aware of. In such a rare occurrence - the killing of a U.S. Ambassador - where the details are murky and talking points are being tailored, why wouldn't top officials in the CIA, State, and the Administration have a firmer hand on all of this? That would be our question.
The different agencies were at odds with one another over the talking points because each didn't want to take the heat and look bad under Congressional scrutiny, and ironically... ultimately that's who you have to blame - Congress. The reason is because in this hyper-partisan climate that's been created all our legislators are interested in is who is to blame, and not focusing on fixes, prevention, or solutions. For example, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that this is 'the most egregious coverup in American history.' That's so far being true it makes you wonder what good hearings would do at all if there is obviously no will to listen. We would agree with Senator Feinstein that ulterior motives (something sinister) don't exist, as it seems that Senator Inhofe desires. When Mr. Gregory asked Congressman Issa if he was reading into something that isn't there, his answer was no, but he and his Republican colleagues want it to be 'yes' (the nature of the opposition of course). He said that President Obama and former Secretary Clinton were not targets, but they clearly are.
Do we think the Administration orchestrated a cover-up? No. But, we do distinctly note Senator Feinstein's assessment of the Administration. The word she used was 'cautious,' which she explained that she appreciated for the most part, but in regard to Benghazi this approach didn't serve them well. Cautiousness is understandable on behalf of this Administration, given that the American people became very dissatisfied with the last administration because we felt it was too rash and not analytical enough.
After all this, you know who shouldn't be blamed? UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was just following the talking points she was given in an 'audition' to potentially replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State. Unfortunately for her, she was given talking points that were inaccurate to the actual events. But also, it turns out that General David Petraeus, for all the greatness thrust upon him, was incompetent as a CIA chief, who was caught up in his own scandal/cover-up.
And speaking of scandal, the panel discussed two that we feel are more significant than Benghazi, one being the 26,000 sexual assaults in the military last year and the other of course being these new revelations that the Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted groups with 'Tea Party' and 'Patriot' in their names for scrutiny into their tax exempt status.
Wes Moore stated that the military is in most instances ahead of the curve when it comes to social mores, integration, et. al, but obviously not on this aspect of being transparent and direct in addressing this criminality. Twenty-six thousand sexual assaults are 26,000 felonies, and if the military can not police itself, as we've all heard one awful story or another, then we'll have to have an independent body oversee such complaints as Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) has proposed. However, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has already come out against that so we'll see where this all gets us.
And then there is our 'beloved' I.R.S. We'll truthfully put it this way. We believe that Super PACs in general will end up being devastatingly detrimental to our democracy and should not have tax-exempt status at all. Politicians always want full disclosure and transparency when it comes to say talking points with regard to an international tragedy, but not when advocacy groups spend millions of secret (undisclosed donors) money on their behalf to get reelected. You have to call B.S. on that. We will also truthfully say that, in particular, the Tea Party movement, has been one of the worst influences on our democracy, poisoning the well of compromise and crippling this country's ability to move forward. (We're not talking at all about Republicans in general.) With that said, we completely reject and are appalled by these actions of the I.R.S. specifically targeting these groups. If they operate under the law or apply for a status that they are entitled to apply for, regardless of whether you like them or not, they should be given equal opportunity and protections to do so. To have any other position is not American because next time it could be you... as the saying goes. The Obama Administration needs to make a forceful statement condemning these actions. Period. Hard Stop.
Round Table: Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) who is a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan; New York Times columnist David Brooks; the BBC’s Katty Kay; and Afghanistan veteran and author Wes Moore; Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) stayed on from interview appearance.
Postscript: Isn't it telling to know that President Bush didn't write an e-mail in 8 years because of what he called potential 'Congressional Intrusions' into what would be his private papers?
Sunday, May 05, 2013
5.5.13: Our Actions Make Us Who We Are
As for Syria, we're in... With the news of the Israelis hitting the Assad Regime with airstrikes, coupled with the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, the United States is already in the mix. You can easily see all the signs that it's moving in that direction. As Andrea Mitchell reported, there are various Arab countries arming different groups within the anti-Assad rebel forces. Of course, we are going to have to get in on that action and try to swing the balance toward a more moderate entity to take control, however, the reality there is that it's going to get even uglier because once Assad is gone, and he will be, then comes a civil war between the victors.
Representative Tom Cotton (R-AR) represented the consensus opinion in the House when he said that we should have been arming rebels months ago. We've created that sort of expectation from countries, especially in the Middle East, that we'll always be involved, at the very least with arm shipments. And it was all but confirmed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) today. At this point, the United States is obligated to get into the fray, but Syria will linger perhaps significantly worse than even Iraq for the United States. Syria's two main allies are Russia and Iran, both of whom are actively involved with the Syrian civil war, on the side of the Assad Regime, unlike in Iraq. Arms shipments will facilitate murky results in the end because we'll still have to deal with Russia and Iran on the myriad of known issues for years and years after Syria is settled.
It's obvious that our Cold War relationship with Russia was much better than what we have with them now because during that time both countries motivations were much more predictable. The United States naively thought that since the Cold War ended that the two countries could now cooperate, but the Putin government never took to that attitude. The dynamic may have changed but not the sentiment, as far as international relations are concerned; no more evident than in Syria.
With that in mind, the much less turbid tact is the establishment of an internationally coordinated no-fly zone (also all but confirmed by Senator Leahy), something that the American people can begrudgingly live with as opposed to having 'boots on the ground,' something Jane Harman said there was zero chance of happening. This international effort, most probably spearheaded by the United States, would be better served if simultaneously they would concentrate on the flow of refugees threatening instability in other countries, namely Jordan.
What makes our head hurt when it comes to Syria is the eagerness exhibited by many in the U.S. Congress to become directly involved. Our only explanation for this is that it plays into the larger sentiment of combating terrorism and making sure Al Qaeda elements do not have a place of sanctuary. The President, in a clip, confirmed that the Israelis have the right to thwart any attempts by the Assad Regime to ship arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon (surprise: the Russian air defense systems aren't very good). Congressman Cotton stated that we've gotten off of a war footing when it comes to fighting terrorism and are more in a law enforcement stance, although his example was to say that we haven't put any one into Guantanamo Bay Prison in four years, implying that we should be putting more people in there instead of closing it. The usually intellectually buffoonish Newt Gingrich said that he sees the fight against terrorism as a fifty to seventy year battle. It's unfortunate (to say the least) that Mr. Cotton can not see that the longer we keep Guantanamo open, the closer we get to Mr. Gingrich's assessment being true. What upsets us here at this column is the fear that our political leaders show by being so reluctant to bring those prisoners to the United States. If they're guilty, hold them in this country and don't be afraid - deal with the decisions that you've made or change your thinking. As Senator Leahy asked, "What are we afraid of?" Later in the program, Mr. Cotton said that Islamic extremists don't attack us for what we do, but who we are. That's actually the kind of absurd responsibility denial that perpetuates the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States, here and abroad.
It's our actions that have created self-radicalized terrorists. We don't appreciate Mr. Giuliani's Monday morning quarterbacking with regard to the Boston bombing as it pertains to the investigation and what we knew beforehand, but he did make a very good point. If the three additional suspects knew that the Tsarnaev brothers were responsible for the bombing before a M.I.T. police officer was shot and killed then they are conspirators. The stupid teenager excuse doesn't fly. But, our actions created terrorism and sympathy. In the case of Fort Hood, we're always skeptical about Mr. Giuliani's hyperbolic facts, but that was certainly a terrorist act inspired by Islamic extremism.
To that end, no one on the program had a good answer as to whether we're safer or not. "Yes and no," Jane Harmon said, agreeing with Mr. Giuliani that the threats have evolved. But that answer would be 'no' if you agree with what Wayne LaPierre said in posing the question as to whether Bostonians upon being asked to stay in their homes in the search for the bombing suspects would be safer if they all owned guns. In that statement Mr. LaPierre was simply pedaling fear, one which the people of Boston wouldn't buy. What he suggested wouldn't make us safer, just more suspicious and dangerous to one another.
It's this same sort of fear mongering that translates to other aspects of our society and law making, the xenophobic kind that could (will) stifle immigration reform. Senator Leahy when asked if it would pass, said that he hoped so. Further pressed by Mr. Gregory about it, he said, "I think so," which is not encouraging. And we would contend that it is our actions, in fact, that make us who we are so what does it say that a nation of immigrants will have shut the door on inclusiveness? That's not what we do or who we are as Americans.
Americans see a brave move, a lesson in courage and not in fear, and we embrace it. Just ask Jason Collins.
Round Table 1: Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT); former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani; President and CEO of the Wilson Center, former Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); and Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR).
Round Table 2: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford; Editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry; and MSNBC contributor as well as political columnist for the Miami Herald, Joy-Ann Reid.
