7.27.14: The Advancing Wolves

The wolves are advancing is how David Brooks of the New York Times phrased it in the context that the United States' inability to influence global conflicts and events.  Clearly, he was referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin, but he was also referring to the rival militia violence in Libya.  To further extrapolate, the wolves can include Assad in Syria and Iran - anyone that is ignoring what ever side or position the United States takes. No fear of consequences.  Mr. Brooks explained that since WWII the United States was able to exert pressure throughout the world to keep a global order.

[He also mentioned that the United States was able to do this despite some small wars. We need to remind Mr. Brooks about small wars... Fifty-eight thousand died in Vietnam, no small war. Nor was Korea.]

But could he be also referring to Israel?

Despite the calls for a prolonged cease fire from Secretary of State John Kerry, the United States voice is being largely ignored.  The concerns that the Obama Administration has about the civilian casualties in Gaza go noted but then put aside.  As Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) assessed, Israel isn't going to agree to such a cease fire just to give Hamas a chance to reload.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel has accepted five different cease fires, and Hamas has even broke one that they called for, but say that this latest 24-hour one does in fact take hold, the sides are so far apart that it will have zero effect.  The Prime Minister wants the total elimination of Hamas - that's the goal plain and simple.  Anything short of that doesn't work for Mr. Netanyahu.  We're not saying this because we agree or disagree, but simply based on what he stated.  When he says that he wants to weaken, discredit and demilitarize Hamas, all those parts add up to the elimination of Hamas.

Mr. Netanyahu said that the Egyptian initiative is the only one on the table and it outlines the Palestinian Authority having political control over Gaza, not Hamas.  You can understand Israel's retaliation in the face of rockets being fired into your country and wanting to eliminate the secret tunnels.  But the pictures don't lie - parts of Gaza City (see below), its most populace areas, are devastated.  NBC's Richard Engel described it as punishment.

Mr. Netanyahu brought up a good point - what would the U.S. do if another country started firing rockets into its territory.  We realize that this isn't something the Israelis want to do, but this kind of overwhelming artillery activity is hurting their cause around the world. 

Both sides are clearly to blame for what happened at the UN school in Gaza - Hamas for making it a military target and Israel for making it an indiscriminate one even though it was clearly marked as Chris Gunness, UN Relief and Works Agency Spokesperson, said.  But as we've said before, there are no conditions in which Hamas would recognize Israel's right to exist,  and if they continue rocketing into Israel, we better get used to these pictures and these tragedies like the one at the UN school.

Senator Schumer candidly said that he thinks it's 'dubious' that the United States can dictate outcomes around the world, no where more evident than in Europe with Ukraine, Russia, and Putin the ego wolf.  His government plays large hand in the responsibility of killing 298 people aboard a commercial flight and he hasn't altered his behavior in the slightest.  Russia is still solidly supplying the separatists in eastern Ukraine with no sign of abatement.

The U.S. is having little influence on Europe's willingness to act, and Mr. Schumer used an ominous analogy to illustrate the point saying that Europe can not employ the 1938 policy of appeasement, drawing a correlation between how Europe responded to the Nazis and how they are responding now to Mr. Putin.  However, one thing is for sure, Europe should listen to the U.S. and go hard on the sanctions because Mr. Putin will continue to use military force in all areas he thinks he can. And he knows that Europe will simply stand by and watch him do it as long as he doesn't cross a certain line; that line by the way being Poland. Mr. Putin has a giant dictatorial ego, but he is not stupid.  But if he were, then Europe would be immediately asking for U.S. for help.

With that said, he shouldn't have been allowed to do as much as he's done, and the European Union needs to act.

Then there's Africa in slow disintegration, one country at a time.  It's been a fools errand to try and maintain a diplomatic presence in Libya since the tragic death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  It shouldn't be seen as a political opportunity or a criminal offense, but simply as a sign, one that says the United States has relinquished any influence it has over the events there.  Period, end of sentence.

As the panel agreed, the United States can not withdraw from its leadership role around the world, but as Ruth Marcus commented, the American people no longer want the United States to serve as the world's policeman.  The pressure that David Brooks talked about and the United States' ability to exert it to keep the peace has been discredited because of the horrible mistake it made in Iraq.  It drained the U.S. of all its international mojo.


