The overt, overarching theme of today's Meet The Press illustrated the art of the smack down.
To distill and differentiate however, they weren't all of the same variety. Let us explain. A slap is mostly executed in one of two ways - either with the open hand where contact is made with the palm or it's delivered with the back of the hand, knuckles first. Where the former signifies a notion of shunning someone, the open hand slap is one that more demands that the recipient regain focus. Both kinds were exemplified today.
All of the round table guests liked the fact that President Obama delivered a 'smack down' of Russian President Vladimir Putin in cancelling their upcoming summit meeting, but none of them were sure if it was actually a good idea. Giving whistle blower Edward Snowden a visa was the last straw in a series of Russian thumbs to the eye of the United States so the administration had rightly determined that enough was enough. The reason it was a good move is that in considering the Russian mentality and the ego of Mr. Putin, Mr. Obama's only play to maintain a modicum of respect is to tell the Russian president to 'step off' until he can check his id at the door. It was an openhanded smack down for sure, one designed to refocus Mr. Putin's awareness of the United States' strength politically and that the administration isn't simply going to roll over to him.
With that said, boycotting the Olympics would not be the right thing to do and here's why. In this country with its deep political divisions (conservative vs. liberal), there is one thing that everyone can have a fun, animated conversation about that unifies, and that is sports. (No matter what two football fans' respective political beliefs are, they can still always talk football.) It's the same way with the Olympics and international competition, it brings the world together in a positive way. The only other example we can think of that also does that is the international space station and for the United States not to participate in either at any time would be a mistake if this country intends to do what it says, which is to help lead the world into the future. We wouldn't be surprised (and it will happen) that a brave athlete from somewhere in the world is going to win gold and dedicate it to the oppressed, giving us a teaching moment in the face of Russia's intolerant laws toward its gay community.
The other, more exciting, confrontational smack down was a pure knuckle-first backhand crack delivered by Anna Navarro to the proverbial face of Representative Steve King (R-IA) without any intent of reconciliation. After David Gregory presented Mr. King with videotape of his controversial remarks about Hispanics mostly being 130 lbs. marijuana smugglers and his response, Mr. Navarro cut into the Iowa Congressman saying he needed therapy and was a mediocre congressman with no legislative record, while he listened. Ouch!
And she's a Republican Strategist... While the need for therapy is debatable, we disagree with Ms. Navarro in her assessment of Mr. King as a mediocre congressman. That's far too generous a descriptor. However, we agree with her that Mr. King's ignorance furthers the debate in favor of those who want reform. As David Ignatius noted, Congressman King's views are not where the country is moving.
Now we'd like to conduct a bit of a smack down of our own, one that employs both a backhand and forehand with a 'Smartin' up!' at the end of it on Congressman Mike McCaul (R-TX). Mr. McCaul is the Chairman of the House's Homeland Security Committee so if he didn't know that these NSA surveillance programs existed, programs which for the record Congress people had multiple opportunities to be briefed, doesn't speak well of his leadership. He stated that the president failed to explain these 'lawful' (his word) programs, but what about Congress? If these programs are lawful, that means Congress authorized them so they should be explaining them as well.
He went on to say that the president is trying to bring the country back to a pre-9/11 mindset, suggesting that Mr. Obama is not being diligent enough on terrorism, which is simply sophomoric criticism. Just by reading newspaper headlines this week, you would know that the U.S. has been launching multiple, daily drone strikes in the Arabian Peninsula.
Mr. McCaul also stated that the president has failed to engage the moderate Muslim community [in our fight against extremists]. But how would he propose this be done considering that we've now, under President Obama's administration, created this existential fear across the Middle East that at any moment you could be vaporized by a smart bomb from a robot plane?
Ted Koppel talked about his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and how we've created a psychology of fear (along with an economy/industry of one) in this country. His key example to note - a conference call by Al Qaeda shut down nineteen embassies this week. Well, we also transferred that fear abroad with the use of drones. It's certainly not pre-9/11 behavior.
We don't dismiss the use of drones entirely, that's not the point. The point is that it just seems like Mr. McCaul hasn't done his homework and that if you're the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, you should understand, appreciate, and articulate the nuances of our security policies in the presence of our Bill of Rights, but also within the context of how we're engaging terrorism around the globe. That's exactly what we should expect from an individual in that kind of leadership position.
Round Table: David Ignatius of the Washington Post; Republican strategist Ana
Navarro; David Brooks of the New York Times, and Former Governor of New
Mexico and UN ambassador, Bill Richardson..
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Sunday, August 04, 2013
8.4.13: The Most Serious of Threats...
