NBC Congressional Correspondent Luke Russert reported on today's program that $4 billion dollars have been spent on this year's midterm elections, which of course prompted the question as to whether or not money is taking over American politics. While it's mildly commendable that the question would be raised at all since media companies like Comcast, which owns NBC, it's silly to even ask. With a disgustingly gaudy number such as $4 billion staring us in the face, it's more like to what extent is it dominating our political system.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post published a piece outlining how much politicians' wealth has increased over the years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/22/so-just-how-rich-is-congress-richer-than-you/) so it's not difficult to decipher why the money is spent and who eventually benefits from it. Understandably, the system as is motivates politicians little to make any changes. It all stems from a cynical Supreme Court decision - the Citizens United ruling - that has allowed an unlimited amount of dark money (where donors do not have to be disclosed) that has nothing to do with the general welfare of a nation but the narrow agenda of a select few.
The results the American people see are the further enrichment of that select few, gridlock and dysfunction in Washington DC, more polarization between the political parties, and the increasing difficulty for the general populace to make ends meet.
Dan Balz, Chief Correspondent for The Washington Post, explained that everyone is sick of these political ads, even the producers that make them but there is too much money involved to say no. Chuck Todd offhandedly mentioned that it could jeopardize the two-party system, but we're not there yet. Mr. Todd also pushed the notion that the public wants to punish the Democrats without rewarding Republicans, the reward being control of both houses of Congress. This presumes that Democrats are solely at fault because they back the 'failed' policies of President Obama. If you disagree with the President's policies or not, that doesn't necessarily mean they are unsuccessful. For example, you would have to conclude that if the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to insure more people while slowing the growth in healthcare costs, you would have to deem that a success. However, if you own the hospital, you're making less profit so it's a failure.
No matter how the elections turn out - whether either party is punished or rewarded - today's panel seemed to think that little would change in terms of the gridlock. But from Mr. Todd's 'on the road' interviews, once again you see that the American public is ahead of its leaders. The final interview quote was a man in Wisconsin saying that you had to make friends with the people you were most afraid to make friends with, in terms of political viewpoint, which is another way of saying that it is all right to compromise. The sad reality is that there is no money in compromise, only in gridlock.
It's also clear that no matter what happens in the senatorial races, Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are not the men who can fix Washington dysfunction. Hence, it's not encouraging to hear Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rob Portman (R-OH) defend their respective leaders.
Mr. Todd explained that the two most important concerns in this election for voters are the economy and Washington gridlock. (Both go hand in hand.) Coupling that with what Mr. Balz said about the Ebola virus and ISIS providing a general foreboding over this election season, it's no wondering the American people are frustrated. All we want to see is our political leaders come together on something, anything instead of politicizing everything. Unfortunately, there's no money in that either.
Panel: Dan Balz, Chief Correspondent for The Washington Post; Luke Russert, NBC Congressional Correspondent; Caroline Ryan, The New York Times Washington DC Bureau Chief; Nia Malika-Henderson, National Political Reporter for The Washington Post
As for Dr. Fauci's now weekly Ebola update, the only way to stop the Ebola virus here is the eliminate it in West Africa as he explained. Quarantines and travel bans, though he was reluctant in disagreeing, Dr. Fauci said would be detrimental in accomplishing that goal where Dr. Sophie Delaunay, Ex. Dir. of Doctors Without Borders, stated is out of control. She also explained that the doctor in New York followed all the necessary protocols to safeguard against spreading the virus. On all this, we're still with Dr. Fauci in that we're going to put our trust in science and government. What else is there? You tell us!
And this is our 300th published post; thank you so very much for reading us.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
10.19.14: Perspectives on Ebola in the U.S.
Does a travel ban make sense if it is only to make the American people feel better? Chuck Todd discussed this with Senators Roy Blount (R-MO) and Bob Casey (D-PA) during today's 'Ebola Summit' on "Meet The Press," among many other aspects in combating an outbreak of the virus. We'll dissect the above mentioned tactic and a couple of other points in an attempt to bring perspective to the whole thing.
Laurie Garrett, senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and long-time medical journalist explained that since Ebola is new, there is a new fear, and what comes with new is unknown so it's natural national reaction. The media hasn't been any help in quelling those natural fears, especially when you present the story in terms of a summit. That's a cheap jab because all the guests offered insightful perspectives.
(Cudos this week to Mr. Todd and his team for their best show so far in terms of pacing, tone, and information. Staging still a little awkward but to an increasingly minimal degree.)
But the first thing that should be noted is when Mr. Todd reminded us that over 50,000 people per year in the United States die of flu and pneumonia; one has died from Ebola, to which Ms. Garrett commented that since it's familiar there is no hysteria. (Makes you think about going out to get that free flu shot now, doesn't it?)
However, and this is a big 'however,' there is an epidemic occurring in Africa - all agreed - and it is to be taken seriously. The Ebola virus is a deadly disease, as we know, that attacks the central nervous system and causes dementia and violent behavior on the way to a quick death. From Ghana, Dr. Anthony Banbury, UN Mission Ebola Emergency Response, warned that the world is not prepared to combat the spread of this virus and the number one resource needed on the ground is more healthcare workers.
When Senator Blount was asked about his support for it, he dialed back his answer saying that we should not issue visas to individuals from countries where there is emergency status. That's a lot different than a travel ban. A ban means no to-and-from at all. A ban means that Dr. Banbury is never going to get those healthcare workers that he needs to fight the spread. As Ms. Garrett commented, it disincentives healthcare professionals from going overseas because they wouldn't be sure that they would allowed to come back. And with all due respect to Senator Blount, you can not call from a travel ban and then NOT support making CDC protocols in hospitals mandatory, reasoning that it's not realistic that all hospitals would comply; as if it's realistic that an issued travel ban is going to keep everyone from west Africa out of the United States. In essence, Senator Blount is saying that it's OK to be irresponsible here at home. (Freedom doesn't mean act stupidly.)
Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, making a return visit to the program, warned that this initial experience should serve as a wake up call for preparedness. We also agreed when he said it would be 'nice' (his word) to have a Surgeon General so that there is a central figure to get information out and coordinate cooperation between agencies - the essential function of a 'czar' he said. (Former vice-presidential chief of staff Ron Klain has been appointed to that position.) But on the topic of Surgeon General, Senator Casey said that simple Washington dysfunction was the reason why we do not have one. Senator Blount blamed senate majority leader Harry Reid for not bringing it up for a vote. The truth there is in what Mr. Todd said that the current nominee (the more than qualified, impeccably credentialed Doctor Vivek Murthy) stated that gun violence is an issue of public health and because of that the National Rifle Association stated it would then score the Senators' votes, hence holding up the process.
If flu and pneumonia, at 50K deaths per year, is a public health concern, why wouldn't 30K deaths per year from guns also be a concern? The NRA will not allow to be versus one death in the United States from Ebola. It would be more than just 'nice' for the United States to have a Surgeon General.
Another curious thing that Dr. Fauci said was that he disagreed with the notion, presented by one of his colleagues earlier in the week in an op-ed that we would have a vaccine by now if budgets for research hadn't been cut by more than 50 percent over the last three years. He explained that nothing less in research is being done, the cuts just mean it's being done slower. Wait....What? He basically just confirmed the point that he disagreed with. As the guests discussed, private funding - tens of millions of dollars - for something like a vaccine for Ebola, a virus never before present in the United States, is going to be readily available, and this is understandable. What's not understandable or comprehensible is increasing funds for border security in reaction to the presence of the Ebola virus while decreasing funding for vaccines. As we stated in last week's column, diligence to what Dr. Fauci called contact tracing along with quick responsible care will stem fears in the U.S.
The doctor also stated that the deadline to reverse the spread of the virus in Africa is Dec. 1st. If the numbers don't start going down by then, the epidemic there will be out of control. Laurie Garrett pointed out that for every known case of infection, there are 2.5 that are unknown according to the World Health Organization so there is no way that deadline will be met and that given that math, 300,000 cases could be recorded in Africa by Christmas.
Dr. Danbury described it as fighting a medical war in Africa, where we don't have enough combatants. Sure sounds that way to us.
Panel: Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist; Andrea Mitchell, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News; Stephanie Cutter, Democratic Strategist; and Manu Raju, Politico
Laurie Garrett, senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and long-time medical journalist explained that since Ebola is new, there is a new fear, and what comes with new is unknown so it's natural national reaction. The media hasn't been any help in quelling those natural fears, especially when you present the story in terms of a summit. That's a cheap jab because all the guests offered insightful perspectives.
(Cudos this week to Mr. Todd and his team for their best show so far in terms of pacing, tone, and information. Staging still a little awkward but to an increasingly minimal degree.)
But the first thing that should be noted is when Mr. Todd reminded us that over 50,000 people per year in the United States die of flu and pneumonia; one has died from Ebola, to which Ms. Garrett commented that since it's familiar there is no hysteria. (Makes you think about going out to get that free flu shot now, doesn't it?)
However, and this is a big 'however,' there is an epidemic occurring in Africa - all agreed - and it is to be taken seriously. The Ebola virus is a deadly disease, as we know, that attacks the central nervous system and causes dementia and violent behavior on the way to a quick death. From Ghana, Dr. Anthony Banbury, UN Mission Ebola Emergency Response, warned that the world is not prepared to combat the spread of this virus and the number one resource needed on the ground is more healthcare workers.