Round Table: Judy Woodruff, Co-Anchor and Managing Editor, PBS NewsHour; David Brooks, Columnist, New York Time; Nia-Malika Henderson, Reporter, Washington Post; Ruth Marcus, Columnist, Washington Post

Post Note: We may or may not come back later to comment on the interview with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the comments made by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  The topic of poverty discussed with Mr. Ryan is certainly one of importance that we will comment on, and we find it disgraceful that Congress is about to go on a 5-week recess without the House voting on an immigration bill and a veterans' bill that both passed in the Senate.  But hey, the above commentary is heavy enough for one Sunday.

7.23.14: Meet The Press, David Gregory Rumors

We're talking this mid-week time to comment on a story that appeared in today's Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/23/david-gregory-meet-the-press-replaced-rumor_n_5612773.html).  It reports that after the mid-term elections, David Gregory will be out as moderator and then speculates that Chuck Todd would take over.

Here's our take on that...

We starting blogging this column in earnest at the end of Tim Russert's years of moderating the program (about 30 columns in) but had been watching him for years.  (Mr. Russert died in June of 2008.) We like everyone will say that in Mr. Russert's tenure, he set the gold standard for Sunday political programming; it's the reason why we like to call Meet The Press, the 'Television Program of Record.' 

But in all honesty, it hasn't lived up to that (maybe too) high standard since David Gregory has taken over as moderator.  It's not entirely his fault as we've pointed out over the years.  They've changed the format several times, added too many correspondents, cut down the in-depth interview segments, all of which has created a pacing that is in instances choppy coming off as not so serious in tone.  The cumulative effect erodes David Gregory's  control over the program and its a program that the moderator has to own.

In our humble opinion, Candy Crowley's State of the Union, Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer, and GPS with Fareed Zakaria are the top of the line right now.  That's serious programming... and that's where Meet The Press should be.

You're competing for the informed, the people that pay attention and vote.  They want the insight that most aren't willing to take the time to watch, or write about.  The people watching the above mentioned programs go there for something more in depth... more informed.

Does Chuck Todd taking over get you there?

Tone is very important to us.  And we mean the tone of the host's voice which dictates overall demeanor. It plays a bigger part than you realize toward the success a Sunday political talk show.  We do think that Mr. Todd's tone and demeanor are a better fit for Meet The Press we'll concede.  Oddly enough, we feel that Mr. Gregory would be better suited in the format that Chuck Todd's Daily Rundown has.  Switching places would make sense.

At the time of Mr. Russert's passing, we felt that Chuck Todd wasn't ready for the Meet The Press chair, but we didn't think David Gregory was the best choice either.  It really should have been Andrea Mitchell.  In her few replacement appearances on the program, she seemed uncomfortable but that would have gone away quickly as she has the experience hence the cred.

But now, if someone is going to replace Mr. Gregory now, NBC is most probably going with Mr. Todd.  He can achieve that high standard we outlined, but he'll have to be in it for the long haul and to 'own it' he too will have to up his game. 



As for us, we'll keep on commenting on the program of record.

7.20.14: (Kiev as the New Berlin) The Start of Cold War II

It's important to start this week's column by saying that if this tragic firing down of a passenger plane over Ukraine doesn't change policy behavior in Europe and Russia, things are going to get much worse.  Secretary Kerry, in his interview laid out the case...

It's inexcusable what is happening in the wake of the crash with separatist soldiers removing bodies from the crash site and the cover-up of evidence with cooperation from the Kremlin; the internationally criminal act has now been compounded by international conspiracy. 

Mr. Kerry clearly stated that the Kremlin is supporting, supplying, training, and cooperating with the separatist so now it becomes a question of response.  Europe can not be excused either due that lack of a strong coordinated response from Germany, England, France and Italy, with the latter two pulling back from the two former.

We learned years ago that when Russian President Vladimir Putin says one thing, he'll do another, and in this case he has no inclination to stem the violence in eastern Ukraine.  As long as Mr. Putin keeps gaining ground on his goal of reestablishing the former Soviet territory of influence without consequence while enjoying high approval ratings at home, there's no reason for him to stop. 

Kiev will become the new Berlin in Cold War II. 

Given what we've seen this week in eastern Ukraine, you must conclude that Mr. Putin is fully prepared to be more strategically ruthless than his western counterparts.  Frankly, if you look at it from a wider angle, Mr. Putin, who is enjoying a revival in Russian Nationalism at home according to Mr. Kerry, has European Leaders on their heals in response because of control over energy supply, and he has also bogged down a war weary United States from giving a forceful response by asserting itself as an adversary in the Middle East.  All this means is that Mr. Putin can move with impunity.

