9.1.13: No Slam Dunk in Syria

As you can tell from the interviews and discussion on today's Meet The Press, there are no easy answers on what the United States should do in response to the apparent evidence that chemical weapons by the Assad regime on his own people, specifically sarin gas.  

Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that on a moral basis the United States needs to act and stated that American credibility in the region and around the world is on the line.  Mr. Kerry quashed the use of Mr. Gregory's term, 'slam dunk,' but instead used the phrase 'high evidence' that WMDs were used outside of Damascus, and if you've seen the footage, there is in fact little doubt that Bashir Assad has used chemical weapons.Given this evidence and the fact that Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are backing the Assad Regime, this is no time to unnecessarily beat up on President Obama politically because if one thing is clear at this point, the United States needs to act in a unified manner.  This is to say that, what is first in the best interest of the country is that the President seek Congressional approval before moving ahead with military action.  But understand that President Obama seemingly came to this decision only after he witnessed the British Parliament reject any military intervention in Syria with the U.S. as the lead.  This isn't at all surprising given the fact that the last time the British followed us into war, it was a disaster.  The president is playing a bit of politics here as he was prepared to go into Syria without Congressional authority, but now that he has called on Congress to give authorization, it will rightly shift the responsibility for the decision to both the Congressional and Executive branches of government.  

And no matter what side of the political aisle you favor, you have to be satisfied with some of the thoughtful questions Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) brought up in today's interview.  (Where we're quite leery when it comes Congressional wisdom is with House Speaker John Boehner.  He's third in line to the presidency, and he's just no up to the task of leadership.)  Senator Paul asked if a bombing campaign would worsen the refugee crisis in Jordan, which he seemed to think it would and we would agree.  The problem there is that Jordan is a true ally of the United States and putting this kind of strain on them does not serve our interests well in the region.  And this is where we would disagree with Senator Paul, the United States does have interests in the region that are affected by the civil war in Syria, and he named them - Russia and China as players in the region.  China not so much as Russia and the reason is that Russia needs its access to the Mediterranean with its port located in Syria so it's in Russia's interest to back Assad.  You might ask, doesn't Russia have any concern for the use of chemical weapons, and the answer is simply no.  Remember, this is a Russian government that in the process of defeating Chechen rebels, conceded the deaths of hundreds of school children, so in other words Putin believes the means do justify the ends.  

This is why the Obama Administration has been more deliberative, as Robert Gibbs put it in the round table discussion - Russia is a powerful rogue actor in this scenario that United States can in no way count on President Putin to be cooperative, and if for nothing else, be subversive  to any action that could strengthen the United States' position.  One can also ask where is the world community on this - the UN and the other regional players?  Why did the British reject getting involved?  And the reason is simple, one word - Iraq.  The round table today discussed the U.S. credibility around the world, and it has been damaged, maybe not reparably but definitely for the foreseeable future.  Katty Kay of the BBC cited it as the reason why the British Parliament said no to military intervention.  Militarily, no one is assured of where U.S. leadership will take us.  

In using military action, does the United States acting this way produce the right thing (what ever your interpretation is of that) ousting Assad from power and ending a civil war, in which WMD has been used, or does the United States escalate a proxy war with Russia and Iran.  The latter scenario seems most likely, at least in the eyes of the British. We understand why Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) want to go bigger militarily because half measures in cases like this tend to fail, and their goal as Bill Kristol outlined is to get rid of the Assad Regime.  These three men have always been overly hawkish, and what they are not fully considering is if the United States does succeed in toppling the Assad regime, what are we left with?  

During the panel discussion, it was mentioned that the Syrian rebels feel abandoned by the U.S. because it has been slow to act, and Mr. McCain has made this point.  However, and let's be clear, the United States should not act based on anything the Syrian rebels say.  Just because their goal is the same as the United States' goal of toppling Assad, the rebels' interests beyond that most likely don't meet with U.S. interests.  Is there intention to set up a democratic Syria?  Unlikely.  Would their control of the country be inclusive with no persecution of Christians in the country, a concern voiced by Senator Paul?  Doubtful.

