Breaking Fake News Update (v10)

 Fake News Broke on August 17, 2025!

This news broke after what looked to be a 'summit about nothing,' when Vladimir Putin and FOTUS appeared after their shortened meetings at what was thought to be a press conference, but turned out to be the two of them talking about how they didn't accomplish anything and how much of nothing was accomplished (and maybe they'll meet in Moscow next time, said the English-speaking dictator!). 

After the summit, it was announced that Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine's president, would be returning to the Goldoval Office to meet with FOTUS. We soon learned several European leaders would be joining him, in a show of solidarity after the American dropped his demand for a ceasefire in the war, something he had long said was necessary. 

It was also a show of solidarity after the Ukrainian's last meeting deteriorated when the children in the room took control. FOTUS barked about who was holding the cards, JD Vance demanded to know why Zelenskyy had never said 'thank you' to his boss (a man he said could be America's Hitler), and a moronic reporter chastised him for not wearing a suit. 

Well, he came prepared this time, Zelenskyy did. He showed them! He had the suit, he had the cards, and he gave FOTUS a medal - that's a foreign policy trifecta right there!

There'll be more fake news, and we'll have it for you. 

Breaking Fake News Update (v9)

 Fake News Broke on August 15, 2025!

This fake news came after the Alaska (or was it Russia?) summit, where FOTUS met with his idol, Vladimir Putin. He stood on the red carpet, grinning and clapping like a schoolgirl at a Hanson concert as Putin walked towards him (MMMbop). 

Like most world leaders, Putin understands that flattery will get him everywhere; like us, I'm sure he's seen others traipse to the once-dignified Oval Office, bringing copies of the letters to the Nobel Prize guys, hoping to curry favor on tariffs, or to get oodles of US dollars for housing "the worst of the worst" undocumented farmworkers and Chinese restuarant owners who are ruining America. 

Anyway, this one pretty much wrote itself.  And we'll continue to share fake news as it happens. 

Breaking Fake News Update (v5)

   Fake News Broke on August 11, 2025!

This news broke as preparations for the Alaska (or is it Russia?) summit with Vladimir Putin were being fleshed out. FOTUS was offering up ideas on how to end the war in his usual, um, straightforward manner, including possibly giving up some of America's riches buried in Alaska, or Ukraine's riches, without having discussed that with anyone before doing 'the weave.'  

At the same time, he was attacking two of his favorite women of color, both of whom live rent-free in his head, especially since they're from two of his favorite blue states. The combination made this silly post a piece of cake.

We will continue to share fake news as it breaks.  

Sunday School 5/5/24: Noem's VP Interview

Here's the last of the three vice presidential interviews - whew! 

This time, we've got South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who talked with Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom. Will we see any questions about the dog? I'm willing to bet the answer is yes. 

Brennan had a copy of Noem's book, No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward (and can I tell you how much I hate overly long and self-serving book titles?) with her for the interview, and started out by asking if Trump mentioned  "any of the response to"  the book when Noem was at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.

Oh, he certainly knows about the book, and I appreciate his endorsement of it. You know, this is really a book that talks about how we're not going back. It's – we're not going back to the days before Donald Trump. Donald Trump broke politics. And I think that's a good thing. We're not going back to the days of Mitt Romney or the Bushes, that now there's a new way to do and talk to the American people, and they appreciate it. It's an honest, genuine conversation about what these citizens can do to take back their government and to have more input. So, this book is really a how-to guide for how to make your voice heard and how – for people in this country, what they can do to really make sure that they are getting genuine elected officials that really want to give them more freedom and liberty.

So, was that a yes? A no? A 'buy my book' entreaty?  I can't really tell, can you?

Brennan turned to Noem's crazy statement about meeting a particular world leader. Here's what the book says: 

I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. I'm sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants. I have been a children's pastor after all." 

Brennan asked if she had met Kim. 

Well, you know, as soon as this was brought to my attention, I certainly made some changes and looked at this – this passage. And I have met with many, many world leaders. I have traveled around the world. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we went forward and have made some edits. So, I'm glad that this book is being released in a couple of days, and that those edits will be in place, and that people will – will have the updated version.