Representative Tom Cotton (R-AR) represented the consensus opinion in the House when he said that we should have been arming rebels months ago. We've created that sort of expectation from countries, especially in the Middle East, that we'll always be involved, at the very least with arm shipments. And it was all but confirmed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) today. At this point, the United States is obligated to get into the fray, but Syria will linger perhaps significantly worse than even Iraq for the United States. Syria's two main allies are Russia and Iran, both of whom are actively involved with the Syrian civil war, on the side of the Assad Regime, unlike in Iraq. Arms shipments will facilitate murky results in the end because we'll still have to deal with Russia and Iran on the myriad of known issues for years and years after Syria is settled.
It's obvious that our Cold War relationship with Russia was much better than what we have with them now because during that time both countries motivations were much more predictable. The United States naively thought that since the Cold War ended that the two countries could now cooperate, but the Putin government never took to that attitude. The dynamic may have changed but not the sentiment, as far as international relations are concerned; no more evident than in Syria.
With that in mind, the much less turbid tact is the establishment of an internationally coordinated no-fly zone (also all but confirmed by Senator Leahy), something that the American people can begrudgingly live with as opposed to having 'boots on the ground,' something Jane Harman said there was zero chance of happening. This international effort, most probably spearheaded by the United States, would be better served if simultaneously they would concentrate on the flow of refugees threatening instability in other countries, namely Jordan.
What makes our head hurt when it comes to Syria is the eagerness exhibited by many in the U.S. Congress to become directly involved. Our only explanation for this is that it plays into the larger sentiment of combating terrorism and making sure Al Qaeda elements do not have a place of sanctuary. The President, in a clip, confirmed that the Israelis have the right to thwart any attempts by the Assad Regime to ship arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon (surprise: the Russian air defense systems aren't very good). Congressman Cotton stated that we've gotten off of a war footing when it comes to fighting terrorism and are more in a law enforcement stance, although his example was to say that we haven't put any one into Guantanamo Bay Prison in four years, implying that we should be putting more people in there instead of closing it. The usually intellectually buffoonish Newt Gingrich said that he sees the fight against terrorism as a fifty to seventy year battle. It's unfortunate (to say the least) that Mr. Cotton can not see that the longer we keep Guantanamo open, the closer we get to Mr. Gingrich's assessment being true. What upsets us here at this column is the fear that our political leaders show by being so reluctant to bring those prisoners to the United States. If they're guilty, hold them in this country and don't be afraid - deal with the decisions that you've made or change your thinking. As Senator Leahy asked, "What are we afraid of?" Later in the program, Mr. Cotton said that Islamic extremists don't attack us for what we do, but who we are. That's actually the kind of absurd responsibility denial that perpetuates the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States, here and abroad.
It's our actions that have created self-radicalized terrorists. We don't appreciate Mr. Giuliani's Monday morning quarterbacking with regard to the Boston bombing as it pertains to the investigation and what we knew beforehand, but he did make a very good point. If the three additional suspects knew that the Tsarnaev brothers were responsible for the bombing before a M.I.T. police officer was shot and killed then they are conspirators. The stupid teenager excuse doesn't fly. But, our actions created terrorism and sympathy. In the case of Fort Hood, we're always skeptical about Mr. Giuliani's hyperbolic facts, but that was certainly a terrorist act inspired by Islamic extremism.
To that end, no one on the program had a good answer as to whether we're safer or not. "Yes and no," Jane Harmon said, agreeing with Mr. Giuliani that the threats have evolved. But that answer would be 'no' if you agree with what Wayne LaPierre said in posing the question as to whether Bostonians upon being asked to stay in their homes in the search for the bombing suspects would be safer if they all owned guns. In that statement Mr. LaPierre was simply pedaling fear, one which the people of Boston wouldn't buy. What he suggested wouldn't make us safer, just more suspicious and dangerous to one another.
It's this same sort of fear mongering that translates to other aspects of our society and law making, the xenophobic kind that could (will) stifle immigration reform. Senator Leahy when asked if it would pass, said that he hoped so. Further pressed by Mr. Gregory about it, he said, "I think so," which is not encouraging. And we would contend that it is our actions, in fact, that make us who we are so what does it say that a nation of immigrants will have shut the door on inclusiveness? That's not what we do or who we are as Americans.
Americans see a brave move, a lesson in courage and not in fear, and we embrace it. Just ask Jason Collins.
Round Table 1: Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT); former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani; President and CEO of the Wilson Center, former Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); and Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR).
Round Table 2: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford; Editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry; and MSNBC contributor as well as political columnist for the Miami Herald, Joy-Ann Reid.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
4.28.13: The Syrian Red Line
Senate Armed Services Committee member John McCain (R-AZ) assessed that the implied meaning of creating a red line with regard to the Assad Regime in Syria using chemical weapons was a green light to do anything up to that. That's catchy, but a bit off the mark. The atrocities committed by the Bashar Assad government have not gone unnoticed, but there is an weariness in this country to become the prime player in a Syrian intervention. There is a little merit in what the Senator said if you interpret it this way, which is that we think the Obama Administration would like to handle Syria like Libya with the 'leading from behind' strategy. [That's not to imply that leading-from-behind is a bad strategy. Generals always stand in the back; just now it's the United States acting as the general and the troops are other countries...] However, that's not going to work with Syria because of several factors.
Chuck Todd provided a key fact that the Arab League has not supported the ouster of the Assad Regime. The feeling there is that if they had the choice between orderly oppression or failed state freedom, the Arab League would choose the former and that is something they feel the Assad Regime provides - order that doesn't given their own populations any ideas. What also factors into their non-decision is that Iran didn't care about Libya but they care about Syria, their trading partner and conduit to Lebanon. In addition to Russia being a cagey partner in all this, there is the huge problem the usage of chemical weapons, which brings us back to the red line.
It's in the right place because WMDs have consequences beyond politically designed borders, however the Obama Administration has to own this rigid stance. They have been reluctant to do so and that's why verifying the use of Sarin gas, as it's presumed to be, will not come quickly if the Administration has anything to say about it, and John McCain did admit that it wasn't an airtight case even though the Israelis and Brits are pretty convinced. It's something that we, as American citizens, need to be 100% sure of before we do anything because that's the mentality of the country now, no more combat based on inaccurate information.
For Senator McCain, he just wants to be proven right, in that we should have done what he's been suggesting all along, as he reminded us today, of arming the rebels, creating a no-fly zone, deploying patriot missiles, and help the 2,500 refugees pouring into Jordan everyday. He said that we could do this without putting any boots on the ground but that's ridiculous. In fact, he stated that it was the worst thing we could do. Think about it... whose going to enforce a no-fly zone whether by plane or missile? Our troops... on the ground. Now, we get it, what he specifically means is that U.S. troops would not be in-country in Syria. However, if you suggest that a UN force needs to go into Syria to secure chemical weapons, you have to step up and say that U.S. troops have to be included. We can not have it both ways, but we can get it both ways.
For example, what's most troubling is when you hear Senator McCain tell the story of how innocent Syrian civilians are going to blame the United States and take revenge on us for not doing anything, 'sick and bitter' he described them. Yet, if we were to become involved militarily, inevitably (sick to say) we'll inadvertently kill civilians in an airstrike and then they'll hate us for that. That's what you would call a classic no win.
We'll get to Bush's Library dedication and legacy more in a few moments, but maybe this is part of it. The world now expects us, more than ever, to get involved in every militarized crisis or they will call us on our empty freedom rhetoric. Karen Hughes, a Bush senior adviser, reinforced that notion on today's program saying that the world was waiting for us to act, and that if we don't get directly involved in Syria that we're not leading.
The exhaustive nature of that responsibility is certainly wearing on the American people and it affects our economy at home, which makes it even more difficult to justify. That leaves us with arming the rebels, which could potentially restart the cycle once again. The lessons of 9-11 are rooted in the arming of Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980's, one of which was named Osama Bin Laden. As Mike Murphy assessed, 'Good guys might be hard to find' in Syria. Seems a little far-fetched, but is it? Congressman Peter King (R-NY) said that the rebels were, to a degree, under the influence of Al Qaeda; he implied with his tone that it's 'most' of the rebels but that is not the case. But, he seems to think it's within the realm of possibility.
The twisted ideology created by Bin Laden, after getting his start through us, touched down again in Boston. Let it be said that Osama Bin Laden done far more harm to Islam than good, in fact no good because he cemented a false association between Islam and extreme violence. Exhibit 'A' is Congressman King sitting next to his Congressional colleague, Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, and saying that the Muslim community is the problem, with Mr. Ellison trying to reason him away from that to no avail. And Mr. King does have it wrong. Two words - Timothy McVeigh. Instead of targeting, hence alienating, the Muslim community, public officials and lawyer enforcement should work with the community and build more trust. That's how the recent terror suspects in Canada were apprehended - someone from the community, an Imam, alerted the authorities. Mr. King said that we can not be taken over by political correctness, but by the same token we can not be taken over by bigotry and hatred. And it has to be noted that the last thing that Congressman King said today was that work of FBI to follow up on initial leads and any subsequent investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev was an 'absolute failure,' a very significant assertion that I'm sure we'll be discussing more in future columns.
