I didn't expect this, not even from this President. Nonetheless, the USA and the Taliban signed a deal Saturday which includes, as President Trump noted later during his news conference, result in the withdrawal of American soldiers from Afghanistan
over a 14-month period.
It is subject to the success of "intra-Afghanistan negotiations," as
The Hill puts it. However, the Taliban
“will not allow any of its members, other individuals or
groups, including al Qaeda, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security
of the United States and its allies,” the agreement says.
The Taliban also committed to sending a “clear message that
those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies
have no place in Afghanistan” and will instruct its members not to cooperate
with groups or individuals that threaten the United States, according to the
deal.
In return,
The intra-Afghan talks will be launched with a prisoner
release, according to Saturday’s deal. The Taliban will have 5,000 prisoners
released, while the Afghan government side will have 1,000. Remaining prisoners
will be released in three months.
The Hill adds
In a letter to Pompeo and Esper this week, 22 House
Republicans led by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) expressed “serious concerns” about
the deal and asked for “assurances that you will not place the security of the
American people into the hands of the Taliban, and undermine our ally, the
current government of Afghanistan.”
This is not a negotiated surrender, though it could be
framed that way. It is worse than a surrender. Five-to-one (in prisoner
release) is not a good ratio. In return, we get promises from the organization that
gave sanctuary to the forces responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01
and which aims to impose Sharia law upon Afghanistan. The situation is dicey; “other factions,” reports The
Washington Post,” including breakaway Taliban groups and others claiming allegiance
to the Islamic State, have footholds around the country and potentially could
grow stronger without U.S.-led forces to keep them in check.”
Elizabeth Warren, Bernard Sanders, and even Joe Biden have
implied that they would withdraw all USA forces from Afghanistan. In retrospect,
they should have realized that President Trump, who fancies himself a master
deal maker, would make a deal negotiating withdrawal of American soldiers.
With this agreement- which may, fortuitously, fall
apart- Trump seems to have outflanked almost any potential Democratic
nominee. Most of the Democratic
candidates haven't explicitly ruled out having any combat soldiers in Afghanistan
but they have come awfully close. The President has approved a terrorist-friendly arrangement critics can credibly
label a "sell-out," but Democrats are in no position to exploit one of
Trump's vulnerabilities, a man easily manipulated by the country's enemies
MSNBC host Chris Matthews came under fire this week from
some progressives for pressing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on why she
believed a woman who had accused former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg of
pressuring her to have an abortion while she was an employee for his company.
"MSNBC needs to fire Chris Matthews. Today,"
Shaunna Thomas, president of the women's advocacy group UltraViolet, said in a
statement. "Matthews' refusal to believe women, and history of sexual
harassment, make it clear that he is not fit to continue to cover this
election. MSNBC can and must do better, and they can start by firing Chris
Matthews."
After the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday,
Matthews asked Warren during an interview why she believed the accuser and not
Bloomberg. Warren had brought up the accusation during the debate.
"You believe he is lying?" Matthews asked,
referring to Bloomberg.
Warren reiterated that she believed the woman, with Matthews
then asking why Bloomberg would lie.
"Just to protect himself?" Matthews asked.
"Yeah, and why would she lie?" Warren responded.
In a lawsuit filed against Bloomberg, a female employee
alleged that he told her to "kill it" after he found out she was
pregnant. The language was interpreted by the employee as ordering her to have
an abortion in order to keep her job, The Washington Post reported.
Bloomberg has repeatedly denied making the remark.
Lauren Duca, a journalist and activist with more than
400,000 Twitter followers, called Matthews's questioning of Warren
"insane."
Chris Matthews asks Elizabeth Warren why she believes a female employee who sued Mike Bloomberg for telling her "kill it" when she was pregnant over Bloomberg.
"You believe he's lying? ...Why would he lie? Just to protect himself? ...You’re confident of your accusation?" pic.twitter.com/hVkkQhhXtz
Chris Matthews is not insane. Slate's Heather Schwedel recommends he "shut up," even as she inadvertently explains why it is unnecessary, as Warren
answered his incredulity with reason, frankness, and an elegant
allusion to how the issue intersects with her own story: “Well, a pregnant
employee sure said that he did. Why shouldn’t I believe her? You know, I’m just
really tired of this world, this one is personal for me. It really is.” She
displayed irritation without crossing over into anger that would surely give
her critics reason to dismiss her, at least in their minds: “We have gone on
and on and on where people say, ‘Oh, I can’t really believe the woman.’ Really?