David Gregory asked Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) what the administration hasn't done in response to these events, he said that Secretary Kerry and the president haven't called Mr. Putin a thug.  We agreed with Mr. Graham on some points, but not this one because even if in fact that's what he should be called, it's actually Mr. Graham's job to call him that.  The president has to be presidential and Mr. Kerry is the one who has to keep the dialogue going so it falls upon the Senators in the U.S. Congress to issue harsh words.

However, we agree with Mr. Graham, and the entire round table, in saying that the president's response has been weak.  As Andrea Mitchell accurately pointed out, Samantha Powers, U.S. Ambassador to the UN made a more forceful state in condemning Russia's actions than President Obama.  The president has to be out front on this, no more leading from behind.  As the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley succinctly stated, Mr. Obama is not leading, supported by Ron Fourier's reminder that the president had set a red line in Syria, it was crossed, and there were no consequences - an situation by the way that benefited Russia the most for its backing of the Assad regime. 

Right now are the most challenging times the United States has faced in the last twenty years and unfortunately, the Obama Administration doesn't have a good enough strategy - the light footprint, leading from behind - to get through them and Republicans' ideas are even worse.

Mr. Kerry, for his part, couldn't give a clear answer on what the United States next move should be.  Nor could the Secretary explain what the United States wanted Russia to do in as much as changing its behavior.  The president did institute new sanctions against Russia this week, but he should immediately step them up.  Usually we'd advocate getting Europe on board first, but not in this case.  The U.S. should move ahead and then get Europe on board - take the difficult lead, which is something Mr. Putin figures isn't going to happen.

With regard to Mr. Graham's other suggestion of arming the Ukraine, we would not advocate that action because it puts the United States directly involved in an armed conflict on the Russia border with everything west of that line not fully supporting you.  Not to mention that such action would only escalate the conflict.

Speaking of which, that's exactly where we are with the Israelis and Palestinians.  What's different here is that the region's powers, and the United States according to Mr. Kerry today, back an Egyptian plan to have the moderate Palestinian Authority, lead by Mahmoud Abbas, take control of Gaza instead of Hamas.  It's certainly the desired outcome certainly, as having Hamas, whose arms are funded by Iran, continuing to fire rockets into Israel is not an option. But making that happen is going to require eliminating Hamas altogether because they are not going to capitulate, fall into line as it were so hence, there must be an escalation of the conflict to achieve that desired result.

That escalation is now in the form of Israeli ground troops, who should stay in Gaza as long as they need to root out Hamas completely according to Senator Graham, who spoke tough on behalf of Israel which was a little silly.  However, what he was really saying is that the United States will support the effort.

To ever achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, one core tenant has to be in place.  The Palestinians, all of them, have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist because until Hamas acknowledges this, the violent cycle will only continue. The question is if we have seen Israel's patience completely run out this time.


Round Table: Andrea Mitchell, NBC Foreign Affairs Correspondent; Ron Fourier, editorial director at the National Review; Amy Walter, national editor; and Jason Riley, Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal

7.13.14: Coming Back to Bite US

Detroit Free Press Columnist Stephen Henderson commented that the round table had been snickering during David Gregory's interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, which is an understated reaction to say the least.

At every turn on every topic - from Syria to Centrifuges - Mr. Zarif explained that Iran was neither the aggressive actor nor responsible for situations that it helped to created and/or exacerbate. 

Mr. Zarif talked of logical and reasonable actions and reactions throughout the interview but that depends on from which perspective you’re looking.  He said that Iran goes out of its way to show its neighbors that they want to live in peace in the region.  He explained that Iran would not dismantle any centrifuges, would provide credible assurances to the international community that they are not building a nuclear weapon.  Credible assurances?    What does that even mean?  Also, he said that Iran has a right to have what everyone else has, meaning a nuclear weapon, but then went on to say that having them doesn’t make anyone safer.  He said that the paradigm of being safe because of the guarantee of mutually assured destruction is mad.  You see how contradictory his statements are.

With regard Iran’s support of Hamas, he said that Iran was going to support people who protect themselves, as if Hamas was simply a victim in the conflict with Israel.  Hezbollah and Hamas are funded by Iran and both have carried out terrorist acts.  He blamed the United States, of course for not taking any action or condemning Israel for the deaths of Palestinians, yet the funding for Hamas’ rockets being fired into Israel comes from Iran.  The big difference is that the United States does pretend it has nothing to do with what’s happening there, whereas Iran pleads innocent.  And Mr. Zarif wonders allow why the international community thinks Iran is up to no good.