When Senator Blount was asked about his support for it, he dialed back his answer saying that we should not issue visas to individuals from countries where there is emergency status. That's a lot different than a travel ban. A ban means no to-and-from at all. A ban means that Dr. Banbury is never going to get those healthcare workers that he needs to fight the spread. As Ms. Garrett commented, it disincentives healthcare professionals from going overseas because they wouldn't be sure that they would allowed to come back. And with all due respect to Senator Blount, you can not call from a travel ban and then NOT support making CDC protocols in hospitals mandatory, reasoning that it's not realistic that all hospitals would comply; as if it's realistic that an issued travel ban is going to keep everyone from west Africa out of the United States. In essence, Senator Blount is saying that it's OK to be irresponsible here at home. (Freedom doesn't mean act stupidly.)
Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, making a return visit to the program, warned that this initial experience should serve as a wake up call for preparedness. We also agreed when he said it would be 'nice' (his word) to have a Surgeon General so that there is a central figure to get information out and coordinate cooperation between agencies - the essential function of a 'czar' he said. (Former vice-presidential chief of staff Ron Klain has been appointed to that position.) But on the topic of Surgeon General, Senator Casey said that simple Washington dysfunction was the reason why we do not have one. Senator Blount blamed senate majority leader Harry Reid for not bringing it up for a vote. The truth there is in what Mr. Todd said that the current nominee (the more than qualified, impeccably credentialed Doctor Vivek Murthy) stated that gun violence is an issue of public health and because of that the National Rifle Association stated it would then score the Senators' votes, hence holding up the process.
If flu and pneumonia, at 50K deaths per year, is a public health concern, why wouldn't 30K deaths per year from guns also be a concern? The NRA will not allow to be versus one death in the United States from Ebola. It would be more than just 'nice' for the United States to have a Surgeon General.
Another curious thing that Dr. Fauci said was that he disagreed with the notion, presented by one of his colleagues earlier in the week in an op-ed that we would have a vaccine by now if budgets for research hadn't been cut by more than 50 percent over the last three years. He explained that nothing less in research is being done, the cuts just mean it's being done slower. Wait....What? He basically just confirmed the point that he disagreed with. As the guests discussed, private funding - tens of millions of dollars - for something like a vaccine for Ebola, a virus never before present in the United States, is going to be readily available, and this is understandable. What's not understandable or comprehensible is increasing funds for border security in reaction to the presence of the Ebola virus while decreasing funding for vaccines. As we stated in last week's column, diligence to what Dr. Fauci called contact tracing along with quick responsible care will stem fears in the U.S.
The doctor also stated that the deadline to reverse the spread of the virus in Africa is Dec. 1st. If the numbers don't start going down by then, the epidemic there will be out of control. Laurie Garrett pointed out that for every known case of infection, there are 2.5 that are unknown according to the World Health Organization so there is no way that deadline will be met and that given that math, 300,000 cases could be recorded in Africa by Christmas.
Dr. Danbury described it as fighting a medical war in Africa, where we don't have enough combatants. Sure sounds that way to us.
Panel: Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist; Andrea Mitchell, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News; Stephanie Cutter, Democratic Strategist; and Manu Raju, Politico
Sunday, October 12, 2014
10.12.14: U.S. Culture Wars and Perpetuating Fear
Considering the three main topics of discussion today - the Ebola virus, the war against ISIS, and the culture war/election (in that order), we'll take on the last first as we haven't given it attention previous as much as the other two. After all, it is election season.
To the chagrin of social conservatives, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear pending cases on same sex marriage, which essentially paved the way to legalization in now what is a majority of states. After an outlining series of historical clips of Republicans' alliance with the religious right, Chuck Todd discussed with syndicated Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker and David Brody, political director of the Christian Science Network, how Democrats are winning the culture wars right now, dictating its movement which is decidedly left. That would seem to be the case on the surface but the Democrats aren't the deciding factor in this case. No one touched on the core cause of the conflict within the Republican party.
Ms. Parker explained that conservatives, like Pope Francis and the Vatican, are trying to reconcile being opposed to such cultural shifts and not judging too harshly being more accepting - a 'reformation' to use her term. We agree with the notion that same sex marriage is not a potent an issue as abortion and Ms. Parker pointed out. Mr. Brody explained that evangelicals don't always vote in the numbers people think and because of the cultural shifts within the Republican party, there is always the possibility that they could stay home from the polls.
The core conflict within the Republican party is between the notions of social conservatism and libertarianism, and it's odd that none of the three in the discussion outlined it as such. Perhaps unconsciously, Mr. Todd did when he explained that independents [read: libertarians] are cutting into conservative votes in senate races in various states.
One of the unintended consequences of continually advocating for gun freedoms, for example, is that people will start to apply those ideas of freedom in other areas; in other words, live and let live. If two gay people want to get married then so be it. This is what you're seeing from libertarian conservatives, and this is the group that is really causing the shift in the culture wars. Abortion is a different issue because some people consider that to be 'killing a person.' For the record, we would disagree with that - for the sake of the focus of this column, please agree to disagree with us here. Overall point being is that conservatives are the source of the shift and it's the conservative idea of libertarianism that is the cause.
This idea runs counter to another the conservatives are perpetuating right now, because of the election, and that is the politics of fear. A classically effective short-term strategy that is always a long-term loser for Americans - think about the all-consuming NAS data monitoring we now live with. However, it's to be expected that in a bid to control the Senate, Republicans would hammer the President and by extension the Democratic candidates with these kinds of political tactics focusing on the Ebola virus and war with ISIS. As Tom Brokaw correctly noted, the latter more of a dangerous threat than the former.
In the interview with National Security Advisor Susan Rice, we liked most of what we heard. Ms. Rice outlined how Turkey, formerly a non-voice on the scene, is responding with action since ISIS is now 6 miles from its border in the city of Kobani, Syria. They have decided to allow the training of moderate Syrian forces at their bases, they are blocking the flow across their border of foreign fighters to ISIS, among other things. The broad strokes of a strategy that Ms. Rice spoke about - continuing U.S. airstrikes and support of the Kurdish and Iraqi armies and coalition building - all seemed sensible though the degrees to which their employed is debatable. And even if the United States is cooperating with Iran in this fight, we understand why Ms. Rice would deny any such contact.
However, the one thing that Ms. Rice said that was truly disappointing, infuriating in fact, is what she explained as building the capabilities of regional partners and that it is something that takes time, not overnight. With the exception of the Kurds and moderate Syrians, Ms. Rice was referring to the Iraqis and an army, in which the United States has poured billions. How long is that supposed to take after ten years already?
In the one confrontation between ISIS and the Iraqi Army, sans American participation, the Iraqis dropped their guns, turned and ran. Evidence that the training we've been giving them didn't take, unlike the Kurdish Peshmerga who just needed the resources and with the assistance of American air power were able to keep ISIS from advancing. Given this, it shouldn't be surprising to hear NBC's Richard Engel report that ISIS has turned its attention toward Baghdad, where the army is weak and the United States can not bomb.
So we contend with one more of Susan Rice's points, which was her 'yes' answer to whether or not the United States has been successful in its degrading of ISIS. Chuck Todd brought the point to Ms. Rice about a request from an Iraqi minister in the Anbar province for more troops to fight ISIS. With that in mind, it seems as though ISIS is advancing and therefore the answer is clearly 'no,' to success so far.
And lastly, if you listened to what The New York Times Helene Cooper said about traveling to Liberia for two weeks (clip below), political leaders spreading fear about an Ebola outbreak in the United States is irresponsible.
Calm, in control, and disciplined are the qualities that should be expressed.
Anthony Fauci MD, Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, believed this first transmitted case of Ebola to a hospital nurse was due to an inadvertent breach of protocol when removing protective clothing. The aforementioned qualities are more important than ever when it comes to this public health risk, do you think?
Round Table (Panel): Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Robert Gibbs, fmr. Press Secretary for President Barack Obama; and Sara Fagen, fmr. White House Political Director to President George W. Bush.
Question of the Week: Where is Korean Dictator Kim Jung Un? And Susan Rice's awesome answer: We're continuing to monitor.
Sunday, October 05, 2014
10.5.14: America on Edge
Chuck Todd aptly began today's "Meet The Press" with the phrase America on Edge. Americans are in fact on edge because of this ebola scare, yes, but also because they see our institutions getting sloppy like the Secret Service, the Center of Disease Control (CDC), the I.R.S., and the real root of the problem - Congress.
Many members of our House of Representatives and Senate actively sew the seeds of distrust in the federal government and then later harvest all the rewards that it gives a person upon reelection. One of the ways this now established distrust has manifested itself is that it has given the motivation to these leaders to make big cuts in the funding for these institutions rendering them ill-equipped to handle an emergency. With lack of resources and morale trampled by distrust in their work, just like physical infrastructure, our institutions will inevitably break down. This is what we are seeing now, and furthermore we can not, as a country, feel reassured by the President of the United States because the non-stop personal attacks have flooded into damaging the office itself.
However, given that, we do feel reassured when Dr. Tom Frieden, Director of the CDC, said that an epidemic in the United States is highly unlikely and it is because, as he also said, the United States, in spite of its communication issues (our injection), is the best in the world in terms of monitoring and containing capabilities. If it turns out that no one else is infected in Dallas then you would have to consider that a big win considering that the U.S. is a free country and it is inevitable that someone infected with the Ebola virus would make it into the country. It's inevitable that it will happen again. And it will be contained with even more diligence, unlike in western Africa where 7,492 have been infected and 3,439 have died in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea as a result of infection.
