Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-25/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The Pentagon lifts the ban on combat roles for women. Secretary Clinton testifies before Congress on the Benghazi attack. And the House passes a short term debt ceiling extension. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top domestic news stories.
Guests
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
Jerry Seib
Washington bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal
Michael Scherer
White House correspondent for Time magazine.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel discussed President Barack Obama's second inaugural address, which charged Americans with tackling climate change and finding clean energy sources. Michael Scherer, White House correspondent for Time magazine, said climate change is no longer the electoral liability that it posed for Obama during his first term. "It does represent a historic shift. Maybe not in what he believes, but in terms of how he's presenting himself to the country," Scherer said about the speech. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times said the Keystone XL pipeline is an issue of conflict for Obama, who now has the opportunity to accomplish what he wasn't able to during his first term. "What we saw in this inaugural address, in essence, was the president liberated," Stolberg said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I was pleased when Hillary smacked down the GOP senator for the whole "Benghazi cover up" conspiracy the right has been pushing. I was further delighted when Dick Durbin pointed out how this is getting disproportionate attention compared to the Bush administration lying us into a war that lead to 100s of thousands dead or maimed. Where was the GOP outcry over that? 1000s of dead soldiers, many more mentally and/or physically scared for life, and 3 trillion plus in cost. I think this shows the hypocrisy and political gamesmanship that is sinking the republican party among the age 40 and below electorate.
"What difference does it make" on who did it, and then go on to say we have to "understand it" and "keep it from happening again" I think I know when Hillary's middle finger is being stuck in my eye.
If we are going to bring history into every argument, then it should be noted that democrats were at the very top positions in government for EVERY major conflict of the twentieth century. WW1 through Vietnam.
It does not make the lies of today any less relevant.
Vietnam, democratic President Kennedy followed by democrat L.B.J. were responsible for 58,148 American deaths, Vietnamese estimates top 2,000,000 violent deaths, totals range between 2 and 3.8 million.
As far as the under 40 crowd, people that measure freedom in the form of free birth control pills, pell grants and an assortment of other government handouts, their fate is sealed.
4 Americans were killed in Benghazi,one was the Ambassador.We were told this from day 1. Was this untrue? Was there a cover up as Fox News portrays? Were there 23 or 30 dead? Maybe it wasn`t in Libya ?
A COVER UP is when you hide something. What is it ? There were dozens of protests against around the middle east about the idiotic Republican hate movie. The movie was produced for and by the T-Party/Republican hate machine. That is the only thing being covered up. It was Mitt Romney who contracted foot in mouth disease.Mitt released a statement during the 9/11 news blackout. Mitt Romney was trying to score political points,while Americans were fighting and dying. A JERK WITH NO RESPECT FOR AMERICA OR AMERICANS !!
I would like to hear your guest's perspective on efforts by the GOP to change the rules on apportioning electoral votes. If the proposed changes had been in place in the last election, we could very well have a President Romney despite a majority vote for President Obama. Specifically, what do your guests think the GOP is thinking? Do they think they can hang on to power by this strategy? What do they think would happen if in fact they succeeded in getting a their candidate elected because of this strategy.? Do they not see this is in the end not only detrimental to the Republican party but also to our democracy? We could see serious social unrest and at a minimum a president who the majority felt was illegitimate.
As long as the requirements for women in combat are exactly the same as it is for men, then I see no problem. Unfortunately as these things evolve they usually turn into special rights, affirmative action rights or quotas.
Look at the women in the above photo, she does not even fill out the uniform. It's hanging on her like it's three sizes too big, this appears typical for women in combat gear. Lets face facts 99% of women have no place in front line combat, their physical stature is just too small to keep themselves and their fellow combatants out of danger.
As a former Republican, I think tone is very important. I do not want to be affiliated with what feels like a mean-spirited, selfish bunch of obstructionists.
As a former Democrat, I think tone is very important. I do not want to be affiliated with what feels like mean-spirited, selfish bunch of obstructionists.
Sam T. wrote:
As long as the requirements for women in combat are exactly the same as it is for men, then I see no problem. Unfortunately as these things evolve they usually turn into special rights, affirmative action rights or quotas.
Look at the women in the above photo, she does not even fill out the uniform. It's hanging on her like it's three sizes too big, this appears typical for women in combat gear. Lets face facts 99% of women have no place in front line combat, their physical stature is just too small to keep themselves and their fellow combatants out of danger.
You may personally believe that women should not be in combat and that is your opinion, but to state falsehoods about a woman's ability to perform the duties is reprehensible. The proud women of our arm services are capable and deserve our respect and your apology. Having served our nation in the navy I can assure you that some of the most capable sailors I met were women, ans some were men. Your particular brand of sexism is disgusting and we are all worse off for having been exposed to it.