So, was that a yes? A no? A 'I had no idea anyone was actually going to read the book' line? I can't tell.

Brennan said, "So, you did not meet with Kim Jong-un? That's what you're saying." Noem's answer was pretty funny.

No, I have met with many, many world leaders, many world leaders. I have traveled around the world, I think I have talked extensively in this book about my time serving in Congress, my time as governor, before governor, some of the travels that I have had. I'm not going to talk about my specific meetings with world leaders, I'm just not going to do that. This anecdote shouldn't have been in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I made sure that that was adjusted.

So, "as soon as it was brought to my attention that I lied in my book, I said, 'oh crap!' and called the publisher," or something like that?

And so, we're doing all that we can to make sure that those changes are made. And I'm going to continue to focus on what this book is, and the blueprint that it lays out for the American citizen on all of the things in the background and stories of my life, but also what I think that needs to be identified in politics and was broken today. I talk about how broken the money game is, how broken it is that – that we've got consultants that are getting rich off of elected officials, and then how fake some elected politicians are. 

Every single person in this country wants someone in elected office that's – that's a human being, that doesn't say they're perfect. I take responsibility for that being in the book. And as soon as it was brought to my attention, I asked for it to be changed. So, I'm glad that the release date is in a couple of days. And we're excited to talk to America about my new book, "No Going Back."

Brennan then asked who Noem might have confused with Kim Jung Un, and wondered if it was the previous, female leader of South Korea.

Well, I think you need to remember, Margaret, and everybody needs to remember that I have worked on ag policy and federal policy for over 30 years. My time in serving and making policies in this country has been extensive and covered decades.

No. No one is required to remember how Noem spent the last three decades, given that most people never heard of her until she hitched her wagon to Trump. 

And when Brennan asked if she ever went to North Korea, Noem said, "yes, I have. I have been there." Brennan was shocked but then said she went to the DMZ (not the same thing, by the way) and said the book includes the info she's "willing to share" about that visit. 

I have traveled the world, and I visited with world leaders. And some of that is referenced in the book. And this anecdote is something that, when it was brought to my attention… … we made some changes. And when the book is released, we'll do all that we can to see that – that that is reflected.

Brennan then noted Kim was mentioned not once but twice, at which point Noem asked "Do you have a question for me, Margaret?"

Yes, I do. South Korea is a treaty ally. North Korea is a nuclear-armed adversary, so that's a… pretty big thing to confuse. I know you read this book before it was published because you released video of your recording of the audiobook. You didn't catch these errors when you were recording it?

And then, Noem did what they all do: point the finger at the other guy.

Well, Margaret, as soon as it was brought to my attention, I took action to make sure that it was reflected. And, listen, this is what is so discouraging about politics and the media today, is that we have the White House that just recently came out and confirmed that President Joe Biden has misspoken, has made mistakes, has even outright lied over close to 150 times just this year.

And you've done nothing to question him on any of that. And you're – you're talking about a book that hasn't been released yet, that's been corrected before it's been released. And you haven't said one thing about Joe Biden saying that he was in prison with Nelson Mandela, that he started the civil rights movement, that he drove an 18-wheeler, that his uncle was eaten by cannibals.

And then it got even more fun.

MB: If I had an interview with Joe Biden, who I have asked for multiple times, I will definitely ask him about his record. But I'm asking you about your book here, which we have. So…

KN: Well, I'm just asking – I'm just asking for why – why am I being treated differently than every other person that you've interviewed? I have looked at your last several weeks of your interviews.

MB: I'm quoting you.

KN: You don't – you don't interrupt other people. You let them talk. Thank you for inviting me to have this conversation about this book. This book is extremely important to the people of this country. It is important, because it's a how-to guide of what they can do to have input into their government, how we need breakers and builders in this world.

OK, that part made me laugh out loud. Brennan doesn't interrupt other people? Good lord, she's the interrupter-in-chief of the Sunday School classrooms! She interrupts everyone! 

KN: And I'm taking responsibility for the change that we've made. And the buck stops with me.

MB: OK, and for the mistake in the book?

KN: And I have told you that, and I'm – no, it's not. What I have said is that I have decided that this anecdote should…

MB: You're not taking responsibility for the mistakes in the book?