They did mention that the mother is under investigation as she may be the one responsible for radicalizing her two sons. That speaks to such self-hatred, the kind so intense that someone is willing to essentially sacrifice her own offspring. The successful end result of all this is the 'perversion of Islam' as Tony Blair called it.
We could go on, but that brings us to a key historical figure in all of this, President George W. Bush, whose library was dedicated this week at Southern Methodist University and whose legacy is once again being debated. Mike Murphy said that there were a lot of little mistakes, but that he got the big decisions right. We'd amend that to say that he made a lot of little mistakes that lead to the wrong decisions in big moments. Instead of going on ad nauseam about a legacy that 'history hasn't finished writing yet' we'll just make these few observations.
During the dedication of the library where five living presidents spoke, there was not one mention of the Iraq War, and as David Gregory pointed out, the Iraq War is exhibited in the library only as a part of the larger war on terror. That does a distinct disservice to all the U.S. service personnel who fought and died there. We're still deeply involved in foreign combat that Mr. Bush initiated, and for here at home... You know the story... Upon his leaving office, the economy collapsed creating the worst crisis since the Great Depression. That accounts for a lot, wouldn't you agree?
When commentators, reporters, and presidents say that if you know George Bush personally, it's impossible not to like him. We don't doubt it. If all those people say he's a man of compassion (think: immigration reform) and integrity (combating HIV/AIDS in Africa) then we take their word for it because they would know. What we know is that the same can not be said for construction crew that built that library: Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, Henry Paulson, Alberto Gonzalez, Condoleeza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz to name a few.
Round Table: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), GOP strategist Mike Murphy, NBC’s Chuck Todd, and former counselor to the president, once described as “the most influential woman ever to serve an American president, Karen Hughes.
Additional Guests: Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who serves on both the intelligence and homeland security committees in the House, and Minnesota Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison.
Aside: We thought the White House Correspondents Dinner last night was entertaining. (Conan was good but there was something odd about his delivery from the podium that struck us as not so funny.) The only issue we had was with the Twitter hashtag 'nerdprom.' Really? If anything the hash tag should have been 'command and control.' The most powerful people in government, media, business, and entertainment all in one room is not a 'nerd prom.' Give us a break...
For the record, the definition of a nerd rests somewhere within the context of sitting at home on a Saturday night watching CSPAN online.
Chuck Todd provided a key fact that the Arab League has not supported the ouster of the Assad Regime. The feeling there is that if they had the choice between orderly oppression or failed state freedom, the Arab League would choose the former and that is something they feel the Assad Regime provides - order that doesn't given their own populations any ideas. What also factors into their non-decision is that Iran didn't care about Libya but they care about Syria, their trading partner and conduit to Lebanon. In addition to Russia being a cagey partner in all this, there is the huge problem the usage of chemical weapons, which brings us back to the red line.
It's in the right place because WMDs have consequences beyond politically designed borders, however the Obama Administration has to own this rigid stance. They have been reluctant to do so and that's why verifying the use of Sarin gas, as it's presumed to be, will not come quickly if the Administration has anything to say about it, and John McCain did admit that it wasn't an airtight case even though the Israelis and Brits are pretty convinced. It's something that we, as American citizens, need to be 100% sure of before we do anything because that's the mentality of the country now, no more combat based on inaccurate information.
For Senator McCain, he just wants to be proven right, in that we should have done what he's been suggesting all along, as he reminded us today, of arming the rebels, creating a no-fly zone, deploying patriot missiles, and help the 2,500 refugees pouring into Jordan everyday. He said that we could do this without putting any boots on the ground but that's ridiculous. In fact, he stated that it was the worst thing we could do. Think about it... whose going to enforce a no-fly zone whether by plane or missile? Our troops... on the ground. Now, we get it, what he specifically means is that U.S. troops would not be in-country in Syria. However, if you suggest that a UN force needs to go into Syria to secure chemical weapons, you have to step up and say that U.S. troops have to be included. We can not have it both ways, but we can get it both ways.
For example, what's most troubling is when you hear Senator McCain tell the story of how innocent Syrian civilians are going to blame the United States and take revenge on us for not doing anything, 'sick and bitter' he described them. Yet, if we were to become involved militarily, inevitably (sick to say) we'll inadvertently kill civilians in an airstrike and then they'll hate us for that. That's what you would call a classic no win.
We'll get to Bush's Library dedication and legacy more in a few moments, but maybe this is part of it. The world now expects us, more than ever, to get involved in every militarized crisis or they will call us on our empty freedom rhetoric. Karen Hughes, a Bush senior adviser, reinforced that notion on today's program saying that the world was waiting for us to act, and that if we don't get directly involved in Syria that we're not leading.
The exhaustive nature of that responsibility is certainly wearing on the American people and it affects our economy at home, which makes it even more difficult to justify. That leaves us with arming the rebels, which could potentially restart the cycle once again. The lessons of 9-11 are rooted in the arming of Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980's, one of which was named Osama Bin Laden. As Mike Murphy assessed, 'Good guys might be hard to find' in Syria. Seems a little far-fetched, but is it? Congressman Peter King (R-NY) said that the rebels were, to a degree, under the influence of Al Qaeda; he implied with his tone that it's 'most' of the rebels but that is not the case. But, he seems to think it's within the realm of possibility.
The twisted ideology created by Bin Laden, after getting his start through us, touched down again in Boston. Let it be said that Osama Bin Laden done far more harm to Islam than good, in fact no good because he cemented a false association between Islam and extreme violence. Exhibit 'A' is Congressman King sitting next to his Congressional colleague, Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, and saying that the Muslim community is the problem, with Mr. Ellison trying to reason him away from that to no avail. And Mr. King does have it wrong. Two words - Timothy McVeigh. Instead of targeting, hence alienating, the Muslim community, public officials and lawyer enforcement should work with the community and build more trust. That's how the recent terror suspects in Canada were apprehended - someone from the community, an Imam, alerted the authorities. Mr. King said that we can not be taken over by political correctness, but by the same token we can not be taken over by bigotry and hatred. And it has to be noted that the last thing that Congressman King said today was that work of FBI to follow up on initial leads and any subsequent investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev was an 'absolute failure,' a very significant assertion that I'm sure we'll be discussing more in future columns.
They did mention that the mother is under investigation as she may be the one responsible for radicalizing her two sons. That speaks to such self-hatred, the kind so intense that someone is willing to essentially sacrifice her own offspring. The successful end result of all this is the 'perversion of Islam' as Tony Blair called it.
We could go on, but that brings us to a key historical figure in all of this, President George W. Bush, whose library was dedicated this week at Southern Methodist University and whose legacy is once again being debated. Mike Murphy said that there were a lot of little mistakes, but that he got the big decisions right. We'd amend that to say that he made a lot of little mistakes that lead to the wrong decisions in big moments. Instead of going on ad nauseam about a legacy that 'history hasn't finished writing yet' we'll just make these few observations.
During the dedication of the library where five living presidents spoke, there was not one mention of the Iraq War, and as David Gregory pointed out, the Iraq War is exhibited in the library only as a part of the larger war on terror. That does a distinct disservice to all the U.S. service personnel who fought and died there. We're still deeply involved in foreign combat that Mr. Bush initiated, and for here at home... You know the story... Upon his leaving office, the economy collapsed creating the worst crisis since the Great Depression. That accounts for a lot, wouldn't you agree?
When commentators, reporters, and presidents say that if you know George Bush personally, it's impossible not to like him. We don't doubt it. If all those people say he's a man of compassion (think: immigration reform) and integrity (combating HIV/AIDS in Africa) then we take their word for it because they would know. What we know is that the same can not be said for construction crew that built that library: Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, Henry Paulson, Alberto Gonzalez, Condoleeza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz to name a few.
Round Table: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), GOP strategist Mike Murphy, NBC’s Chuck Todd, and former counselor to the president, once described as “the most influential woman ever to serve an American president, Karen Hughes.
Additional Guests: Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who serves on both the intelligence and homeland security committees in the House, and Minnesota Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison.
Aside: We thought the White House Correspondents Dinner last night was entertaining. (Conan was good but there was something odd about his delivery from the podium that struck us as not so funny.) The only issue we had was with the Twitter hashtag 'nerdprom.' Really? If anything the hash tag should have been 'command and control.' The most powerful people in government, media, business, and entertainment all in one room is not a 'nerd prom.' Give us a break...