Once blaming the United States, Mr. Zarif said the U.S. is supporting ISIS in an attempt to dismantle Syria, which saying that Iran respects the will of the Syrian people.  If you conflate the ‘Syria people’ with the Assad regime then that makes sense.  Either way, it’s clear that Iran is backing Assad and his use of chemical weapons against his own people, hence condoning mass murder.

However, he disputed the claim that Iran supports an individual [read: Assad] and that the people had no trouble casting their votes in Lebanon.  The fact that they’re casting votes in Lebanon to ‘choose’ the leader in Syria should tell you enough.  As Jeffrey Goldberg explained post interview, the whole thing is a cosmic joke.  Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon so that it can play that very stand off game with Israel and they are the prime sponsors of Assad.  It’s state terrorism institutionalized.

The one place where we heap blame on the United States is for building a nuclear reactor in Iran, in the 1950’s, in the first place.  So typical… Like when we helped the Mujahideen in the 80’s topple the Soviets in Afghanistan and then they morphed into Al Qaeda.  One of these days, the U.S. will think a little bit more longer term so that these kinds of things will stop coming back to bite us.

Round Table: Fmr. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA); Stephen Henderson Columnist, Detroit Free Press; Kimberley Strassel Columnist, The Wall Street Journal

7.6.14: "...Deport Them All..."

We re-watched the interview with Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID), and we're glad we did because the first time we watched the segment, it was pretty infuriating, and to some extent still is.

Mr. Labrador said that we, the United States, should "deport these children immediately"and his reasoning was that it was creating a crisis on our border.

What kind of country are we becoming when we immediately deport children without even asking why or how this is happening?  Are we that heartless of a nation to do such as thing?  We are a nation of immigrants for cryin' out loud.  We're not experts in Central American affairs we admit, but perhaps there's a humanitarian crisis occurring in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala that needs to be addressed, after all this is in our background, not on the other side of the globe.  And where is Mexico in all this? 

Mr. Labrador did rightly point out that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, couldn't say what would happen to these children, putting it that we have 'to do right by the children.' We'll answer the question of whether or not we'll deport all the children at the border, and the answer is:  We don't know.  We've gotten way past the point in our politics that no person in Congress or an administration can in fact level with the American people, and this is another huge, glaring example.

Secretary Johnson, or any administration official for that matter, definitely can not say 'I don't know' to any question, when the real answer is 'not all, but probably most.'

The congressman's statement is intended to send the message to the people of these countries to stop sending your children here because if you do, they will immediately be sent back.  It plays very well with the Tea Party Republican base, of whom he is a vocal advocate.  We would agree with the sentiment that we do not want children making the treacherous, 1000-mile journey hanging from trains, but if they do manage to get here, we should find out the whole story, don't you think?

With further regard for the Congressman, later in the interview, Mr. Labrador did concede a few points, which shows that he is listening at the very least, and we do like that. But also later, he put the blame mostly on the Central American drug cartels and the gangs associated with them. He tempered his rhetoric and then couldn't cast blame for this humanitarian crisis on the Obama Administration.

And it brings us to the point Mr. Labrador made about the children that on this trek, they could be kidnapped, raped, robbed, harmed (to use a word of his) or potentially killed.  So what are we going to do; immediately deport children back to their country where they most probably face that same fate at the hands of gangs. 

The law that grandfathered in immigrant minors to have legal status here was passed in 2008, but Mr. Obama took office; not to mention the fact that Mr. Obama is to the right of President Bush when it comes to the number of deportations. 

Mr. Johnson said that all of these migrants will go through a deportation evaluation and process, which is simply the prudent thing to do, and that's why we said, not all but probably most.  And if that's the case, then so be it. 

We often use the example that if economic conditions in this country were so poor to the point where if someone came to you and send, there's a great job for you in Germany, pays 5x what you're making now, but you'd be illegal; to feed your family you would do it. 

So to Mr. Labrador, we say to just tone it down, but don't be so harsh or heartless... Be American and reread what it says on the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

OK, a little magnanimous, but we're humanitarians over here and we (The United States) just celebrated a birthday! Why not?