The United States is the most prepared, but as Joe Scarborough pointed out, the World Health Organization and the governments of these respective African countries have done a poor job in their response to the epidemic, which is troubling. Andrea Mitchell mentioned that the U.S. military is having trouble setting up emergency facilities because any sense of infrastructure in these countries is nonexistent. We disagree with Senator Rand Paul who thinks the U.S. military shouldn't have been deployed to contain the virus. We would contend that this is the sort of preemptive foreign policy that makes sense. With that, Mr. Scarborough pushes the panic button too hard and we agree with David Axelrod when he said that these healthcare professionals do not have political agendas when it comes to the work they're doing, specifically at the CDC.
The two men verbally sparred on the topic, which was inappropriate for "Meet The Press," and as we've said before, having Joe Scarborough on the program hampers the show being synonymous with the moderator. Then again, "Meet The Press" now has a 'coffee bar' on the set, which is the perfect notion of a setting to have an in-depth, serious discussion about the key issues affecting millions of Americans. A coffee bar on the 'program of record?'
In that dig we digress but then yet again the first guest to sit there was Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who is hard to take seriously anyway. But we believe him when he said that it will be considered a loss for Republicans if they do not take control of the Senate in November, a point at which he hammered away repeatedly. He softly predicted Republicans picking up anywhere from 6 to 8 seats in the Senate but we would say that even six is a stretch. As the conservative Mr. Scarborough pointed out, Republicans do not have an agenda, a concrete set of policy proposals that run counter to Mr. Obama's policies, which can do it better. And that's why you see Democratic candidates doing well in states that Mr. Obama didn't win (the south) in 2012. It also plays into the notion we spoke about in a previous column which is that Americans like big state government despite all the conditioning to dislike big federal government.
On the subject of big government, we thought Mr. Todd's tact in questioning Mr. Priebus about the contradiction within the Republican philosophy of deregulating business, but when it comes to abortion clinics Republicans want to heavily regulate them, referring to the state of Texas as the specific example. Mr. Priebus punted on the question saying that Mr. Todd would have to ask someone in Texas. He went onto to say that public money shouldn't be used to fund abortion but that was not what was at issue. But what he didn't say is that abortion should be made illegal - a total ban, which is part of the Republican platform.
It's inflexible ideology that have set Americans on edge because they see it in their government, but not in themselves, and only given stark choices in terms of candidates. It's starting to show through, especially in the Kansas Senate race between Pat Roberts (R) and the independent Greg Orman. Take today's 'Meet The Candidate' series guest, fmr. Democratic Senator and fmr. Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb who used to be a Republican. Mr. Webb would be a potentially compelling candidate for many Americans because you see the ability to compromise there.
As that refers more to domestic policy, on foreign policy we agree with Mr. Webb that the United States does not have a clearly stated approach, which he made a point to say that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush before him are guilty of this. As Mr. Webb correctly reminded us, this escalation of violence in the Middle East (read: ISIS) was all set into motion by the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That was eleven years ago and here we are again. In the op-ed segment with Iraq War veteran Clay Hanna (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/boots-on-the-ground-iraq-111271.html#.VDGAU-dXSX1), he send that the United States already has 'boots on the ground,' which isn't surprising. We know this given the airstrike operations going on, which require personnel on the ground to conduct. However, Mr. Hannah made two critical points: one, that the United States overestimates it's Middle Eastern allies in helping the U.S. In conjunction with this Senator Webb explained that the loyalties of moderate Sunnis are fluid and that he wouldn't be surprised to learn that some senior ISIS fighters were trained by the U.S.
With that in mind, consider the other important point Mr. Hanna made and that is a big victory for ISIS would be a dead American soldier by their hand. That would really put Americans on edge, perhaps over it.
Round Table (Panel): David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Obama; Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Gwen Ifill, PBS The News Hour
Many members of our House of Representatives and Senate actively sew the seeds of distrust in the federal government and then later harvest all the rewards that it gives a person upon reelection. One of the ways this now established distrust has manifested itself is that it has given the motivation to these leaders to make big cuts in the funding for these institutions rendering them ill-equipped to handle an emergency. With lack of resources and morale trampled by distrust in their work, just like physical infrastructure, our institutions will inevitably break down. This is what we are seeing now, and furthermore we can not, as a country, feel reassured by the President of the United States because the non-stop personal attacks have flooded into damaging the office itself.
However, given that, we do feel reassured when Dr. Tom Frieden, Director of the CDC, said that an epidemic in the United States is highly unlikely and it is because, as he also said, the United States, in spite of its communication issues (our injection), is the best in the world in terms of monitoring and containing capabilities. If it turns out that no one else is infected in Dallas then you would have to consider that a big win considering that the U.S. is a free country and it is inevitable that someone infected with the Ebola virus would make it into the country. It's inevitable that it will happen again. And it will be contained with even more diligence, unlike in western Africa where 7,492 have been infected and 3,439 have died in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea as a result of infection.
The United States is the most prepared, but as Joe Scarborough pointed out, the World Health Organization and the governments of these respective African countries have done a poor job in their response to the epidemic, which is troubling. Andrea Mitchell mentioned that the U.S. military is having trouble setting up emergency facilities because any sense of infrastructure in these countries is nonexistent. We disagree with Senator Rand Paul who thinks the U.S. military shouldn't have been deployed to contain the virus. We would contend that this is the sort of preemptive foreign policy that makes sense. With that, Mr. Scarborough pushes the panic button too hard and we agree with David Axelrod when he said that these healthcare professionals do not have political agendas when it comes to the work they're doing, specifically at the CDC.
The two men verbally sparred on the topic, which was inappropriate for "Meet The Press," and as we've said before, having Joe Scarborough on the program hampers the show being synonymous with the moderator. Then again, "Meet The Press" now has a 'coffee bar' on the set, which is the perfect notion of a setting to have an in-depth, serious discussion about the key issues affecting millions of Americans. A coffee bar on the 'program of record?'
In that dig we digress but then yet again the first guest to sit there was Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who is hard to take seriously anyway. But we believe him when he said that it will be considered a loss for Republicans if they do not take control of the Senate in November, a point at which he hammered away repeatedly. He softly predicted Republicans picking up anywhere from 6 to 8 seats in the Senate but we would say that even six is a stretch. As the conservative Mr. Scarborough pointed out, Republicans do not have an agenda, a concrete set of policy proposals that run counter to Mr. Obama's policies, which can do it better. And that's why you see Democratic candidates doing well in states that Mr. Obama didn't win (the south) in 2012. It also plays into the notion we spoke about in a previous column which is that Americans like big state government despite all the conditioning to dislike big federal government.
On the subject of big government, we thought Mr. Todd's tact in questioning Mr. Priebus about the contradiction within the Republican philosophy of deregulating business, but when it comes to abortion clinics Republicans want to heavily regulate them, referring to the state of Texas as the specific example. Mr. Priebus punted on the question saying that Mr. Todd would have to ask someone in Texas. He went onto to say that public money shouldn't be used to fund abortion but that was not what was at issue. But what he didn't say is that abortion should be made illegal - a total ban, which is part of the Republican platform.
It's inflexible ideology that have set Americans on edge because they see it in their government, but not in themselves, and only given stark choices in terms of candidates. It's starting to show through, especially in the Kansas Senate race between Pat Roberts (R) and the independent Greg Orman. Take today's 'Meet The Candidate' series guest, fmr. Democratic Senator and fmr. Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb who used to be a Republican. Mr. Webb would be a potentially compelling candidate for many Americans because you see the ability to compromise there.
As that refers more to domestic policy, on foreign policy we agree with Mr. Webb that the United States does not have a clearly stated approach, which he made a point to say that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush before him are guilty of this. As Mr. Webb correctly reminded us, this escalation of violence in the Middle East (read: ISIS) was all set into motion by the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That was eleven years ago and here we are again. In the op-ed segment with Iraq War veteran Clay Hanna (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/boots-on-the-ground-iraq-111271.html#.VDGAU-dXSX1), he send that the United States already has 'boots on the ground,' which isn't surprising. We know this given the airstrike operations going on, which require personnel on the ground to conduct. However, Mr. Hannah made two critical points: one, that the United States overestimates it's Middle Eastern allies in helping the U.S. In conjunction with this Senator Webb explained that the loyalties of moderate Sunnis are fluid and that he wouldn't be surprised to learn that some senior ISIS fighters were trained by the U.S.
With that in mind, consider the other important point Mr. Hanna made and that is a big victory for ISIS would be a dead American soldier by their hand. That would really put Americans on edge, perhaps over it.
Round Table (Panel): David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Obama; Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Gwen Ifill, PBS The News Hour
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
9.21.14: Plowing Through... Defeating ISIS and The New Program Format
We've returned and our sincere apologies for skipping out on last week. We were in the midst of a much needed vacation, but that doesn't mean that we didn't watch last week and this week's show, which for the latter we'll comment in content in a moment (For those who want to skip this part and get right to the topics at hand, we've marked it with an asterisk (*).) For now, we'd just like to opine a bit on the new format of the program, which unfortunately impedes on the ease of providing an in depth thoughtful opinion as it stands, but we're plowing through.
First, there's the obvious awkwardness of introducing a panel at the top of the show and then having them sit for almost half of it seemingly without participating. We get it that they are listening to what the guests have to say, but they can do that off-set. When John Stanton of "Buzzfeed" asked a question to Grover Norquist we thought, yes, that's how "Meet The Press" was originally intended... Great, but then he was the only one to ask a question. It didn't help that everyone had to look over his shoulder around a camera to have the exchange. Hopefully a new set will fix that.