KN: I have decided this – I – I am saying that this book is very, very good. And I have met with many world leaders, and that I – there are world leaders that I have met with that are in this book. There are many that I met with that are not in this book.

Now, at this point, if you're Noem, wouldn't you just stop talking about your damn book? Seriously, wouldn't you just stop?

KN: And this is an anecdote that – that I asked to have removed, because I think it's appropriate at this point in time.  

I feel the need to interject here with a definition for Gov. Noem.

Hopefully that might help her going forward. 

KN: But I'm not going to talk to you about those personal meetings that I have had with world leaders. I'm just not going to have that conversation, because I think it's important.

"Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi." I want to be the vice president, but I'm not going to talk about my alleged vast foreign policy experience, "because I think it's important" not to? Is that what she's saying?  

Noting that Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the world leaders the governor' has spoken with, Brennan asked if Noem agrees with Trump that "Bibi Netanyahu has been criticized for what took place on October 7."  Here's the gist of her response: what Hamas did was horrific, America should never stand for anti-Semitism, what's happening at colleges is bad and should be "shut down immediately," and Biden should have acted sooner on that. Brennan interpreted that response to mean Noem doesn't agree with what Trump said.

And then, the interview turned where everyone knew it would: Cricket the dog, and how Noem killed the puppy for being aggressive, too excitable to be a decent hunting dog, and for killing chickens.  The question? "I wonder if you have regrets about sharing this story."

I know, everyone wants to hear Noem defend herself on this mess, but let's be honest: had she not been so proud of what she did, no one would ever know that she did it. And let's be honest about something else, too: animals, including misbehaving dogs, are killed on farms. And I dare say, that fate is likely preferable to leaving a 'bad dog' chained up in the hot sun, pouring rain, and freezing snow, with little or no sustenance.   

In a nutshell, Noem says she included the story about killing the dog because it's indicative of how she has "made very difficult decisions" and "because people need to understand" who she is. And who she is, is a mom with little children and the choice between her kids and the dog, well, the kids win. 

Another reason she talks about it in the book?

...because what I'm tired of in this country is politicians who pretend to be something that they're not, that they aren't willing to have the hard conversations and look at the past and the tough decisions that they've made...what I talk about in the book extensively when people are able to get it on Tuesday is to see the whole story and the truth, not the spin that the media has put on this story. The media has put some or removed – removed most of the facts and – and what – the reason this is in there… 

At this point, Brennan should have stopped talking about the dog, but she didn't. She asked why the dog wasn't taken to a shelter. Noem explained it had been to multiple trainers, she had put lots of time into the dog's training, and nothing had changed.  She took responsibility, she didn't ask anyone else to deal with it. And, then, according to Brennan's interpretation of the book, Noem went out a shot a billy goat that "smelled and would chase kids."  

And I'm asking you this because it seems like you're celebrating the killing of animals. 

Noem turned it into a conversation about extremism and political attacks and she's being treated the same as Donald Trump is treated.

… every day, the constant attacks and coming after me. I – during COVID, I was attacked night after night for months after month for the decisions that I made. In fact, you and many other journalists attacked me every single day on TV for months for the decisions that I made in South Dakota, for my people to protect their freedoms and their liberties.

Does that make her a good candidate to be his VP? I would have asked that, but it wasn't my interview.  

MB: And I thanked you for answering questions on it. But on the – on this point, though... You talk multiple times about it. In fact, at the end of the book, you say the very first thing you would do if you got to the White House that was different from Joe Biden, is you'd make sure Joe Biden's dog was nowhere on the grounds. "Commander, say hello to Cricket." Are you doing this to try to look tough? Do you still think that you have a shot at being a V.P.?

KN: Well, number one, Joe Biden's dog has attacked 24 Secret Service people. So, how many people is enough people to be attacked and dangerously hurt before you make a decision on a dog and what to do with it?

MB: Well, he's not living at the White House anymore.

KN: That's – that's a question that the president should be held accountable to.

MB: You're saying he should be shot?

