Good morning everyone! Happy Thursday to you!
Joining us for today's show, we have: John Heilemann, Mike Barnicle, Katty
Kay, Kasie Hunt, Amb. Peter Westmacott, Steve Rattner, Michael Crowley, Sen.
John McCain, Mike Lupica, Secy Sylvia Burwell, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robin
Wright, Sara Eisen, Biann Golodryga, Leigh Gallagher, Cindi Leive, Janice Min,
Rocco DiSpirito and more
Show starts off where we basically left off from yesterday about Marie
Harf’s statements about ISIS needing jobs in so many words. The (DC) Post seems
to have written an entire article about it. Actually, it’s the NY Times that
wrote the article. But even though ISIS may begin to target people ‘down on
their luck’ so to speak, that the people behind terrorism tend to be upper
middle classed people or even rich people. Joe mentions (Osama) Bin Laden which
we all know had boat loads of money. The Saudi Arabian Government one time
borrowed money from them which is how rich they were back in the day. I wrote
about that in my first book, Three Weeks In June. That family was basically in
Texas when 9/11 happened. And, we wisped them out y helicopter. But again, Marie
(Harf) is not saying we need a jobs program, she just said that is a long term
issue. And, that teaching people and I guess keeping one busy is a way to keep
people out of trouble. They say the same thing about people that do drugs. That
was an issue last week on Bill Maher’s show. That’s how I took it at least.
There is also an 8 minute documentary short about it on the NY Times web site.
Maybe I should grab it. I can’t find it so I am sorry and I must keep up today.
And, classic. The NY Posts front cover is with Obama with blind folds over his
eyes and the bi line reads ‘Islamic Terror? I Just Don’t See Ir.” Joe is
reconfirming his stance that it does not make sense that this admin wont make
that claim and even further is that Eric Holder double downed on that exact
message (or lack there of just yesterday. Its also reported that New England
does NOT want the Olympics in Boston and all over that region because they would
need to build things we do NOT need. I have always wondered why that happens and
I always wondered why we can’t build things that we would need per se, but that
could also be used for those Olympic games, That never made sense to me. I get
that in Russia and China where they had nothing and they merely built things for
the hell of it that will never get used ever again, but that is Russia and
China. They are countries all about show and nothing else. But I get that
mentality. The panel and Joe is basically saying what I am saying here by giving
samples of cities that it makes sense and ones that it did nothing by having the
Olympics. I guess if you want to put your city and country on the map to show
off to the world, its maybe good for it. But otherwise, it’s a cluster fuck
which is what (Mike) Barnicle states in his words. Mika says that “she loves
Boston” but that’s not the point. Besides, I hate Boston. Take no offense please
but its always so congested when I see shows there and its cold and windy
because of the way its situated off the bay.
Anyway, I have so much to do do this week and over the weekend. Maryland
p[lays Nebraska in hoop tonight at 7 P.M. in College Park. And, I dunno. Lots of
work to get done this week/weekend.
The main worldwide news stories so far today is that Libya is urging the
United Nations Leaders to lift its arms embargo to it so they can ‘tackle’ ISIS.
I am on the fence with that one although so long as they can’t carry out
terrorist acts with them (i.e.: like when they blow up planes, etc.), we may
need to allow it and my point is that most war weaponry cannot be used to random
blow up people or to blow up planes today. That’s all hidden and in lots of
cases, homemade devices..
Plus, the NY Post also reports that the lead executioner that killed the 45
Christian Egyptians on Monday could be an American. That’s would be
insane.
Richard Engle is reporting that the government in Italy is deploying 5,000
of its soldiers on the streets because of fears that country could be the next
in any random Islamic attack. (Richard) Engle also plays the sound of what
sounds like an American guy during those beheadings this week but it also sounds
a bit off. I am not sure if that guy is a true American (well we know it would
not be a true American beheading people but you know what I mean). He has a
towel over his mouth and that accent on that vocal pattern seems a bit altered.
I dunno.
Oh Wow. The panel is running with my views on how to deal and yet they are
expanding on it in that sense that we could block off roads around certain
cities. We could cut off oil pipelines. I never thought about starving them out
those ways. that’s brilliant. Its also a way to get the locals to help because
they would need to live using those resources.