Mr. Todd should first interview the two individuals, in this week's case the aforementioned Mr. Norquist for the Americans for Tax Reform and author and columnist Thomas Frank, and then open up the questioning to the press. And they should all be press if you intend to legitimately drill down deeper into the subject so that viewers have a more thorough understanding of the topic. That's really what the program is all about. This means no activists/lobbyists or political consultants asking questions. Ramesh Ronnuru, Editor at The National Review could have asked one question to Mr. Frank as a counter to Mr. Stanton's. Four journalists asking Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would have made for great television two weeks ago. If this really isn't their intention to do it this way, then throwing it out there as they did this week is silly. Just have Mr. Todd ask all the questions.
And what's with Mr. Todd running all over the set? And what was with last week's jazz groovy loop music while Mr. Todd stood at the touchscreen? And what was with this week's worse Marshall music? Let's just try no music at all.
[We also saw this column from Erik Wemple at The Washington Post about the 'Afraid to Say' segment - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/22/chuck-todds-afraid-segment-on-meet-the-press-must-be-killed/.]
And with all that said, the consolation is that the topics and the amount of time spent of them, e.g. The U.S. conflict with ISIS, have been spot on. And as we'll finally get to the discussion, the disjointed way in which the different individual's perspectives are being captured looks clumsy. Your Sunday "Meet The Press" moderator should have a calming, thoughtful presence, which is to say that you don't want to see him one minute up standing, the next down sitting, then standing again, to finally sitting.
Also, Mr. Todd, please stay on topic. Sometimes there is a bit of drift. You don't have to end every segment on a lighter note. There is no need to ask an NFL question after solely discussing only one other particularly serious topic, in this case ISIS with Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Christopher Murphy (D-CT).
Here is the one and only time we'll phrase something this way in this column. They got to work all that shit out!
Enough.
*
From the various answers with regard to combating ISIS from great guests, which included all the above and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers and Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Ret. Admiral Mike Mullen, we don't see it.
Senator Johnson captured it best in saying that he supports the president's decision to go after ISIS, but doesn't quite see a successful strategy. Ambassador Power said that for Saudi Arabia's part in the effort, they would allow the U.S. military to train 5,000 Sunni moderate troops - Free Syrian Army - in their country. In a year's time, after the training, they are going to go back to Syria and fight on two fronts - one against the Assad Regime and one against ISIS. There more than just 5,000 fighters in the Free Syrian Army, but they are still drastically outnumbered. Senator Murphy stated that he didn't vote for arming the moderate Sunnis because he didn't believe they could effectively be the ground force on two fronts. We would agree. The Free Syrian Army will get plowed if that's the case, even with U.S. air power supporting them.
The Free Syrian Army's focus is battling Assad, which ISIS supports. Who's to say that they don't cut a deal with ISIS. Turkey apparently has, which has refused to comment on how they got all their diplomats back from ISIS. Then the U.S. has wasted more money and resources, only to be duped; it's a possibility.
So does that mean the U.S. has to put troops on the ground. Admiral Mullen rightly dismissed the media driven disagreement between the military and the Obama Administration. Of course General Dempsey wouldn't leave anything off the table in making recommendations to the president, and that includes the idea of having troops on the ground, whatever it takes to complete the mission. That's just being prudent. It's for the president to decide whether to take that recommendation or not.
Senator Murphy also pointed out that it's the U.S. that is taking the lead and not the countries in the region. It's a point well taken, but who is there to really step up? The Saudis, an ally the U.S. doesn't need? The Jordanians? Admiral Mullen said they are capable, but they are dealing with keeping the country stable given the immense refugee crisis. The Iraqi army didn't measure up and the Kurdish peshmerga are going to defend the land that they want to make their country. Right now the Kurds don't have any more capability than that.
Technically, there are already U.S. troops on the ground, special forces and advisers; close to 2,000 to help the Iraqi army get back on its feet and to direct U.S. airstrikes. However, these are not ground forces, as in brigades. President Obama simply will not commit to that. Mr. Obama seems to prefer a more stealth, yet ruthless approach - drones and airstrikes along with covert forces. The problem with that is it won't defeat ISIS.
Training the Free Syrian Army, whose motives are not entirely clear, may turn beneficial for the U.S. but helping the Kurds and the Iraqi Army is really the best chance the region has of eliminating ISIS. But it's not an easy task, as Admiral Mullen alluded to in describing what the Maliki government did to the army - making it a sectarian force instead of an inclusive one.
As Amy Walter of the "Cook Political Report" pointed out, the U.S. public has security concerns, which is true. However, sending large numbers U.S. troops back to Iraq would be a mistake simply for the reason that perpetuity would then be required to maintain peace at a cost to the U.S. that can not be sustained in perpetuity.
Speaking of 'costs in perpetuity,' it's probably not the first time you've read about the economic situation in Kansas before this latest edition of "Meet The Press." Governor Sam Brownback cut taxes in his state so drastically that practically all public services have suffered, economic growth has been far behind other states surrounding it, and the state's deficit is way up.
Yet, Mr. Norquist can effectively explain why Governor Brownback made the correct decision and why economic growth will start moving in the right direction. He cited a number of states that are looking at what is happening in Kansas and are seriously considering doing the same. He also said that states with Republican governors have cut taxes by $30 billion and states with Democratic governors have increased taxes by $40 billion over the past decade.
Yes, the 'blue' states increase taxes, but they also subsidize the 'red' states in taxes to the federal government that gets redistributed to all the states. We can rebut each one of Mr. Norquist's assertions, but what would be the point. The fact, that Republicans frankly refuse to accept, is that big state governments work and the public likes that they work. The mistake Republicans make is that they equate state government action with federal government action.
Thomas Frank threw it down to Chuck Todd saying that Mr. Todd knows that the country is drifting toward being an oligarchy, but is he correct? It's undeniable that the U.S. is the closest to it as it has ever been given Citizens United and all the undisclosed millions that are funneled to candidates' supporting P.A.C.s, making a mockery (a deceitful ruse as it pertains to oligarchy) of the political system. And how do we know that Chuck Todd knows this? He proved Mr. Thomas correct when he analogized that the U.S. voting populace was divided into two groups - Chick-fil-a voters and Starbucks voters.
See you next week.
Round Table (Panel): John Station, Washington Bureau Chief, Buzzfeed; Amy Walter, National Editor, The Cook Political Report; Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor, National Review; Neera Tanden, President, Center for American Progress
First, there's the obvious awkwardness of introducing a panel at the top of the show and then having them sit for almost half of it seemingly without participating. We get it that they are listening to what the guests have to say, but they can do that off-set. When John Stanton of "Buzzfeed" asked a question to Grover Norquist we thought, yes, that's how "Meet The Press" was originally intended... Great, but then he was the only one to ask a question. It didn't help that everyone had to look over his shoulder around a camera to have the exchange. Hopefully a new set will fix that.
Mr. Todd should first interview the two individuals, in this week's case the aforementioned Mr. Norquist for the Americans for Tax Reform and author and columnist Thomas Frank, and then open up the questioning to the press. And they should all be press if you intend to legitimately drill down deeper into the subject so that viewers have a more thorough understanding of the topic. That's really what the program is all about. This means no activists/lobbyists or political consultants asking questions. Ramesh Ronnuru, Editor at The National Review could have asked one question to Mr. Frank as a counter to Mr. Stanton's. Four journalists asking Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would have made for great television two weeks ago. If this really isn't their intention to do it this way, then throwing it out there as they did this week is silly. Just have Mr. Todd ask all the questions.
And what's with Mr. Todd running all over the set? And what was with last week's jazz groovy loop music while Mr. Todd stood at the touchscreen? And what was with this week's worse Marshall music? Let's just try no music at all.
[We also saw this column from Erik Wemple at The Washington Post about the 'Afraid to Say' segment - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/22/chuck-todds-afraid-segment-on-meet-the-press-must-be-killed/.]
And with all that said, the consolation is that the topics and the amount of time spent of them, e.g. The U.S. conflict with ISIS, have been spot on. And as we'll finally get to the discussion, the disjointed way in which the different individual's perspectives are being captured looks clumsy. Your Sunday "Meet The Press" moderator should have a calming, thoughtful presence, which is to say that you don't want to see him one minute up standing, the next down sitting, then standing again, to finally sitting.
Also, Mr. Todd, please stay on topic. Sometimes there is a bit of drift. You don't have to end every segment on a lighter note. There is no need to ask an NFL question after solely discussing only one other particularly serious topic, in this case ISIS with Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Christopher Murphy (D-CT).
Here is the one and only time we'll phrase something this way in this column. They got to work all that shit out!
Enough.
*
From the various answers with regard to combating ISIS from great guests, which included all the above and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers and Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Ret. Admiral Mike Mullen, we don't see it.
Senator Johnson captured it best in saying that he supports the president's decision to go after ISIS, but doesn't quite see a successful strategy. Ambassador Power said that for Saudi Arabia's part in the effort, they would allow the U.S. military to train 5,000 Sunni moderate troops - Free Syrian Army - in their country. In a year's time, after the training, they are going to go back to Syria and fight on two fronts - one against the Assad Regime and one against ISIS. There more than just 5,000 fighters in the Free Syrian Army, but they are still drastically outnumbered. Senator Murphy stated that he didn't vote for arming the moderate Sunnis because he didn't believe they could effectively be the ground force on two fronts. We would agree. The Free Syrian Army will get plowed if that's the case, even with U.S. air power supporting them.
The Free Syrian Army's focus is battling Assad, which ISIS supports. Who's to say that they don't cut a deal with ISIS. Turkey apparently has, which has refused to comment on how they got all their diplomats back from ISIS. Then the U.S. has wasted more money and resources, only to be duped; it's a possibility.
