| March 3, 2015 | |
 |  |
|
|
|
|
Even before Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress at 11:00 am ET, we can tell you where it has already succeeded and where it has already failed. The success: With the build-up and controversy surrounding the speech, Netanyahu has ensured that security and Iran are his closing arguments in his election that's two weeks from now. Those are the issues that are in his and his party's (Likud) wheelhouse. The failure: Netanyahu's address to Congress hasn't had an impact on the nuclear deal the United States is trying to strike with Iran. Indeed, the administration had a real concern that Congress would pass additional sanctions that could thwart any deal with Iran. But after the Democratic anger over Netanyahu's scheduled address, key Dems like Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Bob Menendez said he would give the administration until March 24 before voting for new sanctions. And you could argue that the controversy over the speech has made it LESS LIKELY that Netanyahu will be able to influence the Obama administration over the negotiations. Bottom line: The speech, even before it's given, has probably been a boon to Netanyahu's domestic politics. But if the goal was to influence the Obama administration, well, that's been a failure.
Deal or No Deal?
The political controversy over Netanyahu's address to Congress at 11:00 am ET has overshadowed a much more significant policy issue -- whether striking a nuclear deal with Iran is a good thing or a bad thing. Here's the Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg arguing the bad-thing case: "The deal that seems to be taking shape right now does not fill me-or many others who support a diplomatic solution to this crisis-with confidence. Reports suggest that the prospective agreement will legitimate Iran's right to enrich uranium... ; it will allow Iran to maintain many thousands of operating centrifuges; and it will lapse after 10 or 15 years, at which point Iran would theoretically be free to go nuclear. (The matter of the sunset clause worries me, but I'm more worried that the Iranians will find a way to cheat their way out of the agreement even before the sun is scheduled to set.) On the good-thing side, here's the Washington Post's David Ignatius: "The administration's response is that the agreement is better than any realistic alternative. Officials argue it would put the Iranian program in a box, with constraints on all the pathways to making a bomb. Perhaps more important, it would provide strict monitoring and allow intrusive inspection of Iranian facilities - not just its centrifuges but its uranium mines, mills and manufacturing facilities. If Iran seeks a covert path to building a bomb, the deal offers the best hope of detecting it. If the current talks collapsed, all these safeguards would disappear."
A fundamental question: Is the U.S. willing to go to war over Iran's nuclear capabilities?
In other words, this all comes to down to: Is the West's emerging deal with Iran going to give Iran -- sometime in the future -- a way to build nuclear weapons? Or is that nuclear capacity almost already there, and a deal is the best way to monitor Iran's capabilities? And here is a much more fundamental question to ask: After Iraq, Afghanistan, and rise of ISIS, is the United States willing to go to war against Iran over its nuclear capabilities? In his interview with Reuters, President Obama still wasn't bullish on striking a deal with Iran. "I would say that it's probably still more likely than not that Iran doesn't get to yes. But I think in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators. And they've got their own politics inside of Iran. It is more likely that we could get a deal now than perhaps three or five months ago. But there are still some big gaps that have to be filled."
At least 47 Democrats to boycott Netanyahu's speech, while Republicans roll out the red carpet
As for the politics surrounding Netanyahu's speech, NBC's Capitol Hill team reports that at least 47 Democrats (eight senators and 39 House members) have said they won't attend the speech. On the other hand, House Speaker John Boehner has rolled out the red carpet for Netanyahu in this video: "America's bond with Israel is stronger than the politics of the moment," Boehner says to the camera. "This is an important message at an important time, and the Prime Minister is the perfect person to deliver it. So I hope you plan on watching."
The Hillary Emails
Our biggest takeaway from the New York Times report that Hillary Clinton used a PERSONAL email while conducting OFFICIAL business as secretary of state is that it plays into the narrative that the Clintons are secretive, prefer hiding rather than sunlight, and are always looking to skirt the rules. "Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act," the Times says. "It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton's advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary's post in early 2013."