Obama spoke about the ISIS extremist calling them terrorists and not
Islamic extremists. He says people are responsible for terrorism. He says that
religious or religion does not create terrorists although what did he say again
at the prayer breakfast about religious groups killing mass amounts of people in
genocides? I guess its not terrorism by todays definition of it, but it kind of
is the same thing to kill random people for the hell of it or for some reason
beyond the likes of me.
And, interesting. A White House press person (Ed Henry) asked josh Ernest
(White House Press rep) about why it did not identify the 45 Christians from
Egypt as Christian and yet did in the North Carolina shooting incident. He (Josh
Ernest) dodged the question in his answer reply.
On a more local note, Jeb Bush has started to lay out his plan if he became
the POTUS. He literally spoke about the mistakes made when entering our past
couple of wars. that’s amazing to hear from the likes of him. (Jeb) Bush
revealed his strategy for dealing with the polarizing foreign policy legacy of
his brother: Make a quick declaration of independence then pivot to a searing
attack on the failings abroad of President Barack Obama. "I love my father and
my brother. I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions
they had to make," Bush said Wednesday in Chicago during the first major foreign
policy speech of his prospective Republican presidential campaign. "But I am my
own man." The appearance offered Bush a chance to show how he will balance a
desire not to dismiss George W. Bush's presidency while insulating himself from
Democratic attempts to paint him as a clone of the man who led the nation into a
bloody, prolonged era of foreign wars. Bush did concede that the previous Bush
administration made "a mistake" by not providing security for Iraqis in the wake
of the U.S. invasion in 2003. But he also argued that his brother's surge
strategy forged political stability in Iraq that Obama squandered in his
eagerness to get American troops home.
It's too early to tell whether Bush's appearance answered the key question
facing his campaign: Can a third man with the name "Bush" win the presidency in
a nation exhausted by war and suspicious of dynasties? But his message seemed
clearly tailored towards the activist base of the Republican Party, which likes
its foreign policy hawkish, and has significant doubts about Bush on issues
including immigration reform and education which could hamper his chances of
winning the primary race. Democrats quickly tried to stamp out any progress Bush
had made with the wider electorate which he would ask to entrust him with U.S.
national security if he becomes the GOP nominee. "Today, Jeb Bush made his first
foray into explaining and attempting to recast his foreign policy," said DNC
spokeswoman Holly Shulman. "But despite Jeb Bush's claim that he will be his
'own man', there is little evidence that Jeb Bush's foreign policy agenda is
much different than his brother's." She added: "Embracing decisions that made
the world more dangerous, and then trying to shift the blame -- that's the Jeb
Bush Doctrine." Bush is not the first presidential candidate forced to
differentiate himself from a powerful predecessor in a desire to strike out on
his own. Vice President Al Gore famously declared he was his "own man" as he
tried to shuffle out of the shadow of Bill Clinton's impeachment shame in 2000.
Obama jabbed Hillary Clinton in 2008 over her famous husband's intervention in
the campaign, saying he could not sometimes tell who he was running
against.
She responded: "I'm here. He's not."
Bush is a more cerebral, cautious character than his brother and his speech
lacked the bristling rhetoric of George W. Bush which Democrats often decried as
a symptom of cowboy diplomacy. But the hawkish global vision he laid out sat
squarely in the muscular foreign policy that has dominated the Republican Party
since his brother went on the offensive following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Bush made a case that Obama was being misled by Iran on nuclear talks, said the
president had been too soft on Russia, sided with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu in the row over his address to Congress and condemned the
administration's opening to Cuba. He said Obama's failure to do a deal to keep
U.S. troops in Iraq created a "void" exploited by extremists. "This
administration talks, but the words fade," Bush said. "They draw red lines, and
then erase them. With grandiosity they announce resets and then disengage.
Hashtag campaigns replace actual diplomacy and engagement."
This is going to be a primary season starting next year. I cannot wait for
it.
BTW, I had no clue that Kelly O’Donnell was a CBS News person. I assumed
she was on NBC. I happened to see her on that (CBS) Morning Show this AM. So, is
that Gayle woman whom I recognize but I cant think of her name. I thought that
Gayle woman was some Oprah crony and worked with her on that channel. She may be
that one from the old Oprah show. Did Oprah have a side kick? I never saw her
show.