Why not?” She was composed—“And why would she lie? That’s the question, Chris”—
and she didn’t back down. She answered Matthews plainly: “I believe the woman.
Which means [Bloomberg]’s not telling the truth.”
It's called journalism. The Massachusetts senator made a
serious charge when she maintained during the debate in South Carolina "At
least I didn't have a boss who said to me, 'Kill it,' the way that Mayor
Bloomberg is alleged to have said to one of his pregnant employees."
Warren herself recognized that the employee's accusation was
an allegation, unproven and ultimately a "she said, he said issue. In
drilling down on the matter, Matthews was committing an act of journalism,
challenging the candidate to explain why she believed the female employee.
And, of course, there was the inevitable demand that the
offender be fired:
Matthews’ refusal to believe women, and history of sexual harassment, make it clear that he is not fit to continue to cover this election. MSNBC can and must do better, and they can start by firing Chris Matthews. (2/5)
Along with the unlikely possibility the employee is lying, she may have distorted what was stated, remembered the incident inaccurately, or omitted important context. But that is how it has become with cancel culture, in which reactions overtake the search for truth.
Not to worry. Elizabeth has this. She understands candidates
have their jobs, journalists have theirs, and if there were only sweetness and
light between the two, the public would be the loser.
If Bernie makes it to the nomination history will remember his unrivaled base of support, consistent principles and the convenient egos of his opponents.
It is accurate that Bloomberg's ad money- certainly not
debate performances or personality- and
Warren's spending keep the field divided and have contributed to Bernard
Sanders' lead in the Democratic race for President.
And Bloomberg does have a big ego, unavoidable when one has
tens of billions of dollars and was chief executive of the largest city in the
country (the "Big Apple") for three consecutive terms.
Nonetheless, it's remarkable, recognizing that the
presence of Warren (and Bloomberg) in the field has aided the Vermont senator, that Fang completely misinterprets the Massachusetts senator's strategy.
During the most recent debate, Warren stated "I think I
would make a better president than Bernie." Of course she does- otherwise she wouldn't
have been on the stage. Everyone vying for the Democratic nomination believes
that he or she would make a better President than anyone. That is (for anyone
but Donald Trump, who wanted to maximize his wealth) a prerequisite to running. They all have big egos and believe they can effectively lead what- before President Trump tore apart the nation's reputation- was the undisputed leader of the free world.
Were I running for office, I'd expect nothing more positive from a rival than
Look, the way I see this is that Bernie is winning right now
because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are
popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want
to say so. But Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make
a better president than Bernie.
Warren, given her choice, would still prefer to be President. She went on to explain, accurately, why she would be a
better president than Sanders, but in a manner which was about as close to an
attack as Boston is from, say, Spokane.
In the debate in Las Vegas, every Democratic
candidate criticized Mike Bloomberg. However, only Elizabeth Warren lit into
him like a vulture lights into a dead carcass. She started off like a hungry,
mongrel dog that discovers a bone, and she barely let up. Personally, I
thought her initial attack was over the line- but I'm not running for President
or fronting for another candidate.
Below, one sees Warren, asked by a reporter "let me ask about Bernie Sanders," replying "I heard you. Michael Bloomberg....."
Liz out here avoiding questions on Bernie, when he is the one eating her lunch in the left lane and about to embarrass her in her home state.
Elizabeth Warren has been competing against Bernard Sanders, who was initially propelled by a proposal for "Medicare for All," When she proposed a similar, somewhat less radical, program for single-payer health care with more details, more meat on the bones, than had her opponent, she took Sanders supporters and the right the incoming which Sanders would have expected to get. Her numbers plummeted.
Were I in Warren's position, I would have been annoyed and a little bitter. But then besides being male, a little younger, and far less knowledgeable than EW, I'm not as committed to progressive ideals as she is. So that is why, in a manner very unusual for a politician, Elizabeth Warren's strategy does make sense. It's how she rolls.
Bloomberg is not the leading candidate for the nomination. Bernard Sanders is, and Elizabeth Warren continues to belittle and denounce Michael Bloomberg. It's almost as if she's trying.... Well, you get it.
it was clear that there was no Bernie slayer at the lecterns
in Charleston, someone who alone had the time and skills to convince Democratic
voters that the democratic socialist was a radical whose nomination would
forfeit the party’s chance to defeat Trump.