KN: That what's the president should be accountable to, is, what is – what is the number? And I would say, about Republicans criticizing me, these are the same Republicans have criticized me during COVID. They've criticized me when I have made other decisions in South Dakota to protect my state. And my state today is extremely happy and thriving. We're doing well...

She listed a number of positives for her state, reflecting growth and jobs and no debt, and a AAA credit rating. To which Brennan responded

MB: So, you're not going to retract the book? 

I kid you not - that's what she asked.

KN: I – this book is a powerful book... It's an honest book of a blueprint for America of what citizens can do here to take their country back. And I'm so proud of this book and – and what it will bring to people. I hope that they will buy it. They'll find a lot of truthful stories. And we talk a lot about what we can use as an example from Donald Trump on how he has continued to be a real person, been genuine, and been honest to people, and that what bothers me the most about politicians is when they're fake.

MB: But if you have to retract it or parts of it…

Noem said "I'm not – I'm not retracting anything. I'm not retracting anything."

I'd like to retract this interview, what do you think?

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 5/1/24

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

During last month's discussion on foreign aid bills, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R- Burning Down the House) offered an amendment to the Ukraine bill requiring any Republican who voted for the aid package to conscript into the Ukrainian military. No similar requirements for aid to Israel and Taiwan were put forward. I can't help wondering why the bills weren't treated the same. 

Some people pretend Greene is Putin's representative to the House, so we shouldn't be surprised that she'd stick it to Ukraine. Others think we're not responsible for defending Europe, but we are responsible for Israel's defense, no matter the cost. These arguments are symptomatic of the degradation of our policy debates over the past few years, leaving me to wonder what it'll take to get us back to realistic discussions.

Greene also said that, instead of giving aid to Ukraine, we should focus on our 'America First economy.' Hearing that, I had to wonder if she even knew what was in the bill, or if she'd read any articles on how our aid to Ukraine works. She must know that as much as $68B of the $113B that Congress has approved for Ukraine  "is destined to be invested here at home."

U.S. support for Ukraine thus offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to sustain a demand signal to address long-standing weaknesses in U.S. DIB systems generally and ordnance and missile production specifically.

Yep - we send our stockpiled, outdated stuff to Ukraine, and we replenish our stockpiles with newer American-made stuff. If that's not an America First policy, I wonder what would be. I also wonder if Marge ever has a clue, if she's this clueless on our Ukraine aid.

Sticking with Marge for a minute longer, she's announced she'll move to oust Speaker Mike Johnson next week, even as the Dem leadership announced they'll vote table any such motion. Most House Republicans don't want her to move ahead; the RNC doesn't want her to; and even Donald Trump doesn't want her to, and yet, she's going to do it anyway. Is anyone wondering with me what the heck she's trying to accomplish?

Speaking of accomplishments, we know one thing the House GOP would rather be doing than sitting through Greene's antics: "going on the offense by attacking Democrats for insufficiently condemning pro-Palestinian protests on campuses" around the country. 

We've all seen the antisemitic signs and heard the chants at the protests; we'll continue seeing and hearing them, even if they're not the focus of the protests. I condemn anti-Semitism and the October attack on Israel; at the same time, I would love to see a ceasefire, to see Gaza flooded with humanitarian aid, to see an end to the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, and to see a way forward. To me, those are pro-human positions, not pro-Palestine or antisemitic ones. 

But I wonder why we have to see and hear more about the antisemitic actions of a few protesters than we do about the many; members of Jewish Voices for Peace arrested for holding a Passover Seder/protest outside Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's house, for example. Or about Jews and Palestinians standing shoulder-to-shoulder, protesting inhumanity together, or about negotiations over divestment issues, especially successful ones. 

And I can't help wondering why two NY Representatives feel anti-Semitism monitors are needed on college campuses. Republican Mike Lawler, one of the two, said, "If colleges will not step up to protect their students, Congress must act."

I'll tip my hat to whoever named the bill - it's a gem: the College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability, or the COLUMBIA Act.  The bill would give the Department of Education authority to appoint monitors, paid for by the schools, who would "be required to release quarterly, publicly available reports that show what the school is doing to combat anti-Semitism." 