I agree with Joe’s view about Jeb (Bush). He did not do anything in Florida
that was ideological because as Governor, he did not take chances (aside from
when he got his brother elected in 90 although one can argue that was him
setting things up in ways where no chances were taken and that they got him in
to that spot big time). He did what worked. He was not caught up in letting
people saw to deal in ways that based on ideology.
Lots of women are on the show today (Robin Wright, Sara Eisen, Biann
Golodryga, Leigh Gallagher, Cindi Leive, Janice Min). Including Robin Wright to
I guess talk about the release of HOC (House of Cards) where one of my artists
were/was mentioned in an episode from the last season (http://sunsetpicturesstudio.wix.com/main#!charts--placements/c62r).
And, great. The NY Times is reporting that in ten states, their law makers
want to allow guns on campus as a way to deter rapists. Many argue it would help
prevent not only rape, but also mass shootings. Fundamentally, this is an
asinine issue. There should be no mass shootings and no rapists. Start and stop
there. There needs to better security which is what Mika says to do. And,
remember Joe, hunters from Alabama are the problem. They are NOT the freaks that
go out abusing their privileges to have a gun. They use it to hunt for food,
etc. People that respect guns, do not need to have them to stop rapists. We need
better education and better security to stop random shootings and random rapes
and most of all, we need to keep guns out of people that are kooks. That’s the
fundamental issue. I lost track of that here. Keep guns out of peoples
hands.
Two things I heard on CBS News today and that Mika and Joe are going over
now is the lost (or found) Dr. Seuss book that I guess is being released soon
and that Norm McDonald tweeted that Eddie Murphy did not want to do a sketch
poking fun at Bill Cosby. His claim was that it is not right to kick a person
when they are down and I agree. besides, nothing has really been 150% proven
even though we know what went down in those casting couch situations. But I like
that (Eddie) Murphy refused to do it. I think Norma said that too in that tweet.
The panel did not make an opinion about it today.
And, Oh. Politico’s writer wrote about defeating ISIS is gonna take what
Joe said today. Which is to cut them off like we said. We should have bombed the
hell out of the oil pipelines. I agree. Why do we allow them to pull oil out of
the ground so they can sell it. Plus, we should tell the countries to stop
buying it and to stop allowing the sale of it. That’s a no brainer. Joes says we
should blow it up and Katty Kay asks if we can do it. And, I am like hell yeah
we can. Blow it the fuck up like they did in that James Bond film (the one with
Denise Richards in it). Turkey needs to get off their ass. The leader of turkey
is an idiot. He criticized what went down in North Carolina but yet he allows
what goes down in ISIS in that country and in the neighboring countries. He’s a
tool. He’s an idiot. As Joe says, he’s a disgrace and Katty makes the point that
the leader has an election coming up soon and he is pandering to that base.
(Mike) Barnicle responds by say saying ‘some base’ and I agree while I laughed
at that funny one liner.
The British ambassador is on now. Peter Westmacott is discussing the summit
which is all smoke and mirrors as we know about any summit. John Kerry is at it.
Mika asks about the wording and you know something, this guy has a great point
about referring to them Islamic anything. In that they are not true Islam's and
we should never dignify it by using that term. Even with the word terrorist in
the same sentence. I see that counterpoint now. I actually agree with it now
that I have heard it that way. Very interesting.
BTW, I wrote this yesterday about the Think Progress article posted by Jack
Jenkins. Did you guys see it?
On Monday, The Atlantic unveiled a new feature piece entitled “What ISIS Really Wants,” and we displayed on the Morning Joe Recap Show!