So does that mean the U.S. has to put troops on the ground. Admiral Mullen rightly dismissed the media driven disagreement between the military and the Obama Administration. Of course General Dempsey wouldn't leave anything off the table in making recommendations to the president, and that includes the idea of having troops on the ground, whatever it takes to complete the mission. That's just being prudent. It's for the president to decide whether to take that recommendation or not.
Senator Murphy also pointed out that it's the U.S. that is taking the lead and not the countries in the region. It's a point well taken, but who is there to really step up? The Saudis, an ally the U.S. doesn't need? The Jordanians? Admiral Mullen said they are capable, but they are dealing with keeping the country stable given the immense refugee crisis. The Iraqi army didn't measure up and the Kurdish peshmerga are going to defend the land that they want to make their country. Right now the Kurds don't have any more capability than that.
Technically, there are already U.S. troops on the ground, special forces and advisers; close to 2,000 to help the Iraqi army get back on its feet and to direct U.S. airstrikes. However, these are not ground forces, as in brigades. President Obama simply will not commit to that. Mr. Obama seems to prefer a more stealth, yet ruthless approach - drones and airstrikes along with covert forces. The problem with that is it won't defeat ISIS.
Training the Free Syrian Army, whose motives are not entirely clear, may turn beneficial for the U.S. but helping the Kurds and the Iraqi Army is really the best chance the region has of eliminating ISIS. But it's not an easy task, as Admiral Mullen alluded to in describing what the Maliki government did to the army - making it a sectarian force instead of an inclusive one.
As Amy Walter of the "Cook Political Report" pointed out, the U.S. public has security concerns, which is true. However, sending large numbers U.S. troops back to Iraq would be a mistake simply for the reason that perpetuity would then be required to maintain peace at a cost to the U.S. that can not be sustained in perpetuity.
Speaking of 'costs in perpetuity,' it's probably not the first time you've read about the economic situation in Kansas before this latest edition of "Meet The Press." Governor Sam Brownback cut taxes in his state so drastically that practically all public services have suffered, economic growth has been far behind other states surrounding it, and the state's deficit is way up.
Yet, Mr. Norquist can effectively explain why Governor Brownback made the correct decision and why economic growth will start moving in the right direction. He cited a number of states that are looking at what is happening in Kansas and are seriously considering doing the same. He also said that states with Republican governors have cut taxes by $30 billion and states with Democratic governors have increased taxes by $40 billion over the past decade.
Yes, the 'blue' states increase taxes, but they also subsidize the 'red' states in taxes to the federal government that gets redistributed to all the states. We can rebut each one of Mr. Norquist's assertions, but what would be the point. The fact, that Republicans frankly refuse to accept, is that big state governments work and the public likes that they work. The mistake Republicans make is that they equate state government action with federal government action.
Thomas Frank threw it down to Chuck Todd saying that Mr. Todd knows that the country is drifting toward being an oligarchy, but is he correct? It's undeniable that the U.S. is the closest to it as it has ever been given Citizens United and all the undisclosed millions that are funneled to candidates' supporting P.A.C.s, making a mockery (a deceitful ruse as it pertains to oligarchy) of the political system. And how do we know that Chuck Todd knows this? He proved Mr. Thomas correct when he analogized that the U.S. voting populace was divided into two groups - Chick-fil-a voters and Starbucks voters.
See you next week.
Round Table (Panel): John Station, Washington Bureau Chief, Buzzfeed; Amy Walter, National Editor, The Cook Political Report; Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor, National Review; Neera Tanden, President, Center for American Progress
Sunday, September 07, 2014
9.7.14: Chuck Todd's Debut and the President Obama Inteview
In his debut as the 12th moderator of "Meet The Press," Chuck Todd described the set and the show's format like living in a house while we're changing it, and we'll take him on his word because we're not sold on a set that looks a like one of the daily programs on MSNBC, and our jury is out on having the moderator doing board analysis work, though Mr. Todd is very good at it.
With that said, Mr. Todd's interview with the president gleaned many candid answers - worthy of the program and the mayoral segment displayed some key insights into how cities are rebuilding success in society. We'll comment on this later, but first the interview with President Obama.
(And yes, we'd give a high-five to Chuck Todd at the end of the program, as the credits rolled.)
In a speech scheduled for Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he will inform the American people of the degree of which ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) is a threat to the country and what the administration plans to do. "I'm preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from ISIL," Mr. Obama said.
This means the United States is definitely and rightly going to do something, and the reason we say 'rightly' is because if the world community lead by the United States waits until ISIL starts turning its attention outward from the territory they are now trying to occupy then it's too late. And it may seem periphery that the U.S. killed the head of Al-Shabab, an Al Qaeda off-shoot, in Somalia, but it's not. ISIL recruits from all over the world and groups like Al-Shabab are certainly looking to connect with ISIL.
Mr. Obama said that he'll explain that ISIL is a serious threat, but one that we can deal with, and here's the plan, but as he mentioned he's going to need the support of Congress, with whom he said he has been consulting and which by early indications is coming around to supporting the president. It's happening slowly, as is the building of an international coalition, but it is happening. Joe Scarborough, who will be a regular contributor to "Meet The Press," said that it's been in fact a conservative position in taking a measured stance as to what to do about the chaos in the Middle East. If this is an accurate assessment, then the president should have congressional support.
(We do not think this is a good idea to have Joe Scarborough as a prominent contributor. Mr. Scarborough has his own program, where he opines loudly, and Mr. Todd needs to be the dominating personality on the program at all times. Chuck Todd is "Meet The Press" now.)
It was also important to hear the president outline what the United States is not going to do, which is putting 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. However, we would be careful of the nuance in this answer because we all know that ISIL can not be defeated by air strikes alone. Mr. Obama said that the United States military will be instrumental in coordinating Iraqi and Kurdish troops, but there also must be a large international force, the bulk of which will be made up of U.S. troops because the reality is that anything short of that is not going to eliminate ISIL as is the president's stated goal. That's the rub, that's the 'preparation' that the president referred to, but we agree with Mr. Obama in that the United States can not serially occupy countries in the Middle East, or around the world for that matter. As the president said, we just don't have the resources (money) to do it.
And, as Mr. Obama accurately explained, the United States is the country that when there is a crisis in Ukraine, it is the one that mobilizes other countries to act; when there is an outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, other countries look to the U.S. for solutions and security.If you believe in the idea of American Exceptionalism, these are the kinds of burdens and the costs (hard and otherwise) that come with being exceptional.
And that's the reasoning behind Mr. Obama's decision to be careful in how the U.S. engages ISIL in Syria. The president said we would hunt down ISIL members and assets. Well, to do that it's going to take American personnel on the ground, there's no way around it. But finding and funding the Free Syrian Army (moderate Sunnis) is going to be tricky because the United States is going to need help from Shia populations in the region to defeat ISIL, populations that include Iran's. For the moment, the United States also needs Assad in place to defeat ISIL so that results in Saudia Arabia not giving its support. As Micheal Leiter noted on the program, the Saudis do not trust the president to do all he can to take out Assad. (There's so much to be said about the Saudis and trust and doing the right, humane thing, but we'll just leave it... we really don't want to get that upset on this football Sunday.)
On this Sunday, Mr. Todd introduced a new feature to the program entitle "Who Needs Washington?" which was a very good segment interviewing three mayors in three different parts of the country from three different political party affiliations.
(A segment with such a title implies that Washington does know anything, so we found it funny that later in the program there was another feature entitled, "What Everyone in Washington Knows," and because of the stale topic of Hillary Clinton political aspirations, we'd answer that premise with, "Not much.")
We poke fun, but the segment with the three mayors gave the viewer a very good perspective of what local officials are doing to improve the lives of citizens in their cities. What was most telling about the segment was how all three mayors were instituting policies that run in 'sharp contrast' (Mr. Obama's phrase in describing the countries party differences) to Tea Party policy choices - this was across the board. Instead of giving vouchers for schools in Tacoma, Washington, Mayor Marilyn Strickland (I) talked about giving vouchers for housing so that children can maintain continuity in their education by staying at the same school. Speaking of education, you expect Democratic Pittsburgh Mayor, Bill Peduto, to express expanding early childhood education - a publicly funded program that is long overdue in national scale. And even though Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett said that people of his city, describing their conservative leaning, don't like program they can't 'touch and feel," meaning public programs, he signed a tax increase, a Republican tax increase, to improve and repair infrastructure. As ideological as the two major national political parties are, local politics are all about practicality.
Round Table: Amy Walter, National Editor of The Cook Political Report; John Stanton, Washington Bureau Chief for Buzzfeed.com; Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Nia-Malika Henderson, The Washington Post
Post Note: Our wish would have been for Mr. Todd to interview the President in studio (we understand the difficulties of presidential scheduling), live for 20 minutes because it would have spoke volumes to the renewed importance of the 'program of record.' Plus, not chopping up the interview and running it as one longer segment is what separates serious journalism from commercialized TV journalism, no? Further impressing upon the viewer the importance of the interview and hence the program. Alas, it was just a wish.
And apologies for not getting to the topic of immigration this week.
With that said, Mr. Todd's interview with the president gleaned many candid answers - worthy of the program and the mayoral segment displayed some key insights into how cities are rebuilding success in society. We'll comment on this later, but first the interview with President Obama.
(And yes, we'd give a high-five to Chuck Todd at the end of the program, as the credits rolled.)
In a speech scheduled for Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he will inform the American people of the degree of which ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) is a threat to the country and what the administration plans to do. "I'm preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from ISIL," Mr. Obama said.