The legislators cite Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the basis for their bill; I have to wonder how giving one type of discrimination special status fits in with the intent of our civil rights legislation? If we're going to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities, shouldn't it be done in the name of protecting everyone from discrimination? 

As I was preparing to publish tonight's post, news broke that the House passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Sponsored by Rep. Lawler, with over 60 co-sponsors, the bill 

would require the Department of Education to use definitions of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) when enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

Other bills dealing with antisemitism are also in the works, according to news reports; we'll see if any of them come to fruition. 

In the meantime, I wonder how people feel about the statements below. Feel free to chime in, if you like.

• "We already have enough laws against discrimination. We need to enforce those laws; we don't need to create new ones."
• "All Lives Matter - why are they demanding we pay attention only to them?"

What's on your wondering minds tonight?

Sunday School 2/4/24: Extra Credit

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made at least four classroom appearances. I'm amazed at his ability to withstand the assault of a lot of repetitive - and often dumb - questions.

I tried to find at least one reasonable exchange from each classroom, starting with State of the Union where he spoke with Dana Bash. I also included a few ridiculous exchanges, like the first one below.

DB: You said it's just the beginning. And I just want to clarify, that means that there will be more strikes coming in the next few days?

JS: What it means is that we will take further action. I'm not going to, obviously, describe the character of that action because I don't want to telegraph our punches. But there will be further action.

DB: Inside Iran? Would you rule that out at this point?

JS: Look, sitting on a national TV program, I'm not going to rule in and rule out any activity anywhere. What I am going to say is that the president will do what he thinks needs to be done and again reinforce the point that he's going to defend our forces and also that he is not looking to get into a war.

A more reasonable exchange occurred regarding Sullivan's oft-repeated comments that we don't want this to become a regional conflict. Bash said there are "10 countries, at least, four major terrorist groups" involved, suggesting it was already that. Sullivan worked hard to explain that the different actions we're seeing, including the Israeli-Hamas war, "are distinct but related challenges."  As such, we'll continue working 

to deal with the challenge of escalation and continue to work to ensure we're responding forcefully, but at the same time staying out of the prospect of the United States getting pulled into a broad war in the Middle East of the kind that we have seen in the past.

Bash said that all of the conflicts lead "down one road, and that is the road to Iran."  He agreed, noting that he'd explained the Iranian connection many times before, including in this classroom and from the podium during briefings.

So, we make no bones about that. Iran has a significant and pernicious responsibility for much of the instability in the Middle East, and that has to be factored into how we approach everything that we're doing and how Israel has to approach everything it's doing.

In the Meet the Press classroom, several ridiculous exchanges were initiated by Kristen Welker. For example, she referenced GOP comments about the Biden administration waiting too long to respond, and how it "telegraphed to the world, including to Iran" our response. How would Sullivan respond to that, she asked. In a nutshell, we did what we said we'd do (retaliate if attacked) and added

...of course, there will always be armchair quarterbacks, but we are confident in the steps that we have taken so far. And we are confident in the course that we are on going forward.

As Dana Bash did, Welker tried to pin Sullivan down on our future responses - except she did it right after asking about the 'telegraphing' complaint.

KW: Have you ruled out strikes inside Iran?

JS Well, sitting here today on a national news program, I'm not going to get into what we've ruled in and ruled out from the point of view of military action. What I will say is that the president is determined to respond forcefully to attacks on our people. The president also is not looking for a wider war in the Middle East.

KW: But is it off the table? Are strikes inside Iran off the table?

JS: Again, Kristen, sitting here on television, it would not be wise for me to talk about what we're ruling in and ruling out.

KW: So, you're not ruling it out?

JS: I'll just say the same thing one more time, which is I'm not going to get into what's on the table and off the table when it comes to the American response.

Did Welker redeem herself after that embarrassing exchange? Well, not really. Moving to the Israel-Hamas war, she said there was a sticking point in the hostage negotiations about "whether this should be a six-week pause in fighting or a permanent ceasefire. What is the United States pushing for?"

JS: Well, what we're pushing for is an outcome in which every hostage gets home, in which Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza –

KW (interrupting): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire?

JS (trying to answer her first question): – and not threaten Israel in the way –

KW (interrupting, again): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire today?