Team Clinton's response
Per NBC's Kristen Welker, Clinton's office has this response: "Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained. When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes. Both the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved. As a result of State's request for our help to make sure they in fact were, that is what happened here. As the Department stated, it is in the process of updating its record preservation policies to bring them in line with its retention responsibilities." In addition, we can tell you that Clinton allies are telling reporters that Jeb Bush hasn't turned over ALL of his emails; that Scott Walker had his own private email communications network, and that former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also didn't have a government email. But do other wrongs make a right here?
Don't forget about the DHS story
Given all of the other political stories out there (Netanyahu, the Clinton emails, the Supreme Court and Obamacare), don't forget about the still-ongoing battle over DHS spending, which expires on Friday. Roll Call: "Facing the prospect of Democrats forcing a vote on a "clean" Department of Homeland Security funding bill, conservatives are calling on House Republicans to adopt a resolution blocking the legislative maneuver. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, released a statement Monday following a Roll Call story laying out how Democrats could use House rules to get a vote on the Senate-passed DHS funding bill - the one that doesn't block President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration and funds the agency through Sept. 30."
A potential free-for-all in Maryland
Lastly, Sen. Barbara Mikulski's retirement creates the real possibility that you're going to have a BIG Democratic free-for-all for the Senate seat. An aide to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) says he's "very likely to run," per NBC's Alex Moe. There's Rep. Donna Edwards. There's Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. And a host of others. Of course, we all thought the open California Senate seat would produce a free-for-all, too, but so far it looks like a coronation for Kamala Harris. And get this: Earlier this morning, we learned that former Gov. Martin O'Malley WILL NOT run for the Senate seat.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails. Check us out on Facebook and also onTwitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @carrienbcnews
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
OBAMA AGENDA: An always complicated relationship hits bottom
"Relations between the United States and Israel have always been a bit complicated and combative, especially involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," as one of us wrote. "During the later 1980s, George H.W. Bush's secretary of state, James Baker, barred Netanyahu from the State Department after he criticized the United States. In 1996, President Bill Clinton had his share of frustration. 'Who's the f@%&-ing superpower here?' the former president reportedly told aides after first meeting Netanyahu, who was then serving his first stint as Israeli prime minister."
"But with Netanyahu set to address Congress on Tuesday - without first notifying the Obama White House - and with him likely to criticize the Obama administration's nuclear talks with Iran, it's hard to remember a time when relations have been worse between the two countries."
NBC's Andrew Rafferty previews Netanyahu's speech, noting that at least 40 Democrats plan to skip it.
The New York Times reports on how disagreement over the semantics of a nuclear Iran became a chasm between Obama and Netanyahu.
In an interview with Reuters yesterday, Obama said: ""If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist ... if we've got that, and we've got a way of verifying that, there's no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don't have a nuclear weapon."
How hard is it to get tickets to the speech? Via the New York Times: "If Taylor Swift and Katy Perry did a joint concert at Madison Square Garden wearing white-and-gold and black-and-blue dresses, accompanied by dancing sharks and llamas, that's the only way you'd have a tougher ticket," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner."
The Obamas are announcing a new initiative focusing on girls' education around the world.
Perry Bacon Jr. notes that Obama's policing task force didn't embrace the most controversial proposed reforms.
The AFL-CIO has released a new letter signed by major union leaders opposing fast track trade promotion authority, calling it "an undemocratic, unaccountable and completely unacceptable way to develop economic policies that afffect us all."
CONGRESS: Jamming Boehner
Senate Democrats blocked Republicans' efforts to start negotiations on a DHS funding bill that includes immigration members, essentially booting the issue back to the House.
American Action Network is airing an ad targeting House conservatives to urge them to pass a clean DHS bill.
NBC's Leigh Ann Caldwell and Kelly O'Donnell report on Sen. Barbara Mikulski's retirement -- and the line of Democrats who might try to replace her. (And Martin O'Malley is out with a statement this morning saying that he WON'T pursue the seat.)
House Speaker John Boehner's office is promoting a new video to preview Netanyahu's speech, saying that "America's bond with Israel is stronger than the politics of the moment."
OFF TO THE RACES: The Hillary Emails
BUSH: From the Las Vegas Review Journal: "Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday told a crowd of about 400 people in Las Vegas that he applies conservative values - not just talks about them - as he seriously considers a run for president in 2016."