Moral imperative, though seemingly noble, is not enough to warrant United States intervention.  The use of chemical weapons is a red line, the president was right about that.  Secretary Kerry was correct that if we allow Assad to act with impunity he may turn and use them against one of our allies in the region.The United States has to go big here but not necessarily in a military capacity.  The military action needs to be preventive in nature - a no-fly zone, an overwhelming amount of aid to Syrian refugees (win their support), and perhaps targeted strikes on suspected chemical weapons installations.  Where the U.S. needs to go radically big is to hit the UN, the WMF, and all the countries in the region in the wallet to pressure them to end this crisis.  It can no longer solely be on the shoulders of the United States to end crises around the world.  The global economy relies on everyone and that's how it should trend with conflicts around the world as well.

Round Table: Editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol; co-anchor and managing editor of “The PBS Newshour,” Gwen Ifill, who interviewed President Obama this week; Former White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs; and anchor for BBC World News America, Katty Kay.

Note: This week's Meet The Press is how every week should go - in depth interviews, staying on a few important topics and addressing them in detail so that one can achieve a full perspective on the pressing topic at hand.

8.25.13: The Fleeting American Dream

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his immaculate "I Have A Dream" speech, today's program was dedicated to the status of the American Dream and what it means.  The funny thing is that not one of the guests nor the moderator actually described what it is, as if assuming that everyone watching has the same idea of what it is.  So what is the American Dream?

It used to be: a family with two kids, two cars, and a house, which is really to say that the American Dream was to have a little bit better life for you and your kids than your parents had.  But that's not what is is now.  Now, the American Dream is seen as achieved only if you've gotten rich, if you've 'made it,' what ever that means.  The American Dream for most Americans today, is simply that... a dream.

And by the fact that there are few rich people relative to the rest of the popular, , the dream becomes harder to obtain, or at the very least the perception of that achievement is skewed and hence unrealized. More and more you're seeing that kids today will not be better off than their parents were, and this notion has reached the level of general consensus.

Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), the only living speaker from the 1963 March, outlined many positive changes in our country, but most of them have been social.  That's not to say they aren't significant.  The United States, like it or not, is much more socially progressive than other countries and we'll be the better for it.  We say with full knowledge that there are times, like with the George Zimmerman trial, that will make it seem like that progress has collapsed, but it's not the case.

He also said that there are forces that create a sense of fear, that our country needs to be taken back, and he rhetorically asked, "Taken back to where?"  This is a notion we could never reconcile with the Sarah Palin-types leading the Tea Party Movement.  The say that we need to take the country back, and to Mr. Lewis' point - to where.  Back to a false notion of the 50's when the social and economic order seemed more secure?  That's what it always seemed like they meant.  But the fact is that in the 1950's income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were twice as high as they are today and because of that, social services were more robust and public service positions (teacher, policeman, fireman) were realistic vital options for families to get a solid leg up.  However, the same people who are demanding their country back are also saying that the government shouldn't have to help you because government is inherently bad.  In cities and town all across this country you're seeing the laying off of public workers as tax revenues for municipalities are cut.

With what we've just said, Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) would accuse this column, as on the program he accused black political leaders, of only talking about hopelessness and despair instead of hope.  It was a disingenuous shot he took that basically went without rebuttal.  But what would he say to those people?  How do you say to someone, "Hey, continue to have hope even though you should never expect anyone to help you." Ms. WuDunn cited a statistic that in the United States, 1 in 12 people move economically.  Given that statistic, how can you agree with Congressman Labrador that the American Dream is alive and well?

Newark Mayor and Senatorial candidate Cory Booker said he's been disappointed on how difficult it is to get young people to think of public service and a cause bigger than themselves, but that's the kind of climate this country has created.  Why would someone want to join government when all they've been told all their lives is that government is the problem.

If we continue to collectively believe that the achievement of the American Dream is directly tied to how much money you have in your wallet, it will be forever harder to obtain.  It's about much more than that. It's about being able to live one's life with dignity and with the knowledge that if you play by the rules and work hard, you'll have the intrinsic sense that you've achieved a successful American life.