Round Table: Chuck Todd, Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent NBC News;

Carolyn Ryan, Washington Bureau Chief, The New York Times; Lori Montenegro, 

National Correspondent, Telemundo; Michael Gerson,  Columnist, The Washington Post

6.29.14: Who Has Standing / the Bill Clinton Interview

You shouldn't be at all surprised that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner (R-OH) is intending to file to sue the President of the United States.  It's a very rare move, but  Republican National Committee Chair  and lawyer Reince Priebus said that the speaker does have standing.

The lawsuit being brought against the president contends that Mr. Obama has committed overreach of his office in executing executive orders. However, that's not really what the suit contends because as  Former White House Counsel Suing the President Kathy Ruemmler pointed out, the Speaker hasn't actually filed a specific complaint so maybe he still has standing but it's on shaky ground.

We've become accustomed to Republicans in Congress taking every opportunity and avenue available at anytime to try and derail any policy achievement by the president or Congress itself.  The Republicans are using this strictly as a campaign season tactic to weaken the president attempting to make him toxic campaigning for other Democrats, which they are free to do and it could be effective.  However, what they do not see is that once again, their image will take a definite hard hit the longer it were to go on ultimately not helping their cause.  

Republicans will make the last two years of Mr. Obama's presidency difficult without a doubt - sans lawsuit or not - but they'll will suffer for it because as well because when they take things as far as they do, they are unwise in their execution, just like they were with Ted Cruz and the government shutdown.  They basically punched themselves in the face with that.  

During the round table, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) pointed out that the president can not just delay the employer mandate for a year by executive order for example.  And to answer to the rarity of the move, the congressman explained that historic action was needed because of this president's historic overreach.  The congressman also needed to be reminded by Andrea Mitchell that Congress' recourse against such actions is that it has the power of the purse.

With that bit of weak hyperbole, we agree with Ms. Ruemmler that the suit is frivolous.  Not because we think that the president didn't attempt to reach beyond what he is allowed to as the president - we would say that's actually part of his job description and what president Democrat or Republican hasn't done that?  It's frivolous because it's not constructive only adding to the American people's frustration with Congress.  Realistically, the speaker has no standing.


***

 The Bill Clinton Interview - Excerpts

First, it's not a big deal to use the expression 'dead broke,' but it is a big deal when you're name is Hillary Clinton. However, Bill Clinton as he does so well explained her way out of it.  It's a 'momentary reaction' he explained that takes away from the real question of what to do about the economy and jobs.  That's Bill.

Reince Priebus didn't do his side any favors by saying the words 'out-of-touch' and 'Romney' in the same ten second soundbite.  And on a slightly related note as it pertains to income inequality David Gregory asked Mr. Priebus about a division in the party due to establishment vs. tea party politics, which among other things is the higher income Republican vs. lower income Republican - as serious dilemma for Republicans. In the end, we have to admit that Mr. Priebus has a point that there is no division if Republicans pick up seats in the House and also take control of the Senate.

What had already made news during the week from the interview was Mr. Clinton's comment that he found Dick Cheney's assessment of President Obama's handling of Iraq 'unseemly,' given the history.  Mr. Cheney rebutted saying that Mr. Clinton is certainly one to understand what unseemly means.

Please...

Dick Cheney certainly has no standing, as it were.  And to a large degree, but not entirely, Mr. Clinton is correct to say that if Dick Cheney hadn't pressed for the invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't be in this situation with ISIS in Iraq.  Just ask Rand Paul.

Speaking of whom, Mr. Clinton also discredited Mr. Paul's Benghazi comments by pointing out that during the Bush presidency, 10 diplomatic personnel had died.  Again, what Republicans have done, this time with Benghazi, is that they have lingered and picked at it for so long with no real results, it's easy to be cynical because it's evident that Republicans have lost sight of the tragedy that it was.

Round Table: Kathy Ruemmler Former White House Counsel, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), Andrea Mitchell NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Nia-Malika Henderson National Political Reporter, The Washington Post 

Good Point of the Program:  

Andrea Mitchell in reaction to what Mr. Gregory referred to as the Edward Snowden Effect.  On the ruling by the Supreme Court that the police can not search your cell phone without a warrant:

Supreme Court Justices have smart phones.