CARSON: He's officially created an exploratory committee, the Wall Street Journal reports.
CHRISTIE: Allies of Chris Christie are holding their first event for bundlers on March 16.
CLINTON: Breaking last night in the New York Times: " Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record. Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act."
POLITICO makes this point: "Clinton, backed by Cheryl Mills, her most trusted adviser, has bucked the advice of many top Democrats - former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe personally urged her to staff up late last year - by pushing the hiring of many key staffers into the spring, until after her formal declaration. That has left Clinton, a defense-minded politician who coined the term "War Room," without a rapid response team to offer robust explanations to reporters probing the fundraising and management practices of her family's foundation - or even to muster an organized corps of surrogates to get out the talking points."
GRAHAM: Lindsey Graham (with Sheldon Adelson in tow) is hosting a speech-watching fundraiser today at the Capitol Hill Club.
He's heading to New Hampshire next week for Politics and Eggs.
PERRY: Austin Barbour (nephew of Haley) will run Perry's super PAC, per the NYT.
WARREN: Elizabeth Warren is skipping Netanyahu's speech, the Boston Globe reports.
PROGRAMMING NOTES.
*** Tuesday's "News Nation with Tamron Hall" line-up: Tamron Hall speaks with Rep Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Washington Post Columnist Eugene Robinson, and Senior Washington Correspondent Anna Palmer about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressing Congress, and USA Today Reporter Anna Arutunyan about the death of Boris Nemtov.
*** Tuesday's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" line-up: NBC's Andrea Mitchell will anchor from Capitol Hill for Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech. Her guests include Senator Angus King, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, Former Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and Ruth Marcus and NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O'Donnell. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
The Obama administration has rejected some of the most controversial proposals to reform law enforcement practices in the wake of police killings of unarmed black men in Missouri and New York City, opting instead for more modest ideas.
In a report released Monday, Obama's task force on police reform did not embrace proposed policies like requiring police officers to wear body cameras or linking federal funding for local police departments to requirements all of their officers undergo racial bias training.
The 11-person task force, chaired by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey and Laurie Robinson, a professor of criminology at George Mason University, instead recommended less sweeping changes.
Its "overarching recommendation" was for Obama to create a so-called National Crime and Justice Task Force to suggest more ideas. The report also urged, as civil rights leaders have long demanded, that police departments collect more precise data about the race and other demographic characteristics of people who are stopped and arrested.
The most controversial idea in the report may be a call for independent prosecutors to investigate whenever an officer kills a civilian while on duty.
Civil rights groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have been calling for more aggressive policing changes, such as reducing the use of military-style weapons by local police departments and ending "broken windows" policing approaches. The report did not explicitly embrace either idea.
Even as police departments and civil rights groups around the country have embraced body cameras, the report cast their adoption as "complex," noting there are concerns about privacy and cost. The report also said police departments should create advisory groups that include citizens to look at how new technology that might affect policing.
"There are a lot of expenses associated with this technology," Ramsey said in a conference call on Monday, referring to body cameras.
Obama appointed the task force, but he does not have to adopt its recommendations and in many cases can't, as most policing in America is done at the local and state level. In comments on Monday, he praised some of the ideas in the report.
"A lot of our work is going to involve local police chiefs, local elected officials, states recognizing that the moment is now for us to make these changes. We have a great opportunity, coming out of some great conflict and tragedy, to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations so that everybody feels safer and our law enforcement officers feel, rather than being embattled, feel fully supported," he said, right before starting a meeting with the task force on Monday.
He added, "We need to seize that opportunity. And so this is something that I'm going to stay very focused on in the months to come."
Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been pushing strongly for police changes, said, the ideas in the report "will significantly improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve."
"For us to see meaningful change, local authorities must first implement data collection systems to improve transparency, use of force policies that emphasize de-escalation, eradicate all forms of biased policing, and improve community engagement and oversight to provide accountability," Bennett added in a statement.
Even before Obama's team completed its work, some major police changes have already happened in America over the last year. In eight of the 10 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., including New York and Los Angeles, there are plans to outfit at least some police with body cameras. The LAPD plans eventually to have every officer who interacts with the public wear a camera. The National Conference of State Legislatures says that 30 states are considering some kind of police camera provision. Other states are considering reforms like changing how officer killings of civilians are investigated.