One of the greatest notions that makes up this American nation is a sense of optimism, that the American Dream is not just a dream, but something that can actually be realized.  Right now, we're afraid, for most Americans today, that simply isn't the case.


Round table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); business executive and author, Sheryl WuDunn; President and Founder of the National Action Network, MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton; New York Times Columnist David Brooks; and presidential historian and author of “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream,” Doris Kearns Goodwin.


Postscript: At the end of the hour, Mr. Gregory interviewed Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and lauded him for taking on his own party with regard to education, who said  at one time that Republicans can not be the 'stupid party.'  The governor talked briefly about education and then immediately after said something stupid, which was that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced and that Republicans in Congress should do everything they can to defund the law.  The reason we call this stupid is because not once have we heard a thoughtful alternative solution from Republicans on how to lower healthcare costs while insuring more people.  When you ask them, "Replace it with what?" all you get are crickets...

More on Syria in a later column.

8.18.13: A Violent Summer After The Arab Spring

As the violence in Egypt escalates, many are going back and forth on what the United States' stance should be.  Should we cut off aid, which mostly goes to the Egyptian military, or not? Are there any other measures that the Mr. Obama's Administration can take to quell the killing and unrest?

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) felt that the United States should suspend financial aid ($1.5 billion per year) until the Egyptian military stops the violence and starts enacting democratic solutions (elections, rule of law, et al.).  She said that the President came up short in his recent remarks on Egypt by not calling for aid suspension.  Senator Reed's answer was a bit more nuanced but he came to the same conclusion to suspend aid.  It would seem like the prudent thing to given the logic that our dollars are being used by a military that has killed some of it's own citizens.

However, just in course of the discussion on today's program, you are able to understand why cutting off aid is problematic.  NBC Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel outlined two key factors as to why it wouldn't be a good idea.  One, by cutting off aid to Egypt, the United States is essentially nullifying the Camp David Accords - the peace treaty, of biblical scale, between Egypt and Israel that is contingent of the U.S. giving aid to both countries.  Based on that, our number one ally in the region doesn't want to see us pull the dollars and then go back to war footing with Egypt.

David Gregory, quoting a government official, said that in the course of this Arab Spring, there are centuries of sectarian and religious scores to settle.  So given that long memory, the United States doesn't want to put itself in a position where we are the ones who break the historic deal we brokered.

By political extension, one could say that you're not a backer of Israel, if you're for the United States pulling the aid away from Egypt, a charge that always gives pause to American politicians.  Therefore, the United States is best to consider our other allied partner countries in the region and not act, as is the usual, as if it is the only other player.  From this, you have to appreciate that the president must choose his words carefully, and consider the ramifications for his decisions driven by consideration of a longer historical perspective. We say this, not so much in the defense of Mr. Obama in particular, but to recognize the responsibility of the office and the knowledge that comes with it.  It doesn't make Senators Ayotte or Reed or Paul naive; it's simply a clear illustration of the difference between being in the position of a senator versus being the president.

Mr. Engel also reported that there is essentially an active insurgency in place formed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Our other allies - Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Qatar - feel that cutting off aid would make the insurgency even worse, and thus rendering tacit support for it and the Muslim Brotherhood instead of the military in opposition of a dogmatic Islamic [some would read that as 'extremist'] way of governing.

Yes, democracy is messy, as Senator Reed reminded us.  Americans should remember the few wars this country had fought in the aftermath of our Revolutionary War (the undeclared war with France to establish our neutrality and the War of 1812, otherwise known as the Second War for Independence).  Egypt's path, while of course tragic, is unavoidable given this level of political upheaval.

What to look for are the upcoming elections the Egyptian military is putting in place, but really all we're distressingly left with is Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Robin Wright's question - will the elections even be considered credible?

The only plausible transition that we can think of is as the violence continues overseas so does it here in the United States, given in a different manifestation.  And despite the impressive numbers in reduction of violent crimes that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly outlined, it's not because of 'stop and frisk,' which NAACP President Ben Jealous accurately called a program. 