Since September 11, 2001 is what we're being told as the U.S. government shuts down 22 embassies (some reports state 21) across North Africa and the Middle East.
With the consulate attack in Benghazi fresh in U.S. officials' minds, the State Department isn't taking any chances with the significant amount of 'chatter' the NSA has been monitoring. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) assessed this chatter as the most serious threat we've faced since that day almost twelve years ago. Apparently, the chatter has been emanating from Yemen where Al Qaeda is still operation on the Arabia Peninsula.
In their joint interview, Senator Durbin let Senator Chambliss answer all the questions on the threat, for which we still don't know the nature of the attack. It's obvious from these embassy closings this weekend that the Intelligence Committees must have been briefed about these terrorist plot communications at least a three to four months prior to last week. What is troublesome is if the NSA through its PRISM program has been intercepting all of these communications, why is it that we don not know the specific nature of the attack or where it is going to occur? Mostly likely, our intelligence officials have a good idea about these two notions (we hope so) but are not sharing that information.
Also, Andrea Mitchell mentioned the prison breaks of thousands of Islamic radicals in Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan. There is no coincidence here that the timing of these breaks and the threat are falling around the same time. Al Qaeda is broken, badly decimated, but these actions are its last ditch effort to counter that while at the same time, adding to the growing chaos across the region.
Given this pertinent new threat to one of our outposts overseas, it's unfortunate to hear Rick Santorum spout the same empty attack rhetoric against the president and his administration's efforts to keep the American people safe abroad. For most government officials, Benghazi was a tragedy that taught us a very hard lesson in securing our people abroad, but to some it will remain a sad political 'gotcha' that won't be fixed. Mr. Santorum said that the president has been timid and has politically withdrawn from the fight, also saying that Mr. Obama has not confronted radical Islam, citing an allegiance with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The reason we say it's unfortunate is because Mr. Santorum is incorrect on several accounts. Starting with Egypt, the United States respected the result of democratically held election, just as we do here. But note that the Administration also didn't call the military intervention in toppling the Muslim Brotherhood to install a more moderate administration a coup, something Mr. Santorum selectively left out. As far as being timid with Muslim extremists, we would direct you to Joe Scarborough's comments about the Mr. Obama's use of drones, more ruthless than the Bush/Cheney administration had been.
Joy Reid stated it most accurately in that the Obama Administration has dialed back the blustery rhetoric but has ramped up the operations. This second part is not to be glossed over however, due to the intensity in which Mr. Obama has employed the use of drones. The reason all those embassies are closed today is the result of our use of these weapons. With the drones, we've targeted the most important Al Qaeda operatives in the Middle East and North Africa (with awful collateral damage) and when it came time to capture or kill the most radical of them all (Osama Bin Laden), we sent in personnel.
It's this notion of personnel that leads us to a broader point. The reliance of the PRISM program and drone use seems to be replacing personnel on the ground where the key intelligence is gathered and in this latest threat example, that means the where and how. However, given what happened with Edward Snowden reliable personnel has become an issue as well. Where this can be corrected is through the elimination of using private contractors for national security, as was the case with Mr. Snowden. The owners of these private firms are in business to ultimately make money and we believe that the profit motive should be taken out of the effort to provide security to American citizens.
Also, being mindful of this context, the idea of shutting down the government, as some Republican lawmakers have suggested, would leave our overseas personnel vulnerable due to a lack of resources. Additionally, it will leave us ill-equipped at home as well. Is it comforting to know that our first responders, in the case of an emergency, will be unable to operate effectively due to lack of funds? It's refreshing to know that the conservative Mr. Chambliss believes in governing, as opposed to obstruction, and that a shutdown would be detrimental to the American people. Not to mention, of course, a shutdown would hit the Republican party hardest politically.
Government shutdowns, debt defaults and isolationist approaches to foreign policy will only serve to make the United States less secure and more vulnerable. That's not to say that we agree with what Mr. Santorum called a robust approach to foreign policy. His notion of engagement is one of a unwise hawkish militarized nature. Simply droning people out is not the way to stem the most serious threats.
Interview: Assistant Democratic Leader Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Vice-Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).
Roundtable: Host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough; former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; managing editor of TheGrio.com, Joy Ann Reid; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Show Note: What was with the gratuitous introduction of the round table guests? The voice over felt like an amateurish promotion for the uninitiated. Silly and unnecessary.
End Note: We didn't find it worthy to comment more on Anthony Weiner and the like anymore, except to agree with Andrea Mitchell that it's all about ego. And with regard to baseball, if you still desire to have faith in the game and its players, you just have to remember two words (especially for you Yankee fans) - Derek Jeter.