Regarding gerrymandering of congressional districts: I say fire them all, create new districts that follow some dimensional rule, like square or circle, and hold new elections on the lot.
There was a quick comment on the Electoral College and States looking at changing the "all or none" practices currently in place.
Why do we still have the Electoral College? The number of electorates that a State has is based on population, so it does not make sense on why we do not just do it based on Population.
I think we'll see Hillary's "what difference does it make" hurt her chances in 2016 because it does matter. The administration lied at worst or deliberately mislead, those are the facts. The crying was fake.
Nobody cares what Dick Durbin thinks.
I happy that the D.R. shows is recapping what happened in congress. Since, when Sec. Clinton was smacking down on those irrelevant Reps. my NPR affiliate chose to air the D.R. show on poetry. Instead of Sec. Clinton live on capital hill I got something very esoteric to me. I would have enjoyed formulating my own opinion from a live airing instead of D.R. shows recap.
The Republicans need to have a religious/moral internal conversation about their sometimes coded and other times outright racist, sexist, and anti-science and intellectual attitudes which translate into policy. They have attacked women's access to contraceptives at Planned Parenthood clinics under the 'guise' of being 'pro-life'; they have deliberately created voting districts to discount or eliminate the will of minority voters; they continue to use the 'states rights' issue which is a guise for the racism policies and laws not only of the South but throughout the country; they kick off their Presidential campaigns in colleges that have a longstanding racist and anti-anyone but Christian attitudes; and they rail against science to discount climate change. As long as Republicans advocate for tax law and state/federal policies that are designed for plutocrats in the finance, energy, gun, and other selected industries, I will see the Republican party as for the rich and against the rest of us.
Thank you, Sam T., that's how her appearance struck me. She takes full responsibility but nothing was her fault. H. Clinton never answered the question, and whatever happened under other administrations doesn't justify the untruthful statements of this one. The President said that the on-line video was what caused the violent actions. That is untrue and Sec. Clinton's sneering, yelling, and crying should not divent attention from the facts.
Sam, you could have stopped with your first sentence. As an infantry vet I saw so much politics in the courses I was privledged to be sent to. And that was among an all male cadre. I mean, I saw individuals pass Q courses who shouldn't have.
mnemecek wrote: "You may personally believe that women should not be in combat and that is your opinion, but to state falsehoods about a woman's ability to perform the duties is reprehensible""Your particular brand of sexism is disgusting and we are all worse off for having been exposed to it."
Many In the military say the same, even woman. Is their "sexism" disgusting, even though they are woman?
Capt Katie Petronio
Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-cr...
Sam, you could have stopped with your first sentence about combat qualifications. As an infantry vet I saw so much politics in the courses I was privledged to be sent to. And that was among an all male cadre. I mean, I saw individuals pass Q courses who shouldn't have.
Women in the Military:
I am not sure if the media is deliberate by ignoring enlisted soldiers, who are the one's who are disproportionately impacted by the blow-back of bad policy. Female officers may feel that their careers are disadvantaged by the laws that prohibited women from going into combat. However, for the enlisted women this change is not a plus, and will likely end many of their careers.
Female soldiers are disproportionately separated for injuries to feet, knees, backs, and hips because the current duties are hard on their bodies. So for example, attaching a female soldier to a LLVI team , which has to carry a 100 lb radio--in addition to their ruck and weapons, is silly. Sexual assaults of female service members is taking place at an epidemic proportion, and yet somehow it makes sense to attach a women to a primarily male unit?
Officers have incentives to create new policies. Enlisted people are forced to suffer under bad leadership--and can only complain amongst themselves. Despite what you have heard, enlisted women are not happy about the change! Further, I think that it is dishonest to suggest that standards will not be changed. There are already different physical standards for female and male service members.
--Keiah
a FEMALE disabled veteran
Women in the Military:
I am not sure if the media is deliberate by ignoring enlisted soldiers, who are the one's who are disproportionately impacted by the blow-back of bad policy. Female officers may feel that their careers are disadvantaged by the laws that prohibited women from going into combat. However, for the enlisted women this change is not a plus, and will likely end many of their careers.
Female soldiers are disproportionately separated for injuries to feet, knees, backs, and hips because the current duties are hard on their bodies. So for example, attaching a female soldier to a LLVI team , which has to carry a 100 lb radio--in addition to their ruck and weapons, is silly. Sexual assaults of female service members is taking place at an epidemic proportion, and yet somehow it makes sense to attach a women to a primarily male unit?
Officers have incentives to create new policies. Enlisted people are forced to suffer under bad leadership--and can only complain amongst themselves. Despite what you have heard, enlisted women are not happy about the change! Further, I think that it is dishonest to suggest that standards will not be changed. There are already different physical standards for female and male service members.