However, 'Think Progress' (Jack Jenkins) wrote today that "What The Atlantic Gets Dangerously Wrong About ISIS AndIslam" (Here is that link BTW, to the article and to the discussion about it)
On Monday, The Atlantic unveiled a new feature piece by Graeme Wood entitled “What ISIS Really Wants,” which claims to expose the foundational theology of the terror group ISIS, also called the Islamic State, which has waged a horrific campaign of violence across Iraq, Syria, and Libya over the past year. The article is deeply researched, and makes observations about the core religious ideas driving ISIS — namely, a dark, bloodthirsty theology that revolves around an apocalyptic narrative in which ISIS’s black-clad soldiers believe they are playing a pivotal role. Indeed, CNN’sPeter Bergen published a similar article the next day detailing ISIS’s obsession with the end times, and cited Wood as an “excellent” source, citing a passage from his article with the kicker “Amen to that.”
Despite this, Wood’s article has encountered staunch criticism and derision from many Muslims and academics who study Islam. After the article was posted online, Islamic studies Facebook pages and listserves were reportedly awash with comments from intellectuals blasting the article as, among other things, “quite shocking.” The core issue, they say, is that Wood appears to have fallen prey to an inaccurate trope all too common in many Western circles: that ISIS is an inevitable product of Islam, mainly because the Qur’an and other Islamic texts contain passages that support its horrific acts.
In his article, Wood acknowledged that most Muslims don’t support ISIS, as the sheer number of Muslim groups who have disavowed the terrorist organization or declared it unIslamic is overwhelming. Yet he repeatedly hints that non-literal Islamic arguments against the terrorist group are useless because justifications for violence are present in texts Muslims hold sacred.
“…simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate’s practices written plainly within them.” Wood writes. “Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet.”
[Wood’s comments] create the [impression] that Islam is literalistic, backward-minded, and kind of arcane or archaic, and we’ve moved past that narrative.
Although Wood qualifies his claim by pointing briefly to the theological diversity within Islam, Islam scholars argue that he glosses over one of the most important components of any faith tradition: interpretation. Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, Professor of Islam and Ministry at Union Theological Seminary in New York, told ThinkProgress that Wood’s argument perpetuates the false idea that Islam is a literalistic tradition where violent texts are taken at face value.
“That’s very problematic to anyone who spends any of their time dealing with the diversity of interpretations around texts,” Lamptey said. “Texts have never been only interpreted literally. They have always been interpreted in multiple ways — and that’s not a chronological thing, that’s been the case from the get-go … [Wood’s comments] create the [impression] that Islam is literalistic, backward-minded, and kind of arcane or archaic, and we’ve moved past that narrative.”
Lamptey also said that Wood’s argument overlooks other Quranic verses that, if taken literally, would contradict ISIS’s actions because “they promote equality, tolerance.” She pointed to surah 22:39-40 in the Qur’an, which connects the permission for war with the need to protect the houses of worship of other religions — something ISIS, which hasdestroyed several Christian churches, clearly ignores.
“ISIS exegetes these verses away I am sure, but that’s the point,” she said. “It’s not really about one perspective being literal, one being legitimate, one ignoring things…it’s about diverse interpretations. But alternative ones tend to not gain any footing with this kind of black-and-white rhetoric. It completely delegitimizes them.”
Wood, of course, didn’t accidentally invent the idea that violent passages in Islamic texts make the religion especially prone to violence, or that ISIS’s supposedly Islamic nature is evidence of deeper issues within the tradition. These concepts have been around for some time, but are becoming increasingly popular among two groups that usually find themselves ideologically opposed — namely, right-wing conservatives and the so-called “New Atheists,” a subset of atheism in the West. Leaders from both camps have pointed to violent passages in the Qur’an as evidence that Islam is a ticking time bomb. Rev. Franklin Graham, son of famous evangelist Billy Graham, has regularly attacked Islam using this logic, and recently responded to questions about the Qur’an on Fox News by saying that Islam “is not a religion of peace” but a “violent form of faith.” Similarly, talk show host and outspoken atheist Bill Maher sparred with Charlie Rose last September over ISIS, saying that people who disavow the group as unIslamic ignore the supposed “connecting tissue” between ISIS and the rest of Islam, noting “The Qur’an absolutely has on every page stuff that’s horrible about how the infidels should be treated.”
It is perhaps for this reason that Fox News and several other conservative outlets fawned over Wood’s article after it was published, as did prominent “New Atheists” Sam Harrisand Richard Dawkins.
In a way, I think, he is unintentionally promoting ISIS and doing public relations for ISIS.