For the record, the definition of a nerd rests somewhere within the context of sitting at home on a Saturday night watching CSPAN online.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
4.21.13: One Week in America
One week in America can seem like a long time, can it not? First and foremost, it should be noted that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said he was not concerned with any other imminent threat to the area, which he wouldn't have said if it weren't the case. A relief to say the least. Mr. Patrick has been steady throughout the crisis and knew when to get out of the way, commending the agencies and letting them do their work, "building the case from the facts up," he said. His checked ego is the kind of leadership that was needed and which the city of Boston received. The governor also mentioned how well the various agencies worked together and if you watched the coverage, you would certainly get that impression. It really indicated that we have in fact learned our lessons from past experience.
Past experience has also shown us that we need to be patient in getting all the answers to the infinite amount of questions as to why these two young men, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarvaev, allegedly (with 99% certainty) did this. The reason we phrase it that way is because David Gregory asked the question of the public officials on today's program, getting them on record, as to whether they believed that Dzhokhar Tsarvaev should be tried as a civilian in a municipal court or as an enemy combatant through a military tribunal. This is an important decision on how we get those answers.
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), along with Liz Cheney for example, are now calling for the military tribunal, which we'll go on record as saying is completely misguided. Their judgement needs to be questioned anyhow for reasons we'll obviously get to later. One the other hand, maybe Governor Patrick deferred a little too much when he answered the question by saying that he'd let the Attorney General, Eric Holder, make that call though pointing out the man's American citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated he was for a civilian trial - for the record. All the ugly details of the 'why' need to be vetted in the open and the American people will not get that with a military tribunal where much of the testimony could be deemed classified. If we tried this individual in a military tribunal, it would go against who we are as Americans. And are these tribunal advocates afraid that the civilian courts may trip up and let him go free on some technicality? Please. We can not understate the importance of representatives of the community, his peers, looking him in the face as the facts come out. That's Americanism.
Tragically, these killers rejected that concept and the actual freedom that this country provided for them, which leads us to the discussion of the 'radicalization' of these young men. We'll learn more about this in the coming months, but we do have a little bit of back story to share from today's program. First, Governor Patrick described the video tape of the younger brother calmly watching the first bombing then dropping his backpack as chilling. But then he told us Tsarnaev was seen at the UMass-Dartmouth campus the next day - simply frightening. NBC's Pete Williams, the consensus sole best source for accurate information on the Boston bombing, reported that the father said that the now-deceased son, Tamerlan, was visiting him in Russia. (From what we've read and heard about the father, he would be considered what you'd call an uncooperative or hostile witness.)
However, we also know that the FBI, on what Congressman Rogers called information about this individual's radicalization from a 'foreign service,' interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to this visit. The news that Mr. Rogers made for us was that the FBI could not follow up after the initial interview because said 'foreign service' stopped cooperating with us so the case was close. One can only deduce that this 'foreign service' was Russia. So when Congressman Rogers, who was an FBI agent, defends the agency, ultimately it's legitimate because the FBI as an agency can only go so far investigating an American citizen as former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff pointed out. With that said, it sounds as though from that point, frankly, the FBI would have (should have) handed it over to the N.S.A. Mr. Chernoff also explained that the security strategies that were put in place after September 11, 2001 have worked prior to and during this event and would not need to be majorly adjusted, which is reassuring to an extent. He also said that they have been prepared for something like this for some time as numerous past attempts have illustrated.
We'll all have to be prepared from now on. We can no longer afford to have the 'not until it happens to me' mentality to understand and hopefully prevent such events going forward.
It's easy to point fingers of course or take passive aggressive pot shots like the one from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who said that our security efforts had become complacent. However, that kind of finger pointing is going in the wrong direction and the only way it should be toward is the perpetrators.
Mr. Gregory properly steered today's discussion away from too much speculation as to the motivations of these individuals. Only time will tell and we have to 'respect the process,' as Governor Patrick phrased it. However, in considering the evident radicalization of Tamerlan Tsarnaev given his documented trip to Russia, it is important to note the causes of ongoing Islamic rage toward the United States as NBC's Tom Brokaw did. And if that rage is focused through the lens at the end of a smart bomb from a predator drone, then what we saw transpire in Boston this week will sadly repeat itself in another American city.
This leaves us with the political implications that will come into play. When Mr. Greogory asked Senator Durbin about how Boston may affect Immigration Reform for instance, he responded by saying that if Congress does nothing, holding up the bill because of this week's events, we'll be less safe. There is no reason not to move forward on the bill. To the larger political point, it's ironic that some of our public officials, who tell Americans not to live in fear, cast votes that reek of it. Unfortunately, Monday wasn't the only sad day we experienced.
Wednesday, the Senate voted down a bill that would have required expanded background checks for gun purchases, something the ninety percent of the American people support. Why? Out of fear that they would face a primary and possibly loss re-election if they voted in opposition of an NRA-led effort to impede additional gun-safety measures, the bill went down in defeat. The families of Newtown, Connecticut looked on as 46 senators, one by one, let them and parents around the country down. The president described it as a 'shameful day' in America. With acts of bravery being illustrated moment to moment on television from within a major America city, our U.S. Senate was blind to the example and acted cowardly.
Columnist Peggy Noonan gave a nuanced [read: vague] answer as to why the Senate acts the way it does. As is her way, she blamed the president for the failures of that chamber saying that he did not have command of the levers of power. But slightly out of character, presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin was having none of it, calling out the monied interests that rule the chamber at present and the 60-vote threshold that is required to pass legislation. [The filibuster rule in the Senator is in desperate need of reformation.] Will these spineless Senators reconsider their votes if it is found out that the Boston perpetrators bought guns illegally or without a background check? We would seriously doubt it. (There's a little bit of speculation.)
Like we said, it was a long week for America (that will not end any time soon) topped off with a fertilizer plant exploding in West, Texas claiming 14 dead so far, scores of people injured, and part of an entire community decimated. The regretful commentary that instantly comes to mind is about how safety precautions were probably not taken and regulations not followed, but we hope that's not the case. We witnessed too much actual terror, fear, death, and destruction play out this week, even for a country said to be anesthetized to it. The American people will have to lead our Congress in opening up the conversation about these root causes to make changes. It can not wait anymore. We're exhausted.
In the meantime, the thought to try to keep in mind is of the people in great city of Boston. On a day where they were celebrating our country's original act of patriotism, they showed us through bravery, selflessness, community, and togetherness what that idea is all about.
Round Table: Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff; The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg; NBC's Tom Brokaw; historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan.
Past experience has also shown us that we need to be patient in getting all the answers to the infinite amount of questions as to why these two young men, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarvaev, allegedly (with 99% certainty) did this. The reason we phrase it that way is because David Gregory asked the question of the public officials on today's program, getting them on record, as to whether they believed that Dzhokhar Tsarvaev should be tried as a civilian in a municipal court or as an enemy combatant through a military tribunal. This is an important decision on how we get those answers.
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), along with Liz Cheney for example, are now calling for the military tribunal, which we'll go on record as saying is completely misguided. Their judgement needs to be questioned anyhow for reasons we'll obviously get to later. One the other hand, maybe Governor Patrick deferred a little too much when he answered the question by saying that he'd let the Attorney General, Eric Holder, make that call though pointing out the man's American citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated he was for a civilian trial - for the record. All the ugly details of the 'why' need to be vetted in the open and the American people will not get that with a military tribunal where much of the testimony could be deemed classified. If we tried this individual in a military tribunal, it would go against who we are as Americans. And are these tribunal advocates afraid that the civilian courts may trip up and let him go free on some technicality? Please. We can not understate the importance of representatives of the community, his peers, looking him in the face as the facts come out. That's Americanism.
Tragically, these killers rejected that concept and the actual freedom that this country provided for them, which leads us to the discussion of the 'radicalization' of these young men. We'll learn more about this in the coming months, but we do have a little bit of back story to share from today's program. First, Governor Patrick described the video tape of the younger brother calmly watching the first bombing then dropping his backpack as chilling. But then he told us Tsarnaev was seen at the UMass-Dartmouth campus the next day - simply frightening. NBC's Pete Williams, the consensus sole best source for accurate information on the Boston bombing, reported that the father said that the now-deceased son, Tamerlan, was visiting him in Russia. (From what we've read and heard about the father, he would be considered what you'd call an uncooperative or hostile witness.)