Nor was there anyone with the desire to slay the
front-runner.
Give the Democratic candidates their due. They probably
figure Sanders is likely to be the nominee and viciously attacking him might
help undo their chances of unseating President Trump in November and to hold
onto the House of Representatives, the latter in doubt with the nomination of
Sanders. And if one of them brings down Sanders, it might inure to the benefit
of Michael Bloomberg- whose nomination would be dicey for another set of
reasons.
We know what the President … what Russia wants, it’s chaos.
Once this campaign is over, Buttigieg will be found on the
boardwalk either in Atlantic City, N.J. or at southern California
beaches. Inasmuch as we don't know what the Kremlin is doing, how it is doing
it, when it started, whether it is continuing or who the specific actor is, we
don't know why Vladimir Putin prefers Bernard Sanders to all others as the
Democratic nominee. We do know, however,
that Sanders has continually knocked USA foreign policy over the decades as one
which excessively prefers regimes friendly to this country at the expense of
other values. (See "Cuba, literacy.")
Therefore, assuming that Buttigieg really isn't a psychic, his remark may have reflected an unwillingness to confront Sanders here.
2) Elizabeth Warren beginning at 3:40
Look, the way I see this is that Bernie is winning right now
because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are
popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want
to say so. But Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make
a better president than Bernie. And the reason for that is that getting a
progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard and it’s going to take
someone who digs into the details to make it happen. Bernie and I both wanted
to help reign in Wall Street. In 2008, we both got our chance, but I dug in, I
fought the big banks, I built the coalitions and I won. Bernie and I both want
to see universal healthcare, but Bernie’s plan doesn’t explain how to get
there, doesn’t show how we’re going to get enough allies into it and doesn’t
show enough about how we’re going to pay for it.
There could be no clearer endorsement of the candidacy of
the Vermont senator than "Bernie is winning right now because the
Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are popular
ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want to say
so." Moreover, while Warren's pitch
all along should have been that she is "someone who digs into the details
to make it happen," once she invoked this argument Wednesday night, it was
not heard again. Repetition works- ask Sanders, who returns repeatedly to the
same theme(s), whatever the question asked.
3) Michael Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar, beginning at 23:23 responding to Sanders first stating
Let me just, the answer is, it’s something
that we would take into consideration. But here is the point. I am very proud
of being Jewish. I actually lived in Israel for some months, but what I happen
to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel, through Bibi
Netanyahu, you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country. And I
happen to believe, I happen to believe, that what our foreign policy in the
mid-east should be about is absolutely protecting the independence and security
of Israel. But you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people. We
have got to have a policy that reaches out to the Palestinians, and the
Americans. And in answer to your question, that will come within the context of
bringing nations together in the mid-east.
Michael Bloomberg:
Well, the battles been going on for a long time in the
Middle East, whether it’s the Arabs versus the Persians, the Shias versus the
Sunnis, the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, it’s only gone on for 40 or 50
years. Number one, you can’t move the embassy back. We should not have done it
without getting something from the Israeli government, but it was done, and
you’re going to have to leave it there. Number two, only solution here is a two
state solution. The Palestinians have to be accommodated. The real problem here
is you have two groups of people, both of who think God them the same piece of
land. And the answer is to obviously split it up, leave the Israeli borders
where they are. Try to push them to pull back some of those extra, over on the
other side of the wall where they’ve built these new communities, which they
should not have done that. Pull it back-
Sanders has appeared at the convention of the largest Muslim
political action committee in the nation and received its endorsement. He also
has chatted on Fox News, allegedly because he believes a public official must communicate with those he disagrees with. Yet he has refused two years running to attend the convention of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and now has
labeled as "racist" the leader of one of the two most steadfast
allies..
No one cares what Michael Bloomberg's policy is toward the Mideast any more than voters care about Warren's 78 plans for every problem besetting the USA. The front-runner just claimed to be proud that he is Jewish- and called the leader of probably one of the two most steadfast allies of the USA a "racist." In any other context than a Democratic presidential campaign, that is called a "gaffe."
Klobuchar was no better- and should have been. According to
this report, the Minnesota senator "has a solid relationship with the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobby in
the country." The executive director of the Jewish Community Relations
Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas has stated "she's ubiquitous in the
Minnesota Jewish community." And last night, when Israel's Prime Minister
was called a "racist," she was mum.