But while these positions are widespread, Lamptey noted that they are also potentially dangerous because they play directly into ISIS’s plans. By suggesting that Islam is ultimately beholden to specific literal readings of texts, Lamptey said Wood and other pundits inadvertently validate ISIS’s voice.
“[Wood’s position] confirms exactly what people like ISIS want people to think about them, which is that they are the only legitimate voice,” she said. “It echoes that rhetoric 100%. Yes, that is what ISIS says about themselves, but it is a different step to say ‘Yes, that is true about the Islamic tradition and all Muslims.’”
Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed a similar sentiment in an interview with Raw Story on Tuesday. He argued that in addition to Wood’s piece being “full of factual mistakes,” its de facto endorsement of literalistic Quranic interpretations amounts to an advertisement for ISIS’s horrific theology.
“Scholars who study Islam, authorities of Islamic jurisprudence, are telling ISIS that they are wrong, and Mr. Wood knows more than what they do, and he’s saying that ISIS is Islamic?” Awad said. “I don’t think Mr. Wood has the background or the scholarship to make that dangerous statement, that historically inaccurate statement. In a way, I think, he is unintentionally promoting ISIS and doing public relations for ISIS.”
Awad also noted that Wood used “jihad” and “terrorism” interchangeably, which implicitly endorses ISIS’s argument that their savage practices (terrorism) are a spiritually justified religious duty (jihad). In addition, there is a major issue with Wood’s offhand reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as “the first caliph in generations”: although a caliphate can be established by force, a caliph, by definition, implies the majority support of Muslims (which ISIS does not have) and caliphates are historically respectful of other religious traditions (which ISIS certainly is not).
Lamptey also noted that Wood’s position is demeaning, because it renders invisible the overwhelming majority of Muslims whose theologies rebuke violent atrocities. Among other things, Wood’s piece extensively quotes Bernard Haykel, a Princeton scholar the journalist relies on heavily throughout the article, who says Muslim leaders who condemn ISIS as unIslamic are typically “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion.” This stands in stark contrast to the bold statements from respected Muslim scholars all over the globe challenging ISIS’s Islamic claims, and Lamptey says such comments can be read by many Muslims as having their peaceful devotion to their own religion second-guessed by people who believe they’re simply “overlooking things.”
“[Wood and others think Moderate Muslims] they’re not ‘real’ Muslims, but ‘partial’ Muslims, or even apostate,” she said. “The majority of [Muslims] do not subscribe to [ISIS’s] view of their religion. But they do subscribe to the idea of emulating the Prophet Muhammad, upholding the text, and upholding the tradition, but come up with very different end points about what that looks like.”
“It’s not like these Muslims are ‘kind-of Muslims.’ They’re Muslims who are committed to the prophetic example in the texts and the Qur’an,” she added.
Other Islam scholars say this narrative breeds suspicion of Muslims as a whole. Mohammad Fadel, Associate Professor & Toronto Research Chair for the Law and Economics of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto, told ThinkProgress that these arguments entertain the notion that all Muslims are just one literal reading away from becoming terrorists.
“There already is the background … that stresses the idea that Muslims lie about what they believe,” Fadel told ThinkProgress. “That they really have these dark ambitions, but they just suppress them because of their own strategic purposes of conquest. They pretend to be nice. They pretend to be sympathetic to liberal values, but as soon as they get the chance, they’re going to enslave us all. The idea here is that they’re all potential followers of ISIS.”
“On first reading [Wood’s article] seemed to suggest that a committed Muslim should be sympathetic to ISIS, and protestations to the contrary either are the result of ignorance or the result of deception.” he said. “That’s not helpful, and potentially very dangerous.”
Granted, Fadel and Lamptey agreed that a discussion of ISIS’s apocalyptic theology is important, and were hesitant to single out Haykel. But they remained deeply concerned about the popularity of Wood’s framing, and challenged his assertion that ISIS is a “very Islamic” institution that is somehow representative of the global Muslim community.
“Yes, [ISIS is] Islamic in that they use Islamic sources to justify all their actions,” Fadel said. “But I think the question that bothers most Muslims is the idea that just because someone says they are Muslim or that their actions are representative of Islam doesn’t make it so. Just because a group can appropriate Islamic sources and Islamic symbols, and then go around doing all sorts of awful things, doesn’t mean that they get to be the ones who define for the world what Islam means.”