However, we also know that the FBI, on what Congressman Rogers called information about this individual's radicalization from a 'foreign service,' interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to this visit. The news that Mr. Rogers made for us was that the FBI could not follow up after the initial interview because said 'foreign service' stopped cooperating with us so the case was close. One can only deduce that this 'foreign service' was Russia. So when Congressman Rogers, who was an FBI agent, defends the agency, ultimately it's legitimate because the FBI as an agency can only go so far investigating an American citizen as former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff pointed out. With that said, it sounds as though from that point, frankly, the FBI would have (should have) handed it over to the N.S.A. Mr. Chernoff also explained that the security strategies that were put in place after September 11, 2001 have worked prior to and during this event and would not need to be majorly adjusted, which is reassuring to an extent. He also said that they have been prepared for something like this for some time as numerous past attempts have illustrated.
We'll all have to be prepared from now on. We can no longer afford to have the 'not until it happens to me' mentality to understand and hopefully prevent such events going forward.
It's easy to point fingers of course or take passive aggressive pot shots like the one from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who said that our security efforts had become complacent. However, that kind of finger pointing is going in the wrong direction and the only way it should be toward is the perpetrators.
Mr. Gregory properly steered today's discussion away from too much speculation as to the motivations of these individuals. Only time will tell and we have to 'respect the process,' as Governor Patrick phrased it. However, in considering the evident radicalization of Tamerlan Tsarnaev given his documented trip to Russia, it is important to note the causes of ongoing Islamic rage toward the United States as NBC's Tom Brokaw did. And if that rage is focused through the lens at the end of a smart bomb from a predator drone, then what we saw transpire in Boston this week will sadly repeat itself in another American city.
This leaves us with the political implications that will come into play. When Mr. Greogory asked Senator Durbin about how Boston may affect Immigration Reform for instance, he responded by saying that if Congress does nothing, holding up the bill because of this week's events, we'll be less safe. There is no reason not to move forward on the bill. To the larger political point, it's ironic that some of our public officials, who tell Americans not to live in fear, cast votes that reek of it. Unfortunately, Monday wasn't the only sad day we experienced.
Wednesday, the Senate voted down a bill that would have required expanded background checks for gun purchases, something the ninety percent of the American people support. Why? Out of fear that they would face a primary and possibly loss re-election if they voted in opposition of an NRA-led effort to impede additional gun-safety measures, the bill went down in defeat. The families of Newtown, Connecticut looked on as 46 senators, one by one, let them and parents around the country down. The president described it as a 'shameful day' in America. With acts of bravery being illustrated moment to moment on television from within a major America city, our U.S. Senate was blind to the example and acted cowardly.
Columnist Peggy Noonan gave a nuanced [read: vague] answer as to why the Senate acts the way it does. As is her way, she blamed the president for the failures of that chamber saying that he did not have command of the levers of power. But slightly out of character, presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin was having none of it, calling out the monied interests that rule the chamber at present and the 60-vote threshold that is required to pass legislation. [The filibuster rule in the Senator is in desperate need of reformation.] Will these spineless Senators reconsider their votes if it is found out that the Boston perpetrators bought guns illegally or without a background check? We would seriously doubt it. (There's a little bit of speculation.)
Like we said, it was a long week for America (that will not end any time soon) topped off with a fertilizer plant exploding in West, Texas claiming 14 dead so far, scores of people injured, and part of an entire community decimated. The regretful commentary that instantly comes to mind is about how safety precautions were probably not taken and regulations not followed, but we hope that's not the case. We witnessed too much actual terror, fear, death, and destruction play out this week, even for a country said to be anesthetized to it. The American people will have to lead our Congress in opening up the conversation about these root causes to make changes. It can not wait anymore. We're exhausted.
In the meantime, the thought to try to keep in mind is of the people in great city of Boston. On a day where they were celebrating our country's original act of patriotism, they showed us through bravery, selflessness, community, and togetherness what that idea is all about.
Round Table: Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff; The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg; NBC's Tom Brokaw; historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
4.14.13: Defining Heroes - Senator Marco Rubio Interview
The political media noted this week that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) would be making the rounds on seven talk shows this week to discuss immigration reform. Well, we don't know what he said on all those others shows but what he said today on Meet The Press today was actually quite startling. First, he said that once the bill is finished being drafted, he'll be able to speak more about the details so we're not getting anything there. However, in the meantime, David Gregory pressed him on a statement the Senator made in the past, which was that if you had come here illegally, but want legal status you'll have to leave the country and then come back. Mr. Rubio backed away from that explaining that immigrants without legal status could stay here but they would have to pay many penalties and fines, along with additional costs to obtain applications for legal status then wait 10 years or so. He summed it up by saying that it was probably cheaper for some one to leave then try to come back than it was to stay here.
Huh? So what he is proposing is that we're going to make it so financially hard on someone to accomplish his citizenship goal that he'll just have to leave? That sounds like you're pushing for self-deportation to us. Where is the compassion or responsibility or principle in that?
Not to mention that his statement doesn't consider a motivation beyond monetary to come here and that is to escape persecution in the country of origin. We may get a little flack for this, but you know who all of this doesn't affect? Cubans. Because of our relations (or lack thereof) with that country, Cubans defect or seek political asylum, they don't go through the immigration system like everyone else. We're not saying that it is wrong to do that given the oppression in Cuba, but other large groups of immigrants, Mexicans for example, can not claim that. Although considering the violent narco-state that is Mexico now, they should be able to.
People immigrate to the United States for a better life, something we all concede because it's true. By extension, one could reason that Mexican immigrants bring their kids here for a better life, but infants are not aware of their circumstances so why not afford those children the Dream Act opportunity? We're kind of big on this here at The Opinion because if you are someone who has been here for most all your life then you're willing to fight and die for this country or become indebted to us by successfully graduating from college then you've earned your citizenship. We'd even go one step further... If you're kid successfully navigates the already daunting steps of the Dream Act, then the parents should be able to apply for citizenship, keeping the family together. However, Republicans view the Dream Act as a pathway to citizenship, which they say is amnesty, which is hence a deal breaker - as Mr. Rubio noted.
New York Times columnist David Brooks had the nerve to say that Marco Rubio was a hero for his efforts on immigration, 'standing up' to his party. 'Acts of heroism' he called them. On a day where they featured Rachel Robinson, wife of a real American hero Jackie Robinson, you put Marco Rubio in the same category? Give us a break. Mr. Rubio said that he doesn't get paid to make speeches but to solve problems. Well, he should tell that to his Senate colleague Mike Lee (R-UT) who said that he wanted a step-by-step approach to immigration where we address boarder security first and then look for other points of reform. As of this writing, boarder security in the United States has never been stricter, we have a net-zero amount on illegal crossings, and President Obama in his first four years has deported more individuals than George Bush did in his two terms so it's time to move on the rest.
And speaking of getting paid to solve problems, how does that work when you are the problem as Mr. Rubio is on gun safety legislation with his unsuccessful threat to filibuster even debating the issue? In addition to that, Mr. Rubio said that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right that he didn't write, hence he can not change it. We rarely do this but we're going to reference the Founding Fathers in that they called these points of the Constitution amendments for a reason... so that they could be amended, meaning changed. Today's political delusion is that the 'sacred' Constitution can not be changed so we'll get away from that because it's a fruitless discussion.
More in the parlance of our time, Mr. Rubio said that violence in our society is the problem and not guns. What is left out of that equation is that guns perpetuate the violence. Mr. Lee stated that the Manchin-Toomey Bill infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens because of expanding background checks to say gun shows. We just don't understand how that is more of an infringement than a simply safety measure. Also, if the gun laws we have right now are ineffective as Mr. Rubio said, isn't that reason enough to try to make them more effective. We do owe it to the families of Newtown and all the other American families that have fallen victim to such tragedies to do something, no block the process with a filibuster. There's no heroism in that.
We agree with everything Ken Burns said about Jackie Robinson and his mountainous significance in American history. Mrs. Robinson explained that her husband understood the responsibility heaped upon him, which she said made him act and speak carefully with patience, and always with dignity. And after an illustrious baseball career that saw him and his family under constant threat, when Jackie Robinson was asked by Lawrence Spivak on this very program in 1957 about patience with regard to equal rights, he calmly, heroically answered that the Civil War had been over for 93 years, and that "If that isn't patience I don't know what is."
Mrs. Robinson also said that she hoped that many people would go and see the film '42' about her late husband opening this weekend so that they would have perspective on history to make comparisons between then and now. Like the difference between then and now on how we define a hero.
One last thing... We were pretty hard on Senator Rubio today and we make no apologies for that, but we also wanted to point out something we agree with him on. Mr. Rubio said that Che Guevara was a murderer and a killer, and he is correct in that assessment. Che did great things but great doesn't always mean good. If you read Jon Lee Anderson's definitive biography of Che Guervara, you will know without uncertainty that this was not a man to be revered. The admiration Che receives, even in death, from people from afar came at the expense of a country's populace who lived in fear, hardship, and potentially death under his order.