6.22.14: The Notion of Doing Nothing in Iraq

In considering what to do in Iraq, from an American perspective, what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said made a lot of sense.  Mr. Netanyahu said that both the Sunnis and the Shiites are enemies of the United States so neither should be given an advantage over the other.  In essence he means that they should just be left to kill each other.  Senator Paul explained that we've armed the allies of ISIS, a group more violent than Al Qaeda, in their fight against Assad in Syria, and if you extrapolate that out it means that ISIS is using weapons/money that they got from us and are now fighting the Shiite government that we are supporting.  What both men are saying is that the United States should be engaged but not involved.  

But here's the rub?  The United States has a sense of responsibility to make it work in Iraq because 1) we set all these events in motion thinking that we could set up Iraq as a democracy, and 2) in these same interviews today, both men unequivocally stated that they do not want Iran to have a dominant influence over Iraq.  The Powell doctrine is seemingly our moral obligation that if we broke it, we bought, and we have to fix it.  Erika Harold put it very well during the round table discussion in saying that Americans are 'not proud of the notion of doing nothing.'  How true.

Given all these contradictory circumstances and motivations, you're seeing a myriad of opinions on what should be done along with a huge helping of criticism for Presideent Obama. The centerpiece of that criticism came in the form of an op-ed written by former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/articles/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522).  Highlighted by the following quote that starts the second paragraph (discussed on MTP):

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.

With all due respect to Mr. Cheney, we fear that his transplanted heart is not pumping enough blood and oxygen to his brain because to say that about President Obama without applying that to yourself or former President Bush, absolving yourself of responsibility is delusional and not of sound mind, plain and simple.  And at the very least, it reassuring to hear Senator Rand Paul say that the same questions of competence being asked of President Obama could be asked of the original supporters of the Iraq war, namely Mr. Cheney.  He went as far as to say that the Iraq War emboldened Iran, which flies directly in the face of Mr. Cheney's assessment.  And to use Mr. Paul's term, we shouldn't be nick-picking the president's decisions right now.  The one page that everyone seems to be in agreement with is that we're not going to send troops back into Iraq.  

As in Cheney op-ed, they stated the following:

Despite clear evidence of the dire need for American leadership around the world, the desperation of our allies and the glee of our enemies, President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne described this as practically accusing the President of treason.  In fact, that's exactly what that statement implies - treason against the Cheney neo-con philosophy.  And when 'leadership' is mentioned in this context what is really meant is a military intervention.  Mr. Cheney, hawks and other neo-cons believe that we should go back in or should have left a large force in country.  Senator John McCain has suggested that a military presence similar to that of Japan in longevity would be the right move.  But the American people wanted our troops out of Iraq because the reasons why we went in were proven to be false, and they also don't have the appetite to occupy another country for 70 years.  

Really Mr. Obama is trying to save face for Dick Cheney.  Mr. Obama ran on getting our troops out of Iraq and that's what the American people overwhelming wanted, but in doing so, he also had to maintain the 'wisdom' of what the administration before his had started.  However, having it both ways is an impossibility.

As we've said in our previous column, air strikes against ISIS are tricky because as soon as collateral damage happens, it will seem like the U.S. is not just fighting extremists but Sunnis in general.  And as Katty Kay, Anchor of BBC World News America, smartly questioned - where does that leave us in 8 months time?  It leaves us mired in Iraq all over again. The solution is diplomatic of course, hence Secretary John Kerry being in the region, but unless moderate Sunnis can be brought to the table all you're going to see is the escalation of a religious civil war.

Round Table: E.J. Dionne Columnist, The Washington Post; David Brooks Columnist, The New York Times; Katty Kay Anchor, BBC World News America; and Erika Harold Former Congressional Candidate (R-IL)

 

6.15.14: Redrawing Iraq

The eighty-percent majority had thought that the father-in-law, Abu Bakr, should be the successor and leader, and some thought the cousin/son-in-law, Ali, is the rightful heir.  Sectarian violence blowing up the country of Iraq right now is an argument started back in 632 AD when the prophet Muhammad died.  This is the epic struggle and everlasting source of animosity between the majority Sunni Muslims and minority Shiite Muslims - 632 was the year this line was drawn.

America's goal was to have a democratic Iraq and Shiite Nori al-Maliki would be the first president to lead this pluralistic society, but what Mr. Maliki proceeded to do was  alienate and oppress minorities - Sunnis and Kurds - through the power of central government and resentment reached a boiling point.

And an opportunity presented itself.