“Muslims who reject ISIS aren’t doing it because they’re bad Muslims. They just have a compelling version of Islam that they think is much better.”
The American Sniper trial story is up next. I just realized that I also saw
on CBS News today already that the girlfriend, the sister and some friend or
some other dude spoke about the guy that killed Chris Kyle (and Chad
Littlefield). They are trying to convince the jury that the murdered is insane.
The thing is if you hear the police Q&A with the murderer, the killer at
first was out of it, but he did make no bones about knowing what he did
although, he seemed delusional in that sense that he thought he would be able to
enter back into that community. But the testimony's by these families and by the
girlfriend were that the guy was insane. The way they spoke about him does make
him seem like he was off his meds. I assume giving him life and not the death
penalty is the way to go. Whether we keep him in some mental behavior structure
or in some prison structure, he cannot be allowed to enter that/our society ever
again. I am sorry. he shot two people in cold blood for whatever reason. That’s
lethal to the rest of us and we cannot have it. I get that he should not get the
death penalty. But then again, I am against all death penalty actions and feel
the USA should not have it in that part of the criminal justice system. First,
second and third, the longer you keep people in prisons, the more money those
private owners of those private prisons can make for its shareholders. They
should stop shooting themselves in the feet in that regard and they should look
at that as a gift horse in the mouth to throw out twoc clichés in one sentence.
Keeping people people alive in prisons makes other people lots of money and
then in turn makes the state money which in turn makes the USA gain monies (with
taxation). By killing anyone off, you stop that flow of money. So aside from the
moral issues with regard to the death penalty and having it as part of any
states criminal justice systems, its stupid from a money making POV.
The panel is back with Michael Crowley.
BTW, Mika’s dad (Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski) is also on today (I assume to
discuss the Ukraine / Russia pseudo cease fire that’s not really a cease
fire)
There are also reports of more bombings this morning at some ISIS
targets.
Also BTW, what Joe says about the legacy's of the next Presidential
candidates but are we going to care more about what Jeb’s (Bush) brother and dad
compared to what Hilary did as the head of the Sate department? That’s not a
true analogy now that I wrote about it. The analogy would be are we going
compare what the Bush family did vs. say what Bill (Clinton) did but regardless
of that alone, I do NOT think Hilary looked that bad in the public eye. for what
she did in that seat. Also, what Michael Crowley is also true in that Jeb
‘putted’ through that real issue even though I think and wrote that it was cool
that he acknowledges the mistakes made by his brother when he was POTUS. I did
not think of it as being basic. I thought of it as being the first time he ever
admitted to it. That entire family and (Dick) Cheney too say they would not have
changed a thing today knowing what went down. Which is astounding and that is
delusion too. Just fixed delusion compared to the one by the murder even though
there can be an argument that Cheney and Bush Jr. have lots of blood on their
hands. Its just different when its done their ways compared to say walking right
up to someone with a gun and shooting them dead. I also compared that scenario
in my first book (Three Weeks In June).
Jeb also did not answer the question as to what we do about the Middle East
situation. According to (Michael) Crowley, his (Jeb Bush) was elementary and I
saw his answer being kind of just saying any criticism about the POTUS
administration. I heard three talking points in his answers.
The panel (John Heilemann) makes another great point in that it has to be
hard to push someone away while you have to embrace them to paraphrase what they
said exactly and also (John) Heilemann is correct that in the election process,
he is just going to be asked point blank, ‘was going into Iraq a mistake’ and
you can’t really be side stepping that yes or no answer with false intelligence
answers, etc. besides too, it (false intelligence) was all done under his
brothers watch anyway. It’s the lesser of two evils.
We have been stating many times that the middle east is a mess...That we
for the most part created....
And gee folks, John McCain is now. I wonder what his idea is about the
Middle East issue. I am not even writing what he says because we know his deal.