4) Joseph Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren,
beginning at 26:29 with Tom Steyer:
Excuse me, Amy. This conversation shows a huge risk for the
Democratic Party. We are looking at a party that has decided that we’re either
going to support someone who is a Democratic Socialist or somebody who has a
long history of being a Republican. And let me say that I got into this race
because I wanted to fight for economic justice, for racial justice, and to make
sure we had climate justice for the American people. And I am scared. If we
cannot pull this party together, if we go to one of those extremes, we take a
terrible risk of reelecting Donald Trump.
Here, Tom Steyer condemns Sanders as a Democratic Socialist
and Bloomberg for having "a long history of being a Republican." To the credit of Steyer- whom yesterday I
wouldn't give any credit to- he opened the floor for what should have been an
obvious point.
Three days before the debate, the front-runner lumped the
"Republican establishment" in with the typically unspecified, largely neutered "Democratic
establishment." He plans to take on the Democratic establishment this
autumn and reportedly still has not registered as a Democrat. This does not bode well for
a party which would like to take over
the Senate and at least hold on to the House of Representatives, But it did
provide an opening, which Biden, Klobuchar, and Warren ignored.
Those are four instances in which Bernard Sanders' rivals,
whose chances decline every day, failed for whatever reason to challenge the
prohibitive favorite as they should have, and needed to have. And don't get me
started on Castro's Cuba.
The argument that Bernard Sanders has helped move the
Democratic Party leftward was reflected
in Tom Steyer's response pertaining to whether he'd support "direct
cash payments to the descendants of slaves reparations" if recommended by
a commission. The billionaire stated on Tuesday night at a CNN town hall meeting
... If you want to tell the truth about the African-American
experience here, and you -- how did we get here? If we want to figure out how
to repair the wrong together, we have to go back and tell the story of what's
happened, so that we understand how we got here, so together we come up with
the right solution, Chris.
It would be inappropriate for me to mandate the solution.
This is something that we have to work through together, but there has --
that's why, when I was talking about the historically black colleges and
universities, there's a narrative there about why those schools are so
important. There's a narrative about how they've performed. There is a policy
that comes out of those truths that is inescapable.
And I believe -- look, the -- I'm not kidding about this
moral leadership. If you go back -- one of the things that's true. George W.
Bush got war powers to fight the war on terror that were virtually unlimited.
And it's turned out to be a big mistake. I think most people recognize that.
There are 435 congresspeople and 100 senators in the United
States; 434 congresspeople and 100 senators voted for that. One person voted
against it -- a black congresswoman from Oakland, Barbara Lee. It's not a
fluke. There has been moral leadership from African- Americans before Dr. King,
long before Dr. King, and after Dr. King's assassination....
There are parts of the African-American experience which
haven't been told. There also are parts of the immigrant experience which
haven't been told, as with the history of the American government
supporting dictators throughout the world, especially in this hemisphere. There
is also an untold story about how powerful corporate interests gained control
of the American economy from forces representing the public interest. That
has been particularly the case in the health care industry and has provided
impetus for single-payer health care, which Tom Steyer opposes.
The story of the African-American experience has been
inadequately told, as have so many other of our stories. However, at this
point, the American people have a reasonably good knowledge of the oppression
of black Americans. This pertains even to the number of whites who believe,
albeit absurdly, that election of a black man to the presidency in 2008 purged
the nation of the stain of discrimination and repression. Their duty done, many voters believed,
election of a white bigot in 2016 would be wholly acceptable.
If Steyer wants American history to be better told, perhaps
he should be a student of early 21st century history. President Bush was not given "war powers
to fight the war on terror that were virtually unlimited." He took them.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 authorized the President
"to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
such organizations or persons."
It permitted that specific President, and only to use force
against those involved in the attacks of 9/11/01. It was abused numerous times
by Presidents Bush and Obama and is a prime example of the dangerous expansion
of Executive power in the last few decades- and which has been spiraling out of
control in the Trump Administration.
Barbara Lee deserves credit for her vote. But she did not
cast it because she is black, nor did did the 35 other members of Congress who
are black who voted in favor of the resolution do it because of their race.
Neither Steyer's reference to Representative Lee's wise and courageous vote nor
the value of Historically Black Colleges and Universities constitutes a valid answer to a
question about reparations.
Tom Steyer himself might be the answer- but to no question
which ever has been posed or contemplated.