This means the United States is definitely and rightly going to do something, and the reason we say 'rightly' is because if the world community lead by the United States waits until ISIL starts turning its attention outward from the territory they are now trying to occupy then it's too late. And it may seem periphery that the U.S. killed the head of Al-Shabab, an Al Qaeda off-shoot, in Somalia, but it's not. ISIL recruits from all over the world and groups like Al-Shabab are certainly looking to connect with ISIL.
Mr. Obama said that he'll explain that ISIL is a serious threat, but one that we can deal with, and here's the plan, but as he mentioned he's going to need the support of Congress, with whom he said he has been consulting and which by early indications is coming around to supporting the president. It's happening slowly, as is the building of an international coalition, but it is happening. Joe Scarborough, who will be a regular contributor to "Meet The Press," said that it's been in fact a conservative position in taking a measured stance as to what to do about the chaos in the Middle East. If this is an accurate assessment, then the president should have congressional support.
(We do not think this is a good idea to have Joe Scarborough as a prominent contributor. Mr. Scarborough has his own program, where he opines loudly, and Mr. Todd needs to be the dominating personality on the program at all times. Chuck Todd is "Meet The Press" now.)
It was also important to hear the president outline what the United States is not going to do, which is putting 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. However, we would be careful of the nuance in this answer because we all know that ISIL can not be defeated by air strikes alone. Mr. Obama said that the United States military will be instrumental in coordinating Iraqi and Kurdish troops, but there also must be a large international force, the bulk of which will be made up of U.S. troops because the reality is that anything short of that is not going to eliminate ISIL as is the president's stated goal. That's the rub, that's the 'preparation' that the president referred to, but we agree with Mr. Obama in that the United States can not serially occupy countries in the Middle East, or around the world for that matter. As the president said, we just don't have the resources (money) to do it.
And, as Mr. Obama accurately explained, the United States is the country that when there is a crisis in Ukraine, it is the one that mobilizes other countries to act; when there is an outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, other countries look to the U.S. for solutions and security.If you believe in the idea of American Exceptionalism, these are the kinds of burdens and the costs (hard and otherwise) that come with being exceptional.
And that's the reasoning behind Mr. Obama's decision to be careful in how the U.S. engages ISIL in Syria. The president said we would hunt down ISIL members and assets. Well, to do that it's going to take American personnel on the ground, there's no way around it. But finding and funding the Free Syrian Army (moderate Sunnis) is going to be tricky because the United States is going to need help from Shia populations in the region to defeat ISIL, populations that include Iran's. For the moment, the United States also needs Assad in place to defeat ISIL so that results in Saudia Arabia not giving its support. As Micheal Leiter noted on the program, the Saudis do not trust the president to do all he can to take out Assad. (There's so much to be said about the Saudis and trust and doing the right, humane thing, but we'll just leave it... we really don't want to get that upset on this football Sunday.)
On this Sunday, Mr. Todd introduced a new feature to the program entitle "Who Needs Washington?" which was a very good segment interviewing three mayors in three different parts of the country from three different political party affiliations.
(A segment with such a title implies that Washington does know anything, so we found it funny that later in the program there was another feature entitled, "What Everyone in Washington Knows," and because of the stale topic of Hillary Clinton political aspirations, we'd answer that premise with, "Not much.")
We poke fun, but the segment with the three mayors gave the viewer a very good perspective of what local officials are doing to improve the lives of citizens in their cities. What was most telling about the segment was how all three mayors were instituting policies that run in 'sharp contrast' (Mr. Obama's phrase in describing the countries party differences) to Tea Party policy choices - this was across the board. Instead of giving vouchers for schools in Tacoma, Washington, Mayor Marilyn Strickland (I) talked about giving vouchers for housing so that children can maintain continuity in their education by staying at the same school. Speaking of education, you expect Democratic Pittsburgh Mayor, Bill Peduto, to express expanding early childhood education - a publicly funded program that is long overdue in national scale. And even though Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett said that people of his city, describing their conservative leaning, don't like program they can't 'touch and feel," meaning public programs, he signed a tax increase, a Republican tax increase, to improve and repair infrastructure. As ideological as the two major national political parties are, local politics are all about practicality.
Round Table: Amy Walter, National Editor of The Cook Political Report; John Stanton, Washington Bureau Chief for Buzzfeed.com; Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Nia-Malika Henderson, The Washington Post
Post Note: Our wish would have been for Mr. Todd to interview the President in studio (we understand the difficulties of presidential scheduling), live for 20 minutes because it would have spoke volumes to the renewed importance of the 'program of record.' Plus, not chopping up the interview and running it as one longer segment is what separates serious journalism from commercialized TV journalism, no? Further impressing upon the viewer the importance of the interview and hence the program. Alas, it was just a wish.
And apologies for not getting to the topic of immigration this week.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
8.31.14: Diminishing Returns of U.S. Foreign Policy
General Anthony Zinni, during one of today's round tables, said that to defeat ISIS there needs to be a 'coalition of outsiders' or phrased another way (Wes Moore's) an international coalition. If ISIS is a global threat, and it is, it's going to take a concerted effort by the world's most powerful nations to rally the regions powers to rid the Middle East region of this terrorist army (Richard Engel's words) and purveyor of chaos. However, China has little interest in getting mixed up in any affairs of the region. As a matter of fact, China makes a deliberate effort to not get involved. For Russia and Vladimir Putin ISIS provides a strategic blessing.
While the United States has the west's attention is concentrated on ISIS, Mr. Putin can act practically without impunity in Eastern Europe however he sees fit. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said that she believes this is a deeply personal matter for Mr. Putin to return Russia to its former level of influence and control in Eastern Europe, a return to glory if you're so inclined to think that way. Any move against ISIS is going to have to be done without either of those countries takig part and both would like nothing better than to see the United States drain it's military and diplomatic resources even more than it already has, rendering it ineffectual on the world stage.
It was the gamble that was laid down in 2003 when the United States decided to invade Iraq - that decision was either going to pay big dividends in terms of influence in the region and around the world, as it related to oil and energy, or it was going to slowly bleed the United States of its monetary and more decidedly moral strength to influence other nations. We see where we are now - the dividends are nonexistent.
What we're left with is a cautious president, unwilling to take definitive action on anything foreign policy related, and this cautiousness or herky-jerky (Ruth Marcus' technical term) approach is reinforced by a Congress concerned about elections instead of running the country. When Meet The Press showed that YouTube video of John Boehner, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, with the toy monkey, we found that embarrassing. This is what the political leaders in Washington are reduced to doing?
Some are saying that Russia's moves in Ukraine are an incursion. No, that's incorrect - it's an invasion. Russia troops crossing the Ukrainian border to start a third front in a civil conflict is an invasion, and the fact is that Ukraine and Russia are at war, though one side is fighting it, at the moment, through a proxy. And because of the tactical distraction that ISIS is providing Mr. Putin against his western (U.S.) adversaries, there is no reason for him to stop until Russia achieves a 'special sphere of interest' exclusive to Russia, as stated by a Russian official during a taped segment today. But you notice in that statement that Russia wants to create this regardless of whether the countries under this 'special sphere' want it or not. Former Ambassador to Russia, Micheal McFaul had no answer when asked what would stop Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin knows his history and that it will repeat itself in as much as western Europe acquiescing to hostile Russia advances in the east where essentially they'll do nothing.
Congress needs to debate these issues immediately upon returning to session, the first of which must be the threat of ISIS because they along with other terror groups are looking to turn their aggression toward western countries. We're not eager to see the United States commit to another war with troops on the ground but it's difficult to determine whether General Zinni was being accurate or cavalier when he said that 2 American brigades could defeat ISIS in a short amount of time. The folly of the Bush-Cheney Iraq invasion has sowed the doubt.
What we do find laughable is that the United States would actually heed a warning from the Assad regime not to conduct airstrikes on ISIS in Syria as that would be an act of aggression against a sovereign nation. The United States has heeded this warning. Now some would say that if the U.S. did conduct airstrikes on ISIS in Syria that this would be in effect helping the Assad regime. However, the U.S. (the Obama Administration) could play it a different way and say 'no,' the start of these airstrikes on Syrian territory are actually putting Assad on notice - that once ISIS is decimated, you'll be the next pariah to be dealt with.
Generally, this column is not hawkish, but with ISIS, they threat is too great to way too many. So we agree with General Zinni in that the Syrian border within the Islamic State should not be honored. Mr. Obama has to starting getting out front and lead from there, but he can not do - we repeat CAN NOT - if he doesn't have Congressional support. And if Congress can not support its president, on foreign policy at the very least, diminishing returns are all we're going to get.
Round Table 1: Michael Leiter, NBC National Security Correspondent; Michelle Flournoy, former Under Secretary of Defense; General Anthony Zinni; Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul
Round Table 2: Doris Kearns-Godwin, presidential historian; Wes Moore, author; Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; and David Henniger, The Wall Street Journal
Two More Things:
Really, there is sexism in the U.S. Senate? An body politic dominated by old white men who've been living in a surrealistic ideological dogmatic bubble for way too long, we simply can't believe it... please.
Lastly, big congratulations to Chuck Todd on becoming the new moderator of "Meet The Press." We look forward to opining on the programs under your stewardship.
One More Thing:
To all the hardworking, happy Labor Day! Try to take it easy at least for one day this weekend.