Inspired by Al Qaeda, Sunnis fighting Assad in Syria joined with Sunnis in Iraq joined forces and formed ISIS - The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - with the aspiration of creating their own fundamentalist state.  As Richard Engel noted at the beginning of the program, the map is being redrawn to what it looked like 100 years ago before the French and English created the state that is now the crumbling Iraq.


source: Washington Post


Make no mistake, it is a sectarian conflict and Sunni extremists are threatening to overtake Baghdad, but what's stopping them is the mildly surprising organization of Shiite Militias, not the Iraqi central government.

In political discourse, it's become the lazy American norm to lay blame without providing any real alternatives or solutions.  Who's to blame for this latest warring in terms of how it relates to the United States and its actions - President Obama or President Bush?  The Washington Post's David Ignatius explained that we left Iraq as carelessly as we entered so the answer is at this point doesn't matter whose to blame.

Mitt Romney, who has been critical of the President's foreign policy explained that timing was essential and that Mr. Obama didn't take advantage of that.  For example, Mr. Romney said, when Assad was on his heels in Syria, the Mr. Obama didn't 'act appropriately,' and should have armed the opposition to topple the dictator.  He didn't mention that the opposition to Mr. Assad is in fact ISIS.  Where Paul Wolfowitz and the New Yorker's Dexter Filkins cleaned that up somewhat by saying that the United States needs to find the more moderate forces in Syria who are fighting both the Assad regime and ISIS and cooperate with them. Good luck finding enough of those forces.

Meanwhile, the Kurds have taken the opportunity to control the northern city of Kirkuk and fifty-six percent of Iraq's oil revenue in the hopes of creating an autonomous Kurdish homeland.  If the U.S. was smart, that's where they should put their clandestine dollars because the Kurds have set up one of the most moderate states in the region.

Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Romney what the U.S. should be fighting for in the region and he asked saying that the United States should be fighting to preserve freedom and to guard against the region becoming an active hotbed for planning terrorist attacks against the United States.  Well, the 'preserving freedom' part is a rhetorically empty statement if actually assess what's happening on the ground, but the second part of making it a launching site for terrorist attacks against the U.S. does require attention.  If you are to believe David Ignatius, it's only a matter of time, if ISIS establishes real control of land in the region, before they start directing their attacks externally.  Obviously, that is the main concern for all involved in the discussion - particularly Congressman Peter King (R-NY) and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) who carelessly used biblical language when he said that the United States would bring a 'ring of fire' upon anyone who attacked Americans.

It's this later part that requires the U.S. to act, but after losing 4,477 U.S. soldiers, spending $1,7 trillion and finding out that the reason we went their in the first place was all false, the actions that the U.S. can take are very limited.  Boots on the ground isn't, and shouldn't, even be on the table.  However, there is no doubt that ISIS can not be allowed to annex more territory.

Senator Manchin said that he was open to the possibility of using air strikes against the Sunni extremists to stop them.  It's something to be considered, but know that it sets up the U.S. as a more immediate target for retaliation, even if the airstrikes are under the guise of a coalition.  However, it is a coalition that needs to be built - an overwhelming one because moderates have to prevail, and that requires the U.S., Russia, China, Turkey, England, France, et al. have to come together to make a decision.  How far are we going to let this go?

What we noticing is that there are a growing number of hot spots where a group of people want their own little purified states - Eastern Ukraine, the Congo, Syria and Iraq.  We're not seeing a coming together of people in the world, but a survival of the most violent coming about. Isolation and extremism is devolution.

***

One Last Note:

We didn't discuss the big domestic political happening of the week - House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) losing in the primary, but to give further illustration to the theme of exclusion in this column, we'll say this.  (And by no means are these two things on the same level of comparison.)  The Tea Party victory in Virginia was stride forward in advancing their principles, and Mr. Cantor was far too caught up in his own ambition, but to dismiss someone whose general view is the same, but now doesn't match a more narrower view is very troublesome and basically heads in the same direction as oppression, no matter how passive.  We think you get the rest of the point.

More about the politics of it all later in the week.


Round Table: David Ignatius, Washington Post Columnist, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Dexter Filkins, New Yorker Staff Writer and fmr. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz

Round Table 2: Ruth Marcus, Washington Post Columnist, Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN),

Ken Cuccinelli, President, Senate Conservatives Fund & former Virginia Attorney General and 

Steve Schmidt, GOP Strategist & Senior Adviser to John McCain’s 2008 Presidential Campaign