The employment of the  'stop and frisk' program is understandable, which isn't to say that it's right or constitutional.  Think about it... when two policemen get out of their car to 'stop and frisk' someone, what are they looking for? And don't say drugs. Unless a policeman is actually witnessing a drug buy, an individual taking drugs or erratic behavior, he is not going to stop.  Policemen are searching for guns.

Once again, it all boils down to that - too many random, untraceable guns in circulation.  'Stop and Frisk' is a Constitutionally questionable program, driven by a culture of fear, employed in a futile attempt to keep illegal guns off the streets of New York City.

In a way, it's the antithesis of 'Stand Your Ground,' which encourages ordinary citizens to carry a gun and in effect determine their own sense of justice.  However, when a law or a program has so many shadowy interpretations, there are bound to be abuses and incredible injustices such as racial profiling.

Both are driven by our culture of the gun, and whether the program seeks to extricate guns from the system or the law encourages an infusion of them, they are ultimately flawed and failed policies because neither does what they're designed to do - keep us safe or free.


Round Table:  Former White House Press Secretary now an NBC News Political Analyst Robert Gibbs, Editor of the National Review Rich Lowry, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd.

Today's round table discussion focused on presidential politics when it should have really focused on foreign policy, something they never do anymore.  There will be plenty of time coming to comment on the 2016 election, but we not going there now... too soon, with the exception to say this:

Robert Gibbs and Chuck Todd were surprised the Hilary Clinton would give a speech now that would clearly put her back in the middle of the political fray, and hence get too caught up in it too early.  Why do this, Gibbs questioned while reminding us that Mrs. Clinton is the default 2016 Democratic candidate.

It may be jumping in too soon for Washington, but not for most people who aren't paying attention right now.  Mrs. Clinton making a speech about the Voting Rights Act and racial discrimination to a base Democratic audience right now is a smart move.  In August this far out, the scrutiny and criticism is as muted as it can be, but this is also the speech that the press will refer back to when citing her views on the subject.  The press will drop it in two days and then refer back to it when it will eventually count, which would be during the Democratic primary.

8.14.13: MTP Ratings Low, but Our Thank You

Columnist Jennifer Rubin, of The Washington Post, editorialized on the reasons why Meet The Pres is getting beaten in the ratings by both Face the Nation and This Week... and to a certain degree, we can not disagree with the litany.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/14/meet-the-worst-sunday-morning-show/?hpid=z4

We really like that she wrote this column.  After all, it is a business, and it's the content that sells it so unforgiving observations are a necessity.

However, we'd like to offer criticism that's more constructive in tone.  We've made it clear in the past that we're often baffled by the format and hence  the pacing of the program.  We don't have a real problem with the guest choices for the round table sessions per se, but two round tables in one program is too much.

We would suggest going a little bit more long form. Conduct an in-depth interviews with our Congress people, 18 minutes in length on a range of issues.  If Meet The Press would like to have clips featured on the Huffington Post for something notable, it's better for something interesting that you got out of your guest's mouth instead of not doing so well in the ratings.  The second segment could be rebuttal or perspective, but thoughtful counterpoint or further reporting (a reporter from a newspaper that's local to that politician, perhaps) on one of the subjects discussed.  And maybe at the end, bring back something that resembles the Meet The Press Minute, but with a different twist, corresponding dates in the history of the program...  We're not saying these are the answers, but just suggestions that better professionals could take as their own and run with.

As for our little column here, it's not great to hear that the program that your blog is based upon (and critiques) is the least popular of the Sunday political programming.  But our hope is that we take what this great institution of a program offers us, and we run with the goal being that the points we've made transcend, if only a little bit, the dialogue that we've witnessed.

The support for this blog has grown, which has both startled and humbled this weekly column so we offer a very gracious thank you to all our readers.  Thank you so much for reading.

We will continue our goal of contributing positive commentary that you find helpful and entertaining.  Because, if it's Sunday....