But Obama, after the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, had he wanted to bring federal attention to the relationship between the police and African-Americans, who had been angered by the police deaths and argued they illustrated deep discriminatory practices by police. The administration has taken some more direct steps to change policing, such as launching an investigation of the force in Ferguson.
The president created the task force in December, tapping a combination of police officials like Ramsey and civil rights activists. It held a series of hearings around the country, which illustrated some deep divides over policing, as some officers and police chiefs suggested the police overall had been portrayed negatively simply because of a few incidents.
The report leans toward ideas both the civil rights community and police can accept. It is heavy on calling for more data and non-specific policy ideas, such urging the creation of "some form of civilian oversight of law enforcement" in most communities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| NBC's Mark Murray and Carrie Dann discuss how two months into their control of both chambers of Congress, Republicans have little to show for their majorities -- except for yet another embarrassing failed vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Relations between the United States and Israel have always been a bit complicated and combative, especially involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
During the later 1980s, George H.W. Bush's secretary of state, James Baker, barred Netanyahu from the State Department after he criticized the United States. In 1996, President Bill Clinton had his share of frustration. "Who's the f@%&-ing superpower here?" the former president reportedly told aides after first meeting Netanyahu, who was then serving his first stint as Israeli prime minister.
Outside of those instances, American presidents and Israeli prime ministers often have butted heads over settlements and the Israel-Palestinian peace process.
But with Netanyahu set to address Congress on Tuesday - without first notifying the Obama White House - and with him likely to criticize the Obama administration's nuclear talks with Iran, it's hard to remember a time when relations have been worse between the two countries.
"It has always been complicated - nearly always. And now it's the worst since the creation of the state [of Israel]," says Steve Rabinowitz, a DC-based Democratic Jewish strategist.
Foreign-policy scholar Aaron David Miller doesn't go that far, explaining that the relationship was worse during the Eisenhower years over the Suez Canal. But he notes, "It's close - if not the worst - in the modern era."
Several different episodes have marked the rocky Obama-Netanyahu relationship. In 2010, Israel announced new housing settlements - at the same time that Vice President Joe Biden was in the country.
Then, just days later, President Barack Obama reportedly snubbed Netanyahu when he was visiting the White House.
During the 2012 presidential race, Netanyahu implicitly - if not openly - backedRepublican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
Last year, an unnamed Obama administration official described Netanyahu as a "chickenshit" to the Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg when it comes to trying to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
And now topping it all off is Netanyahu's speech to Congress, which Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice called "destructive" to the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
"What has happened over the last several weeks, by virtue of the invitation that was issued by [Speaker John Boehner] and the acceptance of it by Prime Minister Netanyahu two weeks in advance of his election, is that on both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate. I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship," Rice told interviewer Charlie Rose.
Viewing the tension through the lens of domestic politics
One way to view the increasing tensions between Obama and Netanyahu is through the lens of domestic politics - with the Republican Party having more of an alliance with Netanyahu's conservative Likud Party, and with Democrats having more of an alliance with Israel's centrist and liberal parties.
"By and large, the Republican Party tends to identify with harder-line Israeli prime ministers, and the Democratic Party tends to identify with the more centrist prime ministers," especially when it comes to the peace process, explains Miller.
So take that dynamic and add it to today's more polarized American politics where "one party will do anything it can to contradict the president," says Rabinowitz, the Democratic strategist.
Prominent Jewish Republicans, on the other hand, point the finger at President Obama for being hostile to Netanyahu from the get-go.
Why the relationship will endure these strains
Despite the poor relations between Obama and Netanyahu, Miller argues that overall U.S.-relationship is going to endure the recent stresses and strains.
"Unlike Lehman Brothers, the U.S. -Israel relationship is too big to fail," he explains, given that Israel is the United States' top ally in the messy Middle East. "We align with the Israelis because they share our values."
But it's probably going to take another U.S. president - and new Israeli prime minister - to get the relationship back on track. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| More from First Read: | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기