More boots on the ground. Arm everyone. And, more of everything when it comes to
the military push, and of course that we need to deal sooner than we are doing
anything now. Blah, Blah, Blah. I think he just said that we have to train the
people in Iran. Wasn’t it him that sung the parody of that popular song by
saying ‘bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.” His ideas are the same ones I said in my
writings all week. More Boots on the Ground. Eliminate the leader in Syria. More
Special Ops people, recruit other Arab nation to fight there too, and coordinate
all of that with air strikes. We also know that we will need more than say air
strikes to win vs. ISIS. that’s been determined 88 times over so thanks for
saying what we said 500 times. He just loves the fact this has turned a bi
partisan corner. Anyway, I have to stop listening to him. Same shit, different
day.
And, the biggest non story of this day is the handwriting analysis done
with A-Rod’s (Alex Rodriquez) letter he wrote this week. They said it looked
like a girls handwriting. What the hell does that mean. I guess (Mike) Lupica
has a book being released soon or it could already be in stores (The Only Game).
His book sounds like a real life and worse version of that movie The Judge in
many ways. Not really because this book is about a kid who’s friend dies and he
quits playing baseball but then takes a kid that is being bullied, and trains
him to be a ball player of some sort. Or, maybe a great athlete. I wonder if its
fiction or real.
I am not sure why or what it is, but can care less about the subject matter
that is about Obamacare.
I am into what the good doctor has to say about world affairs. Dr. Zbigniew
Brzezinski and oh shit, wrong Robin Wright that I spoke about today. Oops. What
an idiot I am because this is Robin Wright, the Joint fellow at the Institute of
Peace’s Wilson center of America or something close to what I just said. They
are actually discussing ISIS and not Russia/Ukraine. After hearing Jon McCain
saying that we need 10K troops on the ground, Mika’s dad (Dr. Zbigniew
Brzezinski) asks the world to enter these decisions in a way where have to
approach the issue with an understanding of its historical value. because a
consequence that is easy is that we chance becoming the number one enemy which I
assumed we already are their number one enemy. He says the worst thing we can do
is to become the sole country against ISIS and that we must work with the
regions around it (ISIS). But like I said yesterday or today is that problem is
that there is a civil war within a civil war in every one of those middle east
countries. That’s why in my eyes, its tricky. Robin Wright says about it that we
need to figure out how we will work the border areas because of these fights
within the fights as I say. That’s one of the issues we face. She also says this
is a much huger issue than what we just said. And, that its not only about a
religious belief, that it’s a political belief. I agree. She says what I said
about Syria has a three wars within that country. She also states that this is
going to be a long war and our political ramifications could feasibly take a hit
by keeping us in or talking us out. I say that is true. We are dammed if we do
like with Georgie Bush Jr and we are damned if we don’t like we saw with the
current admin (Bush Jr. is criticized for talking us into it and Obama is
criticized for taking us out of it).
Great Discussion but nada about the Ukraine/Russia so called cease fire.
Interesting. They did touch into Israel and made perfect points about it. They
talked Egypt which is spot on and they gave their views on Nettenyahu being
invited to speak to the congress. Which also was correct.
After the market report today, it looks like the women are up on the panel.
I assume we are talking about how great women are as CEO’s. I maintain that
these women are smart, successful and hot. Good for them. Actually, I stand
correct. They are talking big business and leaders in general. This one woman
giving amazing points about the landscape of global business leaders is beyond
beautiful (I think it must be Biann Golodryga). Jeez. Women are mazing. I Love
You Women (In that Ann Romney Voc). Now two more women are on the show to
discuss the Oscars which I guess is this weekend. I have NOT seen any of the
movies up for anything, except for American Sniper. I have not seen Birdman or
that Julienne Moore film she was in but I met her in like 1997 at Sundance in
Utah. I never saw Boyhood. I’ll let everyone talk without my comments. Have fun
with the Oscar Awards this weekend. Although I will chime into say that Patricia
Arquette and /or no women or no one needs plastic surgery (unless they get hurt
in some way and need to revamp that part of their body) in general, but
also, she is one of my favorite Indie Films (that I also saw first at Sundance
back in the 90s) called ‘Flirting With Disaster.’
Anyway everyone. have phun and stay in touch please!
PS: No wonder that one women is super hot. She is from TX. Every chick from
TX is hotter than the next one.