Round Table: Senators Gillibrand and Lee join a discussion with the BBC’s Katty Kay, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd
Additional Guests: Filmmaker Ken Burns and Jackie Robinson’s wife, Rachel Robinson and Harrison Ford (via Press Pass)
Huh? So what he is proposing is that we're going to make it so financially hard on someone to accomplish his citizenship goal that he'll just have to leave? That sounds like you're pushing for self-deportation to us. Where is the compassion or responsibility or principle in that?
Not to mention that his statement doesn't consider a motivation beyond monetary to come here and that is to escape persecution in the country of origin. We may get a little flack for this, but you know who all of this doesn't affect? Cubans. Because of our relations (or lack thereof) with that country, Cubans defect or seek political asylum, they don't go through the immigration system like everyone else. We're not saying that it is wrong to do that given the oppression in Cuba, but other large groups of immigrants, Mexicans for example, can not claim that. Although considering the violent narco-state that is Mexico now, they should be able to.
People immigrate to the United States for a better life, something we all concede because it's true. By extension, one could reason that Mexican immigrants bring their kids here for a better life, but infants are not aware of their circumstances so why not afford those children the Dream Act opportunity? We're kind of big on this here at The Opinion because if you are someone who has been here for most all your life then you're willing to fight and die for this country or become indebted to us by successfully graduating from college then you've earned your citizenship. We'd even go one step further... If you're kid successfully navigates the already daunting steps of the Dream Act, then the parents should be able to apply for citizenship, keeping the family together. However, Republicans view the Dream Act as a pathway to citizenship, which they say is amnesty, which is hence a deal breaker - as Mr. Rubio noted.
New York Times columnist David Brooks had the nerve to say that Marco Rubio was a hero for his efforts on immigration, 'standing up' to his party. 'Acts of heroism' he called them. On a day where they featured Rachel Robinson, wife of a real American hero Jackie Robinson, you put Marco Rubio in the same category? Give us a break. Mr. Rubio said that he doesn't get paid to make speeches but to solve problems. Well, he should tell that to his Senate colleague Mike Lee (R-UT) who said that he wanted a step-by-step approach to immigration where we address boarder security first and then look for other points of reform. As of this writing, boarder security in the United States has never been stricter, we have a net-zero amount on illegal crossings, and President Obama in his first four years has deported more individuals than George Bush did in his two terms so it's time to move on the rest.
And speaking of getting paid to solve problems, how does that work when you are the problem as Mr. Rubio is on gun safety legislation with his unsuccessful threat to filibuster even debating the issue? In addition to that, Mr. Rubio said that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right that he didn't write, hence he can not change it. We rarely do this but we're going to reference the Founding Fathers in that they called these points of the Constitution amendments for a reason... so that they could be amended, meaning changed. Today's political delusion is that the 'sacred' Constitution can not be changed so we'll get away from that because it's a fruitless discussion.
More in the parlance of our time, Mr. Rubio said that violence in our society is the problem and not guns. What is left out of that equation is that guns perpetuate the violence. Mr. Lee stated that the Manchin-Toomey Bill infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens because of expanding background checks to say gun shows. We just don't understand how that is more of an infringement than a simply safety measure. Also, if the gun laws we have right now are ineffective as Mr. Rubio said, isn't that reason enough to try to make them more effective. We do owe it to the families of Newtown and all the other American families that have fallen victim to such tragedies to do something, no block the process with a filibuster. There's no heroism in that.
We agree with everything Ken Burns said about Jackie Robinson and his mountainous significance in American history. Mrs. Robinson explained that her husband understood the responsibility heaped upon him, which she said made him act and speak carefully with patience, and always with dignity. And after an illustrious baseball career that saw him and his family under constant threat, when Jackie Robinson was asked by Lawrence Spivak on this very program in 1957 about patience with regard to equal rights, he calmly, heroically answered that the Civil War had been over for 93 years, and that "If that isn't patience I don't know what is."
Mrs. Robinson also said that she hoped that many people would go and see the film '42' about her late husband opening this weekend so that they would have perspective on history to make comparisons between then and now. Like the difference between then and now on how we define a hero.
One last thing... We were pretty hard on Senator Rubio today and we make no apologies for that, but we also wanted to point out something we agree with him on. Mr. Rubio said that Che Guevara was a murderer and a killer, and he is correct in that assessment. Che did great things but great doesn't always mean good. If you read Jon Lee Anderson's definitive biography of Che Guervara, you will know without uncertainty that this was not a man to be revered. The admiration Che receives, even in death, from people from afar came at the expense of a country's populace who lived in fear, hardship, and potentially death under his order.
Round Table: Senators Gillibrand and Lee join a discussion with the BBC’s Katty Kay, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd
Additional Guests: Filmmaker Ken Burns and Jackie Robinson’s wife, Rachel Robinson and Harrison Ford (via Press Pass)
Sunday, April 07, 2013
4.7.13: The Humility and the Humanity
We will acquire guns and weapons that are large enough to deter a tyrannical government. Now, we're not taking about extreme gun nuts in this country, but the sentiment of the unhinged young new deity in North Korea, Kim Jong Un. However, we think you see the point we're making (on the sad gun commentary in this country). Our second thought was actually one of consolation because when you start listening to conversations about North Korea, it makes our politicians seem much more in the wheelhouse of sanity, where we would put Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on this issue. However, he did have some tough words today: namely, that he could see a major war happening if there is a provocation by the North on South Korea. He said it as though it was an inevitability, which is a little troublesome... always.
Mr. Graham pointed out that the politics in South Korea are changing, and it is true that South Korea's first female president (we'll obviously get to more on this dynamic later) Park Geun-hye is taking a harder line with North Korea and will not be so appeasing as her predecessor. The way that Mr. Graham summed it up was that the North loses, the South wins, with 'our' help (a Southern politician's dream... we're just kidding).
But in all seriousness, what we are witnessing is the utter stupidity of a regime that is going to facilitate its own demise, along with its people. The importance of South Korea and Japan as allies to the United States are understated here at home, but they shouldn't be. We need to have the back of both of those countries. The Obama Administration understands this, as Michele Flournoy, former undersecretary of defense policy, outlined - sending B2 bombers to the region, working on different military defense scenarios with South Korea, and stepping up diplomacy. Senator Graham refreshingly acknowledged this understanding, and should follow suit on other areas of foreign policy as well.
Diplomacy is the key as all the guests seemed to agree, though Senator Graham came off as having little use for it. His feeling seemed to be that North Korea being paranoid, irrational, and armed to the hilt will eventually do something stupid with their arms that will then require a take down. However, his dismissive tone is not without merit because diplomacy with North Korea never works. They sit down at the negotiating table, with China twisting its arm, give in to demands in exchange for economic and food aid, get it, and then renege on their end of the deal. The difference this time is that China is not stepping up. Maybe they will after Secretary Kerry's visit there later in the week, but right now the Chinese want to sit back and see how this plays out because what they're coming to realize is that North Korea as a viable state is unsustainable. The Chinese are propping up North Korea and they can't even use that country as a market for their goods, useless as a trading partner. They may be figuring that at this point at least a unified Korean peninsula could buy more of our stuff.
"What's the alternative [to diplomacy]?" Bill Richardson rhetorically asked. Well, the alternative is clear, and a scary, real possibility because the North has always thought the South wouldn't respond, but who knows now. Not to mention the 30,000 troops we have in the region. We can tell you that if Mexico, or even Canada, were to be occasionally sinking U.S. ships off our coast or firing shells or rifles off at the border, we would certainly feel we should react, don't you think? That's where South Korea is now. The scary part is if North Korea does something reckless with their nuclear arms. So many 'what ifs...,' and at this point the United States needs to do everything it can to avoid an armed conflict because the American electorate is simply worn out from war.
And our politicians are finally getting that message. Senator Graham's tone on Syria has changed. Initially, he and Senator John McCain, were all for fully taking sides and arming Syrian rebels. He's toned that back a bit, saying today that he supports training rebels with the assured understanding the UN Peace-Keeping troops can go in and secure the 17 chemical weapons sites, all meaning no U.S. troops. His main concern was that of Jordan and the fate of King Adullah, the United States' only Arab friend in the region (you can go back and forth with the Saudis). Yes, all that money, blood, and treasure has not gained us any friends there.
Speaking of friends, self-deportation wasn't gaining any for the Republican party and, rightly, Senator Graham said that this idea is a thing of the past. We just need to clarify, for the record, that it was never an idea of the present. With ideas like that, why would it surprise anyone that Mitt Romney (a good man Mr. Graham said today) didn't win the election. Recognizing the humility and the humanity in addition to the politics is the way that Bill Richardson described the approach that should be taken on immigration reform. Sensible to be sure, but when you hear Senator Graham say that the United States has to 'regain its sovereignty' you know that politics is still a first priority for many. In fact, may we say that the entire notion of the United States having lost its sovereignty in the first place is lazy, lowest-common denominator, shallow, xenophobic rhetoric.