While the United States has the west's attention is concentrated on ISIS, Mr. Putin can act practically without impunity in Eastern Europe however he sees fit. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said that she believes this is a deeply personal matter for Mr. Putin to return Russia to its former level of influence and control in Eastern Europe, a return to glory if you're so inclined to think that way. Any move against ISIS is going to have to be done without either of those countries takig part and both would like nothing better than to see the United States drain it's military and diplomatic resources even more than it already has, rendering it ineffectual on the world stage.
It was the gamble that was laid down in 2003 when the United States decided to invade Iraq - that decision was either going to pay big dividends in terms of influence in the region and around the world, as it related to oil and energy, or it was going to slowly bleed the United States of its monetary and more decidedly moral strength to influence other nations. We see where we are now - the dividends are nonexistent.
What we're left with is a cautious president, unwilling to take definitive action on anything foreign policy related, and this cautiousness or herky-jerky (Ruth Marcus' technical term) approach is reinforced by a Congress concerned about elections instead of running the country. When Meet The Press showed that YouTube video of John Boehner, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, with the toy monkey, we found that embarrassing. This is what the political leaders in Washington are reduced to doing?
Some are saying that Russia's moves in Ukraine are an incursion. No, that's incorrect - it's an invasion. Russia troops crossing the Ukrainian border to start a third front in a civil conflict is an invasion, and the fact is that Ukraine and Russia are at war, though one side is fighting it, at the moment, through a proxy. And because of the tactical distraction that ISIS is providing Mr. Putin against his western (U.S.) adversaries, there is no reason for him to stop until Russia achieves a 'special sphere of interest' exclusive to Russia, as stated by a Russian official during a taped segment today. But you notice in that statement that Russia wants to create this regardless of whether the countries under this 'special sphere' want it or not. Former Ambassador to Russia, Micheal McFaul had no answer when asked what would stop Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin knows his history and that it will repeat itself in as much as western Europe acquiescing to hostile Russia advances in the east where essentially they'll do nothing.
Congress needs to debate these issues immediately upon returning to session, the first of which must be the threat of ISIS because they along with other terror groups are looking to turn their aggression toward western countries. We're not eager to see the United States commit to another war with troops on the ground but it's difficult to determine whether General Zinni was being accurate or cavalier when he said that 2 American brigades could defeat ISIS in a short amount of time. The folly of the Bush-Cheney Iraq invasion has sowed the doubt.
What we do find laughable is that the United States would actually heed a warning from the Assad regime not to conduct airstrikes on ISIS in Syria as that would be an act of aggression against a sovereign nation. The United States has heeded this warning. Now some would say that if the U.S. did conduct airstrikes on ISIS in Syria that this would be in effect helping the Assad regime. However, the U.S. (the Obama Administration) could play it a different way and say 'no,' the start of these airstrikes on Syrian territory are actually putting Assad on notice - that once ISIS is decimated, you'll be the next pariah to be dealt with.
Generally, this column is not hawkish, but with ISIS, they threat is too great to way too many. So we agree with General Zinni in that the Syrian border within the Islamic State should not be honored. Mr. Obama has to starting getting out front and lead from there, but he can not do - we repeat CAN NOT - if he doesn't have Congressional support. And if Congress can not support its president, on foreign policy at the very least, diminishing returns are all we're going to get.
Round Table 1: Michael Leiter, NBC National Security Correspondent; Michelle Flournoy, former Under Secretary of Defense; General Anthony Zinni; Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul
Round Table 2: Doris Kearns-Godwin, presidential historian; Wes Moore, author; Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; and David Henniger, The Wall Street Journal
Two More Things:
Really, there is sexism in the U.S. Senate? An body politic dominated by old white men who've been living in a surrealistic ideological dogmatic bubble for way too long, we simply can't believe it... please.
Lastly, big congratulations to Chuck Todd on becoming the new moderator of "Meet The Press." We look forward to opining on the programs under your stewardship.
One More Thing:
To all the hardworking, happy Labor Day! Try to take it easy at least for one day this weekend.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
8.24.14: Decision Time for the West on ISIS/ Rand Paul's Views
(Chris Jansing moderated, hosted really, "Meet The Press" this week and she does her format well, but it's not a format for this program. We'll touch on it throughout this week's post.)
Sir Peter Wesmacott, British Ambassador to the United States, said that his government,using sophisticated voice recognition, is close to identifying the terrorist who killed journalist James Foley. He further explained that the murder of Mr. Foley has pointedly focused the west's attention to ISIS and the threat they pose, and the threat is great. NBC's Richard Engel said that ISIS isn't really interested in negotiating with the west on any level, that it's simply about destroying it.
Gleaning information from today's program's guest sources, an overall picture of ISIS is that it occupies a third of Iraq and a good portion of Syria with the border between the two has been indeed erased. We know that they're capable militarily and they have the means to fund the Sharia, violence and propaganda by selling oil for cheap. They are a threat not only to the Middle East, including Israel, but also to western countries having recruited individuals from them. All this with the goal of establishing an Islamic Caliphate, and they have seemed to get off to a good start.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said that the United States has the capabilities to defeat ISIS but questioned the country's will. He also said that the United States' Department of Defense and our Intelligence Agencies are not configured correctly to combat ISIS, putting that failure on The White House. As the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he must know that we have far more people on the ground in Iraq than has been made public, and like it or not that is going to have to increase. Even a strong Iraqi army coupled with the already well trained and organized Kurdish pesh merga complimented by U.S. air power is not enough the defeat ISIS on the territory it controls.
Also, if you take Mr. Rogers at his word, he's convinced that if not combated against, ISIS will commit acts of terrorism on United States soil. (The other thing we know about ISIS is that they want to expand their territory.) From what the congressman said, he's an advocate for escalating operations against ISIS. However, another Republican Rand Paul (in a too long propaganda segment about Rand Paul propaganda) tossed out a warning about electing a 'war hawk' like Hillary Clinton who would most certainly get the United States in another Middle Eastern war, according to him.
The point is that conducting two long simultaneous wars has left the United States weary and its leaders, regardless of party, conflicted about what to do. As Editor and Anchor of the PBS NewsHour, Gwen Ifill, pointed out, there hasn't been any word from the Hill or the White House on what to do. At the moment, the air strikes authorized the Obama Administration are achieving a status quo preventing ISIS from expanding, can hold up until Congress reconvenes but they can not go on indefinitely. And the United States can not long continue to go it alone.
All civilized countries are at a defining turning point here with ISIS, and they have to recognize it.
Sadly, the United States, to lead, needs a strong unified policy on how to combat and eliminate ISIS so that it can rally its allies and the rest of the world [read: China and Russia] around it. We say 'sadly' because you know why. A unified policy from the United States government is highly unlikely, but the United States can not keep operating on the 'president going it alone' strategy - Congress must engage. But again, sadly, they are only interested in the midterm elections.
Speaking of elections, Rand Paul is most certainly running for President of the United States in 2016, the entire segment was an illustrating photo opportunity just for that. As Citizens United documented the humanitarian purpose of the trip, Dr. Paul was also able to answer political questions from NBC. It has to be pointed out that one of Dr. Paul's answers to what happened in Ferguson was narrow and disturbing.
"Let's say none of this has to do with race. It might not, but the belief-- if you're African American and you live in Ferguson, the belief is, you see people in prison and they're mostly black and brown, that somehow it is racial, even if the thoughts that were going on at that time had nothing to do with race."
Senator Paul, in his libertarian ideology, is simply denying the existence of an institutional racism that still exists in the United States, the general human condition of African Americans in this country, and the overwhelming statistics of the double standards that exist in the justice system. And taking it back to Ferguson, you can bet that the black protesters that have been arrested have absolutely been charged with some crime, yet, the white police officer who shot an unarmed man six times (two in the head) with four witnesses standing by hasn't even been arrested.
And even if there are good reasons for those circumstances, just like The Washington Post's Michael Gerson said commenting on photos of President Obama playing golf while the press covered the murder of James Foley, symbolism matters. And in the case of Ferguson, that's no exception. In that context, it is of course easy to see the continued anger.
Due to Senator Paul's libertarian ideology, he does not seem to acknowledge the existence of racial inequality in the United States and if he were president that means he would take no action to improve the very real opportunity disparity that lead to things like what's happened in Ferguson. You have to have a very cold approach to the human condition to maintain an ideology.
It was good to hear Mr. Gerson, a conservative columnist, disagree with Senator Paul in his call to cancel all foreign aid. Mr. Gerson explained that ideology has consequences and the Kentucky senator is ignoring those consequences in that millions of children in poor countries would suffer and die without that aid.
This kind of ideological adherence isn't presidential material in the United States.
Guests: Rep. Mike Rogers, Amb. Peter Westmacott, Richard Engel, Helene Cooper, Gwen Ifill, David Ignatius, Mayor Kasim Reed, Michael Gerson, Gov. Jay Nixon, Rev. Al Sharpton, Sen. Rand Paul
Post Note: We were going to comment more on the poor format of the show (the awkward walk across the set by Ms. Jansing), but we'll give it a rest - it's the last week in August after all.
Sir Peter Wesmacott, British Ambassador to the United States, said that his government,using sophisticated voice recognition, is close to identifying the terrorist who killed journalist James Foley. He further explained that the murder of Mr. Foley has pointedly focused the west's attention to ISIS and the threat they pose, and the threat is great. NBC's Richard Engel said that ISIS isn't really interested in negotiating with the west on any level, that it's simply about destroying it.
Gleaning information from today's program's guest sources, an overall picture of ISIS is that it occupies a third of Iraq and a good portion of Syria with the border between the two has been indeed erased. We know that they're capable militarily and they have the means to fund the Sharia, violence and propaganda by selling oil for cheap. They are a threat not only to the Middle East, including Israel, but also to western countries having recruited individuals from them. All this with the goal of establishing an Islamic Caliphate, and they have seemed to get off to a good start.