With the consulate attack in Benghazi fresh in U.S. officials' minds, the State Department isn't taking any chances with the significant amount of 'chatter' the NSA has been monitoring. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) assessed this chatter as the most serious threat we've faced since that day almost twelve years ago. Apparently, the chatter has been emanating from Yemen where Al Qaeda is still operation on the Arabia Peninsula.
In their joint interview, Senator Durbin let Senator Chambliss answer all the questions on the threat, for which we still don't know the nature of the attack. It's obvious from these embassy closings this weekend that the Intelligence Committees must have been briefed about these terrorist plot communications at least a three to four months prior to last week. What is troublesome is if the NSA through its PRISM program has been intercepting all of these communications, why is it that we don not know the specific nature of the attack or where it is going to occur? Mostly likely, our intelligence officials have a good idea about these two notions (we hope so) but are not sharing that information.
Also, Andrea Mitchell mentioned the prison breaks of thousands of Islamic radicals in Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan. There is no coincidence here that the timing of these breaks and the threat are falling around the same time. Al Qaeda is broken, badly decimated, but these actions are its last ditch effort to counter that while at the same time, adding to the growing chaos across the region.
Given this pertinent new threat to one of our outposts overseas, it's unfortunate to hear Rick Santorum spout the same empty attack rhetoric against the president and his administration's efforts to keep the American people safe abroad. For most government officials, Benghazi was a tragedy that taught us a very hard lesson in securing our people abroad, but to some it will remain a sad political 'gotcha' that won't be fixed. Mr. Santorum said that the president has been timid and has politically withdrawn from the fight, also saying that Mr. Obama has not confronted radical Islam, citing an allegiance with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The reason we say it's unfortunate is because Mr. Santorum is incorrect on several accounts. Starting with Egypt, the United States respected the result of democratically held election, just as we do here. But note that the Administration also didn't call the military intervention in toppling the Muslim Brotherhood to install a more moderate administration a coup, something Mr. Santorum selectively left out. As far as being timid with Muslim extremists, we would direct you to Joe Scarborough's comments about the Mr. Obama's use of drones, more ruthless than the Bush/Cheney administration had been.
Joy Reid stated it most accurately in that the Obama Administration has dialed back the blustery rhetoric but has ramped up the operations. This second part is not to be glossed over however, due to the intensity in which Mr. Obama has employed the use of drones. The reason all those embassies are closed today is the result of our use of these weapons. With the drones, we've targeted the most important Al Qaeda operatives in the Middle East and North Africa (with awful collateral damage) and when it came time to capture or kill the most radical of them all (Osama Bin Laden), we sent in personnel.
It's this notion of personnel that leads us to a broader point. The reliance of the PRISM program and drone use seems to be replacing personnel on the ground where the key intelligence is gathered and in this latest threat example, that means the where and how. However, given what happened with Edward Snowden reliable personnel has become an issue as well. Where this can be corrected is through the elimination of using private contractors for national security, as was the case with Mr. Snowden. The owners of these private firms are in business to ultimately make money and we believe that the profit motive should be taken out of the effort to provide security to American citizens.
Also, being mindful of this context, the idea of shutting down the government, as some Republican lawmakers have suggested, would leave our overseas personnel vulnerable due to a lack of resources. Additionally, it will leave us ill-equipped at home as well. Is it comforting to know that our first responders, in the case of an emergency, will be unable to operate effectively due to lack of funds? It's refreshing to know that the conservative Mr. Chambliss believes in governing, as opposed to obstruction, and that a shutdown would be detrimental to the American people. Not to mention, of course, a shutdown would hit the Republican party hardest politically.
Government shutdowns, debt defaults and isolationist approaches to foreign policy will only serve to make the United States less secure and more vulnerable. That's not to say that we agree with what Mr. Santorum called a robust approach to foreign policy. His notion of engagement is one of a unwise hawkish militarized nature. Simply droning people out is not the way to stem the most serious threats.
Interview: Assistant Democratic Leader Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Vice-Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).
Roundtable: Host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough; former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; managing editor of TheGrio.com, Joy Ann Reid; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Show Note: What was with the gratuitous introduction of the round table guests? The voice over felt like an amateurish promotion for the uninitiated. Silly and unnecessary.
End Note: We didn't find it worthy to comment more on Anthony Weiner and the like anymore, except to agree with Andrea Mitchell that it's all about ego. And with regard to baseball, if you still desire to have faith in the game and its players, you just have to remember two words (especially for you Yankee fans) - Derek Jeter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)