Mr. Richardson and Mr. Graham did concur that there are a few sticking points between business and labor to be worked out in regard to a guest worker program - translated, this means that there are points on which the special interests will not be as profitable and those need to be fixed, but otherwise it's all good. One point Mr. Richardson made that caught our attention was that a path to citizenship needs to be achievable. And it really does. He explained that proposed framework would enforce a 13-year process, and that's way too long. All that says is that citizenship is dangling out there but that we really don't want you to have it. That timeline doesn't recognize the humility or the humanity.
For another point on the humility front, we agree with Jim Cramer that the most recent weak jobs report (88K last month) was due in large part to the president crying 'big' wolf about the humanity of the sequester and that CEOs took heed. There are definitely negative effects on our economy due to the sequester, hence our insertion of the word 'big' but not to the extent which the president warned, and we do maintain that the whole sequester episode was completely unnecessary, an illustration of politicians not doing their jobs.
Where our leaders need to make a decision is on the Keystone Pipeline - just take it off the table. Mr. Cramer explained that in the last four years the biggest producers of jobs are companies in the oil and gas industries, and with that in mind you have to ask yourself does the necessity of today (60,000 jobs) outweigh the damage this pipeline could cause (probably will cause) in the future? The way commentators, pundits, and politicians speak about this pipeline, you would think it will be the panacea for our high unemployment, which simply isn't the case, but its advocates are framing it that way. That said the job participation rate is at a historic low should be a grave concern - people need hope.
Lastly, we're staying away from Presidential politics right now but, obviously, we have to comment on today's discussion about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton campaign. We'll say this: we agree with Mr. Richardson that she is 100% running; we agree with Andrea Mitchell that it is about time we had a woman as our president (She didn't explicitly say that but it exudes from her person.); and we agree with Mike Murphy that we'll have to re-litigate the past. What wasn't said is that Mrs. Clinton is in fact the most qualified person to be the next president amongst Democrats and Republicans, like it or not.
Round Table: Fmr. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), GOP strategist Mike Murphy; Politico’s Maggie Haberman; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell
Additional Guests: Michele Flournoy who served as undersecretary of defense policy under President Obama from 2009-2012. CNBC's Jim Cramer
Mr. Graham pointed out that the politics in South Korea are changing, and it is true that South Korea's first female president (we'll obviously get to more on this dynamic later) Park Geun-hye is taking a harder line with North Korea and will not be so appeasing as her predecessor. The way that Mr. Graham summed it up was that the North loses, the South wins, with 'our' help (a Southern politician's dream... we're just kidding).
But in all seriousness, what we are witnessing is the utter stupidity of a regime that is going to facilitate its own demise, along with its people. The importance of South Korea and Japan as allies to the United States are understated here at home, but they shouldn't be. We need to have the back of both of those countries. The Obama Administration understands this, as Michele Flournoy, former undersecretary of defense policy, outlined - sending B2 bombers to the region, working on different military defense scenarios with South Korea, and stepping up diplomacy. Senator Graham refreshingly acknowledged this understanding, and should follow suit on other areas of foreign policy as well.
Diplomacy is the key as all the guests seemed to agree, though Senator Graham came off as having little use for it. His feeling seemed to be that North Korea being paranoid, irrational, and armed to the hilt will eventually do something stupid with their arms that will then require a take down. However, his dismissive tone is not without merit because diplomacy with North Korea never works. They sit down at the negotiating table, with China twisting its arm, give in to demands in exchange for economic and food aid, get it, and then renege on their end of the deal. The difference this time is that China is not stepping up. Maybe they will after Secretary Kerry's visit there later in the week, but right now the Chinese want to sit back and see how this plays out because what they're coming to realize is that North Korea as a viable state is unsustainable. The Chinese are propping up North Korea and they can't even use that country as a market for their goods, useless as a trading partner. They may be figuring that at this point at least a unified Korean peninsula could buy more of our stuff.
"What's the alternative [to diplomacy]?" Bill Richardson rhetorically asked. Well, the alternative is clear, and a scary, real possibility because the North has always thought the South wouldn't respond, but who knows now. Not to mention the 30,000 troops we have in the region. We can tell you that if Mexico, or even Canada, were to be occasionally sinking U.S. ships off our coast or firing shells or rifles off at the border, we would certainly feel we should react, don't you think? That's where South Korea is now. The scary part is if North Korea does something reckless with their nuclear arms. So many 'what ifs...,' and at this point the United States needs to do everything it can to avoid an armed conflict because the American electorate is simply worn out from war.
And our politicians are finally getting that message. Senator Graham's tone on Syria has changed. Initially, he and Senator John McCain, were all for fully taking sides and arming Syrian rebels. He's toned that back a bit, saying today that he supports training rebels with the assured understanding the UN Peace-Keeping troops can go in and secure the 17 chemical weapons sites, all meaning no U.S. troops. His main concern was that of Jordan and the fate of King Adullah, the United States' only Arab friend in the region (you can go back and forth with the Saudis). Yes, all that money, blood, and treasure has not gained us any friends there.
Speaking of friends, self-deportation wasn't gaining any for the Republican party and, rightly, Senator Graham said that this idea is a thing of the past. We just need to clarify, for the record, that it was never an idea of the present. With ideas like that, why would it surprise anyone that Mitt Romney (a good man Mr. Graham said today) didn't win the election. Recognizing the humility and the humanity in addition to the politics is the way that Bill Richardson described the approach that should be taken on immigration reform. Sensible to be sure, but when you hear Senator Graham say that the United States has to 'regain its sovereignty' you know that politics is still a first priority for many. In fact, may we say that the entire notion of the United States having lost its sovereignty in the first place is lazy, lowest-common denominator, shallow, xenophobic rhetoric.
Mr. Richardson and Mr. Graham did concur that there are a few sticking points between business and labor to be worked out in regard to a guest worker program - translated, this means that there are points on which the special interests will not be as profitable and those need to be fixed, but otherwise it's all good. One point Mr. Richardson made that caught our attention was that a path to citizenship needs to be achievable. And it really does. He explained that proposed framework would enforce a 13-year process, and that's way too long. All that says is that citizenship is dangling out there but that we really don't want you to have it. That timeline doesn't recognize the humility or the humanity.
For another point on the humility front, we agree with Jim Cramer that the most recent weak jobs report (88K last month) was due in large part to the president crying 'big' wolf about the humanity of the sequester and that CEOs took heed. There are definitely negative effects on our economy due to the sequester, hence our insertion of the word 'big' but not to the extent which the president warned, and we do maintain that the whole sequester episode was completely unnecessary, an illustration of politicians not doing their jobs.
Where our leaders need to make a decision is on the Keystone Pipeline - just take it off the table. Mr. Cramer explained that in the last four years the biggest producers of jobs are companies in the oil and gas industries, and with that in mind you have to ask yourself does the necessity of today (60,000 jobs) outweigh the damage this pipeline could cause (probably will cause) in the future? The way commentators, pundits, and politicians speak about this pipeline, you would think it will be the panacea for our high unemployment, which simply isn't the case, but its advocates are framing it that way. That said the job participation rate is at a historic low should be a grave concern - people need hope.
Lastly, we're staying away from Presidential politics right now but, obviously, we have to comment on today's discussion about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton campaign. We'll say this: we agree with Mr. Richardson that she is 100% running; we agree with Andrea Mitchell that it is about time we had a woman as our president (She didn't explicitly say that but it exudes from her person.); and we agree with Mike Murphy that we'll have to re-litigate the past. What wasn't said is that Mrs. Clinton is in fact the most qualified person to be the next president amongst Democrats and Republicans, like it or not.
Round Table: Fmr. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), GOP strategist Mike Murphy; Politico’s Maggie Haberman; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell
Additional Guests: Michele Flournoy who served as undersecretary of defense policy under President Obama from 2009-2012. CNBC's Jim Cramer
Sunday, March 31, 2013
3.31.13: Regional or National
Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said that it was inevitable that Republicans would support a candidate for president who backed gay marriage, but for him he said he would never support it while he was in office. Mr. Flake needs to reconcile that discrepancy quickly because inevitability is upon us. As Chuck Todd, sitting in for David Gregory, pointed out Mr. Flake clearly felt uncomfortable talking about the issue. You could tell by his hesitation in his answer that he bases his political persepctive on his religious beliefs when it comes to marriage. It's one of those grey areas for politicians where they can not separate the legal from the religious. The reason he can not do that is because his Republican base won't allow it - more about this later.