--Keiah
a FEMALE disabled veteran
Women in the Military:
I am not sure if the media is deliberate by ignoring enlisted soldiers, who are the one's who are disproportionately impacted by the blow-back of bad policy. Female officers may feel that their careers are disadvantaged by the laws that prohibited women from going into combat. However, for the enlisted women this change is not a plus, and will likely end many of their careers.
Female soldiers are disproportionately separated for injuries to feet, knees, backs, and hips because the current duties are hard on their bodies. So for example, attaching a female soldier to a LLVI team , which has to carry a 100 lb radio--in addition to their ruck and weapons, is silly. Sexual assaults of female service members is taking place at an epidemic proportion, and yet somehow it makes sense to attach a women to a primarily male unit?
Officers have incentives to create new policies. Enlisted people are forced to suffer under bad leadership--and can only complain amongst themselves. Despite what you have heard, enlisted women are not happy about the change! Further, I think that it is dishonest to suggest that standards will not be changed. There are already different physical standards for female and male service members.
--Keiah
a FEMALE disabled veteran
Why does the WSJ writer want to "get to yes" so much on the KXL? He acts likes it's just a political issue and seems to ignore the tremendous environmental impacts both in Nebraska and in Canada and for the carbon all over the world's atmosphere. It's not just a matter of throwing a bone to someone, WSJ writer. Please, broaden your horizons.
Why does the WSJ writer want to "get to yes" so much on the KXL? He acts likes it's just a political issue and seems to ignore the tremendous environmental impacts both in Nebraska and in Canada and for the carbon all over the world's atmosphere. It's not just a matter of throwing a bone to someone, WSJ writer. Please, broaden your horizons.
Why do nominations have to “signal” something? And why according to what Diane this morning and her guests want the “signal” to be and what it should mean etc.
Secretary of State Clinton "what difference does it make" How arrogant, defiant and lacks any humility what so ever. Her response to question about the who, what, where and why of the Benghazi attack reminded me of a response that Bush 43 or Cheney would respond with. So arrogant. Clinton lacks humility and her message is i will never apologize for anything not now not ever.
Secretary of State Clinton "what difference does it make" How arrogant, defiant and lacks any humility what so ever. Her response to question about the who, what, where and why of the Benghazi attack reminded me of a response that Bush 43 or Cheney would respond with. So arrogant. Clinton lacks humility and her message is i will never apologize for anything not now not ever.
Bringing women into combat arms positions, which is what this policy is about, will be helpful for the relatively small number of female careerists who aspire to general officer rank. It will be less helpful to the larger group of women who serve effectively and admirably in support roles, ranging from logistics through military intelligence, JAG, medical corps etc.
Most of these women, just like their male peers -- whether enlisted, NCO or commissioned -- have zero interest in being an infantryman, artilleryman, SF operator, Marine scout etc. They joined up for less physical duties or for jobs that prepare them directly for civilian careers. However their advancement into upper echelons will now be more difficult compared to female combat arms veterans, against whom they will be measured.
So enthusiasm for this policy is not universal among military women, although few of them wish to be quoted as opposing it. The hoo-ah culture extends to women in Finance just as to male Airborne Rangers.
Ultimately this is a legacy item for Leon Panetta as one of Diane's panelists said, plus another politically correct notch for Obama to file into his Blackberry. There will probably be a net hit on combat effectiveness and some theoretical increase in combat arms casualties in future wars, but this is hardly a concern with this administration, since they assure us there can be no more wars now. "Peace in our time." (Please excuse my cynicism.)
The soldiers on the ground, male and female, will figure out how to deal with it, as they do with all the other hare-brained directives from Washington.
De oppresso liber
Sam T. wrote:
Many In the military say the same, even woman. Is their "sexism" disgusting, even though they are woman?
Capt Katie Petronio
Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal
In a word YES, sexism cuts both ways. The persons being restricted from combat arms are being discriminated against and the persons in combat arms are given the great benefit of being many times more likely to die in combat. Not to mention if I were to go into combat I would want the best person next to me not necessarily the best man. As for the argument about women's stature on balance, smaller frame = smaller target less likely to be seen and less likely to be hit if seen. As to the argument that the gear is to heavy, if you can't carry it you shouldn't be cleared for duty man or woman.
Feel free to get the last word as I'm signing off for the day.
Caller concerned that building the pipeline would not effect gas prices in America, I believe is correct.
America's largest export is now oil and it is shipped to points of greatest profit.
This underscores the hypocrisy of taxpayers subsidizing oil companies as we currently do.
I take issue with Sheryl whose comment alluded to what a great gift to democracy filibuster continues to be. The dysfunction in the Senate for last 4 years is almost entirely attributable to the gross abuse of this rule.
mnemecek wrote: "Feel free to get the last word as I'm signing off for the day."
Oh, thank you so much! You made a fool of yourself and now you're outta here. Got it!
Until today, I did not know you were into faux outrage.