The Minnesota senator is too conservative for my tastes, andher vote for a controversial (anti-) Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions
demonstrated questionable judgment because of issues pertaining to free
speech. Nevertheless, she is correct
that
As staunch allies of Israel, we must also ensure that
harmful movements, like the resurgence in anti-Semitism and the Boycott
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement are not successful. The BDS movement
undermines a two-state solution and is counterproductive to both Israelis and Palestinians.
It appears unlikely that is an opinion shared by the leading
candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. And so it is that
As president, I will support the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians and do everything possible to bring peace and security to the region. 2/2
It's comforting to learn that the senator is not determined
to bring further war and insecurity to the
Middle East. However
his public refusal to attend last year’s conference early in
his bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination spurred a petition that urged other
presidential candidates to steer clear of the pro-Israel lobbying group’s event.
Things have changed since last year, but the senator from
Vermont on Sunday again denounced the conference, which he called a platform
for “leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.” In doing
so, Sanders has reignited the debate over the lobby’s influence in U.S.
politics, at a time when some detractors have compared his supporters and
campaign victories to the rise of the Nazis.
In response, AIPAC, which calls itself a “pro-Israel lobby”
and holds substantial sway in foreign policy debates involving Israel and the
Palestinian territories, described Sanders’s position on Sunday as “truly
shameful.”
“Sen. Sanders has never attended our conference and that is
evident from his outrageous comment,” AIPAC said in a tweet Sunday. “By
engaging in such an odious attack on this mainstream, bipartisan American
political event, Sen. Sanders is insulting his very own colleagues and the
millions of Americans who stand with Israel.”
AIPAC is not Republican or Democratic, nor does it support
Likud or any political party in Israel.
A year ago, it criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for forming
a coalition with three right-wing parties in order to remain in power. Probably more than anything else, it is mainstream.
Yet Bernard Sanders won't attend its conference this year,
just as he refused to do so last year.
He did, however, recently appear at a forum co-sponsored by Emgage and earned the endorsement of Emgage Action, which "calls itself the biggest
Muslim political action committee in the country."
Sanders may be emphasizing his support for Palestinian Arabs
over Palestinian Jews as a general election strategy (read:
"Michigan"). Or he actually
may want to restructure radically American policy in the Middle East.
The Vermont senator may expect his Jewish affiliation to
blunt or counter any charge that he does not support "the right of the
Israeli people to live in peace and security," a vague phrase meaning
nothing. But he is the clear
front-runner, and without a serious challenge- beginning at Tuesday's debate in Charleston, S.C.- obviously will sail to the
nomination. And for Amy Klobuchar, that
might mean confronting Sanders on his preferences in the Middle East. It's a
risky strategy, but for her at least there probably is no other.
Lamenting what he sees as Bernard Sanders' march to the Democratic presidential nomination, Chris Matthews goes on about Nazis, Jews, concentration camps, and the Holocaust. Beginning at 1:41 of the video below, he can be seen and heard remarking
That is the name of the game. It's pretty much over unless that changes. I was reading last night- Brian, I know because you're a history guy, too- I'm reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940. And the general, Renaud, calls up Churchill and says "it's over." And Churchill says "how can it be? You got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?" He said "It's over."
So I had that suppressed feeling. I can't be as wild as Carville but he's damn smart and I think he's damn right about this one."
You're reading that right. He said nothing about Jews; nothing about the Holocaust or concentration camps; nothing, even, about Nazis per se. As noted by one who likes Sanders, denigrates MSNBC, and despises the Democratic establishment (whatever there is left of it, anyway):
I dislike MSNBC's Chris Matthews but his use of the Maginot line as a metaphor was reasonable. It's probably the most famous military metaphor of bypassing fortified defenses in history.
However, that didn't stop numerous tweets accusing Matthews of anti-Semitism. One came from the communications director for the candidate, obviously feared by Matthews, whose surrogates include Ilhan Omar and a brazen anti-Semite.
never thought part of my job would be pleading with a national news network to stop likening the campaign of a jewish presidential candidate whose family was wiped out by the nazis to the third reich.
We can write this incident off as just another loathsome manifestation of cancel culture, the "you disagree with me, so just die" impulse. But it shouldn't be necessary for supporters of Bernard Sanders' candidacy to apply the religion (or ethnic or whatever is intended) card to an innocuous, perhaps clumsy, military reference.
Hopefully, this is merely a one-off from the Sanders campaign. Nonetheless, there you have it- a bigot in the White House, and an opposing campaign which may be gearing up to throw up some ugliness of its own.