We've already stated our position on same-sex marriage, but if you're for the traditional definition, the President of the National Organization for Marriage Brian Brown did not help the cause. First of all, if being the President of the National Organization for Marriage is a full-time job, it's a waste of money and he should be fired; he's obviously not doing a good job. On today's program, he presented himself as nervous and defensive in his answers. One of his arguments was that same-sex couples do not have the civil right to redefine marriage. That's a weak argument because you can simply turn that statement around and say what gives him the right over someone else to make the decision. This is where Mr. Brown deferred to the voting results on the issue, in the particular the California case of Proposition 8. Despite his desperate rhetoric that it was a slur on the Americans who voted to uphold the traditional definition, what he fails to understand is that the basic civil rights of an individual in this country do not get voted on. "Inalienable Rights..." is what is says in the constitution.
What we found interesting was that there wasn't any consensus amongst the guests as to whether the Court would make a decision or 'punt' on the matter. Filmmaker Rob Reiner said that if the Supreme Court did in fact decide not to decide and send it back to California (See LL Cool J's "Going Back to Cali), it would be a victory for those who opposed Proposition 8 as a matter of educating the public. However, in reality if it does go back to California, it's really a victory for the supporters of traditional marriage. If the court decides that it is a matter of civil rights, then it's hard to see how they could not make a decision. Editorially, Meet The Press sees it as a civil rights issue, using the clips of Jackie Robinson talking about civil rights for African-American as a comparison to support that view. We agree with the comparison.
Like we said, the majority of the country's attitude toward same-sex marriage is one of a libertarian perspective. Where Mr. Flake displayed more confidence was when talking about comprehensive immigration reform, saying that he would not walk away from the process and he doesn't think Marco Rubio would either. That's the good news. David Axelrod called it a legacy issue for the president so there's push from that direction as well for success. The Senate will reach a deal Mr. Flake thought, and it's in the Republican's, particularly Mr. Rubio's, best political interest to get it done. If Mr. Rubio decides to run for president in 2016, he won't be able to count on the Latino vote if they don't have immigration reform. His problem is that in the Senate bill there is a path for citizenship provision, which doesn't exist in the House version. This key provision in the law that if it can not be resolved, could kill reform entirely.
Of course when you have a Republican Senator from Alaska, Don Young, calling immigrant workers 'wetbacks,' that doesn't help. In his apology, he said that the term should be left in the 20th century. Well, that century ended 13 years ago so where's he been - idiot. And it's idiotic to think that he'll resign over such a remark; lots of politicians haven't resigned for much more controversial acts and statements. But Latinos take such a comment as the deeply offensive slur that it is and come election time, they will not forget it especially if House Republicans block a path to citizenship.
David Axelrod and Tom Davis (In the first round table, or was it the second round table or the second part of the first round table? Two round tables, in the parlance of the day, was a bridge too far. ) had a brief exchange about whether the Republican party would be a regional Congressional party or a national party. Right now, it's trending that they will become a regional Congressional party especially if they can not work out something on immigration, hence alienating the fastest growing population block in the United States.
With the overwhelming percentages of people under 30 years old who support same-sex marriage, capturing young voters will also be difficult, and given the harsh anti-abortion legislation moving through several states, lead by North Dakota whose governor even said that it would be contested in the courts, Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors with women. If Republicans really want to be a national party, which means winning the executive branch, then they have to gain the support of these groups by ending the adversarial relationship they are creating with their narrow policies. Tom Davis inadvertently explained it - Republicans, by gerrymandering districts, have boxed themselves in. They're electorally safe in their districts but outside of those small pockets, they have no resonance. As he also explained, there are fewer suburban districts, like the one he represented, that are still Republican because of the aforementioned topics.
But maybe there is hope because one area where Republicans are gaining support is in the resistance to gun-safety legislation where now only 47 percent of Americans favor new restrictions. Senator Flake called universal background checks a 'bridge too far,' for gun owners explaining that the paperwork requirements would be too much of a burden and how would we be able to regulate someone loaning a gun to another person for duck hunting (Mr. Flake's example)? As long as we accept an answer like that of 'too much paperwork' for why we can not have new gun-safety legislation, then it's never going to happen. At the top of the program, there was a clip of President Obama saying, "Shame on us if we've forgotten," in reference to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Sadly, it's quite obvious that we can live with the shame.
Round Table 1: former top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA); the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson and the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan.
Round Table 2: President of the National Organization for Marriage Brian Brown; the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan; founder and President of the National Action Network, MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton; and NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams.
We want to wish everyone a Happy and Healthy Easter and Passover!
We've already stated our position on same-sex marriage, but if you're for the traditional definition, the President of the National Organization for Marriage Brian Brown did not help the cause. First of all, if being the President of the National Organization for Marriage is a full-time job, it's a waste of money and he should be fired; he's obviously not doing a good job. On today's program, he presented himself as nervous and defensive in his answers. One of his arguments was that same-sex couples do not have the civil right to redefine marriage. That's a weak argument because you can simply turn that statement around and say what gives him the right over someone else to make the decision. This is where Mr. Brown deferred to the voting results on the issue, in the particular the California case of Proposition 8. Despite his desperate rhetoric that it was a slur on the Americans who voted to uphold the traditional definition, what he fails to understand is that the basic civil rights of an individual in this country do not get voted on. "Inalienable Rights..." is what is says in the constitution.
What we found interesting was that there wasn't any consensus amongst the guests as to whether the Court would make a decision or 'punt' on the matter. Filmmaker Rob Reiner said that if the Supreme Court did in fact decide not to decide and send it back to California (See LL Cool J's "Going Back to Cali), it would be a victory for those who opposed Proposition 8 as a matter of educating the public. However, in reality if it does go back to California, it's really a victory for the supporters of traditional marriage. If the court decides that it is a matter of civil rights, then it's hard to see how they could not make a decision. Editorially, Meet The Press sees it as a civil rights issue, using the clips of Jackie Robinson talking about civil rights for African-American as a comparison to support that view. We agree with the comparison.
Like we said, the majority of the country's attitude toward same-sex marriage is one of a libertarian perspective. Where Mr. Flake displayed more confidence was when talking about comprehensive immigration reform, saying that he would not walk away from the process and he doesn't think Marco Rubio would either. That's the good news. David Axelrod called it a legacy issue for the president so there's push from that direction as well for success. The Senate will reach a deal Mr. Flake thought, and it's in the Republican's, particularly Mr. Rubio's, best political interest to get it done. If Mr. Rubio decides to run for president in 2016, he won't be able to count on the Latino vote if they don't have immigration reform. His problem is that in the Senate bill there is a path for citizenship provision, which doesn't exist in the House version. This key provision in the law that if it can not be resolved, could kill reform entirely.
Of course when you have a Republican Senator from Alaska, Don Young, calling immigrant workers 'wetbacks,' that doesn't help. In his apology, he said that the term should be left in the 20th century. Well, that century ended 13 years ago so where's he been - idiot. And it's idiotic to think that he'll resign over such a remark; lots of politicians haven't resigned for much more controversial acts and statements. But Latinos take such a comment as the deeply offensive slur that it is and come election time, they will not forget it especially if House Republicans block a path to citizenship.
David Axelrod and Tom Davis (In the first round table, or was it the second round table or the second part of the first round table? Two round tables, in the parlance of the day, was a bridge too far. ) had a brief exchange about whether the Republican party would be a regional Congressional party or a national party. Right now, it's trending that they will become a regional Congressional party especially if they can not work out something on immigration, hence alienating the fastest growing population block in the United States.
With the overwhelming percentages of people under 30 years old who support same-sex marriage, capturing young voters will also be difficult, and given the harsh anti-abortion legislation moving through several states, lead by North Dakota whose governor even said that it would be contested in the courts, Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors with women. If Republicans really want to be a national party, which means winning the executive branch, then they have to gain the support of these groups by ending the adversarial relationship they are creating with their narrow policies. Tom Davis inadvertently explained it - Republicans, by gerrymandering districts, have boxed themselves in. They're electorally safe in their districts but outside of those small pockets, they have no resonance. As he also explained, there are fewer suburban districts, like the one he represented, that are still Republican because of the aforementioned topics.
But maybe there is hope because one area where Republicans are gaining support is in the resistance to gun-safety legislation where now only 47 percent of Americans favor new restrictions. Senator Flake called universal background checks a 'bridge too far,' for gun owners explaining that the paperwork requirements would be too much of a burden and how would we be able to regulate someone loaning a gun to another person for duck hunting (Mr. Flake's example)? As long as we accept an answer like that of 'too much paperwork' for why we can not have new gun-safety legislation, then it's never going to happen. At the top of the program, there was a clip of President Obama saying, "Shame on us if we've forgotten," in reference to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Sadly, it's quite obvious that we can live with the shame.
Round Table 1: former top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA); the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson and the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan.
Round Table 2: President of the National Organization for Marriage Brian Brown; the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan; founder and President of the National Action Network, MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton; and NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams.
We want to wish everyone a Happy and Healthy Easter and Passover!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)