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said that the United States has the capabilities to defeat ISIS but questioned the country's will. He also said that the United States' Department of Defense and our Intelligence Agencies are not configured correctly to combat ISIS, putting that failure on The White House. As the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he must know that we have far more people on the ground in Iraq than has been made public, and like it or not that is going to have to increase. Even a strong Iraqi army coupled with the already well trained and organized Kurdish pesh merga complimented by U.S. air power is not enough the defeat ISIS on the territory it controls.
Also, if you take Mr. Rogers at his word, he's convinced that if not combated against, ISIS will commit acts of terrorism on United States soil. (The other thing we know about ISIS is that they want to expand their territory.) From what the congressman said, he's an advocate for escalating operations against ISIS. However, another Republican Rand Paul (in a too long propaganda segment about Rand Paul propaganda) tossed out a warning about electing a 'war hawk' like Hillary Clinton who would most certainly get the United States in another Middle Eastern war, according to him.
The point is that conducting two long simultaneous wars has left the United States weary and its leaders, regardless of party, conflicted about what to do. As Editor and Anchor of the PBS NewsHour, Gwen Ifill, pointed out, there hasn't been any word from the Hill or the White House on what to do. At the moment, the air strikes authorized the Obama Administration are achieving a status quo preventing ISIS from expanding, can hold up until Congress reconvenes but they can not go on indefinitely. And the United States can not long continue to go it alone.
All civilized countries are at a defining turning point here with ISIS, and they have to recognize it.
Sadly, the United States, to lead, needs a strong unified policy on how to combat and eliminate ISIS so that it can rally its allies and the rest of the world [read: China and Russia] around it. We say 'sadly' because you know why. A unified policy from the United States government is highly unlikely, but the United States can not keep operating on the 'president going it alone' strategy - Congress must engage. But again, sadly, they are only interested in the midterm elections.
Speaking of elections, Rand Paul is most certainly running for President of the United States in 2016, the entire segment was an illustrating photo opportunity just for that. As Citizens United documented the humanitarian purpose of the trip, Dr. Paul was also able to answer political questions from NBC. It has to be pointed out that one of Dr. Paul's answers to what happened in Ferguson was narrow and disturbing.
"Let's say none of this has to do with race. It might not, but the belief-- if you're African American and you live in Ferguson, the belief is, you see people in prison and they're mostly black and brown, that somehow it is racial, even if the thoughts that were going on at that time had nothing to do with race."
Senator Paul, in his libertarian ideology, is simply denying the existence of an institutional racism that still exists in the United States, the general human condition of African Americans in this country, and the overwhelming statistics of the double standards that exist in the justice system. And taking it back to Ferguson, you can bet that the black protesters that have been arrested have absolutely been charged with some crime, yet, the white police officer who shot an unarmed man six times (two in the head) with four witnesses standing by hasn't even been arrested.
And even if there are good reasons for those circumstances, just like The Washington Post's Michael Gerson said commenting on photos of President Obama playing golf while the press covered the murder of James Foley, symbolism matters. And in the case of Ferguson, that's no exception. In that context, it is of course easy to see the continued anger.
Due to Senator Paul's libertarian ideology, he does not seem to acknowledge the existence of racial inequality in the United States and if he were president that means he would take no action to improve the very real opportunity disparity that lead to things like what's happened in Ferguson. You have to have a very cold approach to the human condition to maintain an ideology.
It was good to hear Mr. Gerson, a conservative columnist, disagree with Senator Paul in his call to cancel all foreign aid. Mr. Gerson explained that ideology has consequences and the Kentucky senator is ignoring those consequences in that millions of children in poor countries would suffer and die without that aid.
This kind of ideological adherence isn't presidential material in the United States.
Guests: Rep. Mike Rogers, Amb. Peter Westmacott, Richard Engel, Helene Cooper, Gwen Ifill, David Ignatius, Mayor Kasim Reed, Michael Gerson, Gov. Jay Nixon, Rev. Al Sharpton, Sen. Rand Paul
Post Note: We were going to comment more on the poor format of the show (the awkward walk across the set by Ms. Jansing), but we'll give it a rest - it's the last week in August after all.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
8.17.14: Justice and Peace; What Comes First in Ferguson
-->
***
This brings us to the second half topic - ISIS in Iraq, who is definitely using U.S. weapons in the effort and so far success in establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East - where we'll try and be brief this week.
"Ferguson and the Racial Divide" was the
headline for today's lead story on "Meet The Press," with Andrea
Mitchell as the moderator, which is a clear reminder of what the state's
governor Jay Nixon (D) called during his interview 'deep wounds' that still
exist in these communities. These deep wounds the governor was referring
to, of course, stem from the racial injustice that still flagrantly exists in
the United States 150 years after the most bloody war in American history that
decided that all men in this country are indeed created equal. However,
while Fergurson, Missouri is illustrating the continued presence of an old
national ugliness, it's also shown us the phenomenon of a new ugliness - the
militarization of our police departments.
Before we get more into that, we're compelled to call
out the governor for not answering Andrea Mitchell's question as to why Chief
Jackson hasn't been fired. The governor said that Mr. Jackson has
subverted the chain of command and, disparaged a man's character when he
released a video tape of an incident involving Michael Brown in a convenient
store before he was shot multiple times by Officer Darren Wilson. The
police department released this video tape without having released any details
of what happened during the shooting - obstructing public justice. No
longer is Chief Thomas Jackson qualified, due to his actions, to act in the
best interest of the community he serves. And the governor hasn't
stripped him of all authority.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editor-in-Chief Gilbert Bailon
commented that there is a deep distrust of the police department by the
community and given the above, that's stupidly easy to understand. Why
wouldn't they be distrustful and
suspicious? Let's not to forget to mention that journalists have also
been arrested, with open hostility from the police as The Washington Post's Wesley Lowery phrased it, for reporting on
what's been happening in Ferguson.
The governor explained that there are dual
investigations going on into what happening - one by the local district
prosecutor and the other by the Justice Department. Well, the JOD needs
to scrutinize the Ferguson Police Department because their actions have been at
the least a public disgrace if not criminal in some regard with their delays in
releasing information.
Speaking of criminal, as Harvard Law Professor Charles
Ogletree said, the officer should be arrested. He shot an unarmed Michael Brown
to death and he hasn't been at least arrested? When you consider all this,
it even angers one who just sitting and writing about it, to say nothing for
the citizens in Ferguson.
What we found striking is the juxtaposition of how the
governor and Civil Rights hero John Lewis (D-GA) outlined the desired goal for
the town of Ferguson. The governor said that "to have justice, we
need peace,' while later in the program Mr. Lewis said 'we cannot have peace
and order without justice.' We found this very telling about the deep
differences in the psyche of our individuals from different backgrounds think
of how to achieve the same goal. What the governor said implied that
peace, in this case calm through suppression, needs to be achieved first before
you can start talking about justice. Conversely, Mr. Lewis was saying
that until justice is served, there can be no peace - his phrasing coming from
a deep understanding of what it means to be oppressed. The governor, not
so much. Just something to think about.
Moving forward, as Los Angeles City Council member,
Bernard Parks and Representative and Mr. Lewis explained, there must be a
dialogue between the authorities and the community so that the common good can
progress, but we have to be honest, that's going to take a while and progress
will be slow because the specter of what we've seen, this glimpse through the
window of the future in how authorities will trample the Constitution to
protect their actions will still be hanging above it all.
The pictures of assault vehicles, smoke bombs, sniper
rifles all trained on citizens of an American town are truly eye-opening, which
is now fact and becoming standard operating procedure. But just like in Iraq,
if you have all these surplus weapons and vehicles and munitions someone is
going to pick them and want to use them. Well, the military had a surplus
laying around here at home so why not get something back for all this money
spent and sold everything to local municipalities dirt cheap. Then the
notion of 'we have them, why not use them' sets in.
***
This brings us to the second half topic - ISIS in Iraq, who is definitely using U.S. weapons in the effort and so far success in establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East - where we'll try and be brief this week.
We neither agree with Ms. Harman's assessments that
President Obama has made all the right decisions on Iraq nor do we agree with
Rep. Turner's complete condemnation of Mr. Obama's policies toward the Middle
East. However, to answer Andrea Mitchell's central question as to weather
we're in the middle of a war in Iraq, the answer is yes. And because the
United States is obligated to act, the president is at the moment showing the
right measure of participation. Jason Riley of The Wall Street Journal said that the key is for the United States
to eliminate ISIS. We agree but he seemed to be advocating U.S. troops on
the ground which is not a good idea, and if it ever came to that again, no
allies would go with us.
But what really stuck with us from the round table
discussion on the Middle East was what Jane Harman said in outlining a truth
about said caliphate, which was that the center of control will be in Saudi
Arabia; let's face it - a false ally of the United States who has actively
funded other Sunnis motivated to kill Americans. Yet, American political
leaders - Democrat and Republican alike - have to continue to call them
friends. Two words to explain that - cheaper gasoline.
Round Table 1: Wesley Lowery, The Washington Post; Gilbert Bailon, Editor-In-Chief St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Baltimore Mayor
Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School Professor; and
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
Round Table 2: Anne Gearan, diplomatic correspondent
for The Washington Post; Jason Riley, member of The Wall Street Journal's
editorial board; Jane Harman, the president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars; and Republican Congressman Michael Turner
from Ohio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)