JS: Well, Kristen, everybody wants to see an end to the war. Nobody's rooting for the war to continue... 

But wait - there's more! Here's how the interview closed.

KW: Okay. Let me ask you, finally, Jake: Our new NBC news poll, which we were just discussing, found only 29% approve of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Sixty percent disapprove of his handling of foreign policy, overall. Should the President be factoring the public's disapproval into his foreign policy decisions?

Obviously, he said no, but part of me wanted him to say, "Why yes - yes he will!" just to see the look on her face. 

In the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos did better than his counterparts. For example, he asked what our initial strikes on the terror groups had achieved - which is different from 'Did we kill any bad guys?' Sullivan said, "...we believe they had good effect in reducing, degrading the capabilities of the militias and of the Houthis."

He also reiterated that this was just the start of our response, and said there'll be "more actions taken to respond to the death of the – the tragic death of the three brave U.S. service members."

In response to a question on whether we've thought about Iran making a direct response against us, Sullivan acknowledged that was a threat that we're prepared for, adding

And I would just say, from the perspective of Tehran, if they chose to respond directly to the United States, they would be met with a swift and forceful response from us.

He also said we've passed messages back and forth, but "in the last few days, the message that we have sent to Iran has been through our action, not through our words."

Last, we visited the Face the Nation classroom, with Margaret Brennan. Very early on, she asked whether Iran has "done anything to rein in the militias they fund and arm?" since our strikes. The question came barely two days after we launched them, so was it reasonable to think we'd have an assessment on that yet? I'd guess no, but maybe it's just me.

Her next question? 

There are reportedly civilian casualties in Iraq and in Syria as a result of these strikes. Does the U.S. assess that any of those hit in these strikes were actually Iranian Al Quds Force personnel? Or did the fact that this was so telegraphed in advance give those personnel time to go to ground?

Sullivan said he "didn't have anything to report...this morning" on who exactly was killed, but said assessments were continuing. And he refuted the "so telegraphed" comment, as he did in other classrooms. 

And when three service members were killed, of course Iran knew that the United States would respond. So the idea that somehow this was telegraphed, I think, is a bit more of a political talking point than – than a reality. 

She had no reaction to that, of course. And she, too, turned to the polls showing Americans aren't happy with Israel's military campaign - or with President Biden's handling of it. She wondered

At what point is this open-ended Israel conflict in Gaza not just a political problem, but a national security one for the United States to be so closely associated with the Netanyahu government's war, with the civilian casualties that we've seen to date, and the starvation of women and children in Gaza?

In part, he responded, 

...I'm glad you put the question in those terms, because we don't design our policy towards Israel or Gaza or the Middle East based on politics. We do it based on the national security interests of the United States.

We've been clear, he said, that we won't ignore "the immense and terrible suffering" of Palestinians. We'll continue to pressure Israel on that, and it'll be a "top priority" of Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he meets with the Israeli government.

Brennan referenced an interview with Israel's National Security Minister, who seemed to be on a different page than his boss. She asked, "Does Benjamin Netanyahu have control of his government?"  Sullivan rightly responded that it's not up to us to say. 

Look, I'm going to let the Israeli government and Israeli politicians speak for themselves. They certainly have no trouble doing so, as you just related. 

He also explained that a deal allowing for a "sustained pause" so assistance can reach the Palestinians who need it is in our national security interest, and is "a paramount priority for us."

The Israeli government can answer whether it's a paramount priority for them. And depending on that answer, they'll also have to answer to the Israeli people.

So, of course, she turned back to the guy who was "threatening politically the prime minister..." after Sullivan had just said the Israelis could speak for themselves. It was a zero-value question, but he was gracious and answered it anyway.

If you feel so inclined, drop your best shot and ask a dumb question multiple ways; I'll collect and publish any that come in.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 3/28/21

I'm going to spend our Sunday School time in just one classroom - CNN's State of the Union, where Dana Bash shared her pre-recorded exclusive interview with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. 

Blinken did his best to answer as broadly and as collectively as possible, compared to Rex Tillerson or the horrid, condescending liar, Mike Pompeo. 

Here's some of what we learned from Blinken.

• China doesn't really fit under one label, given that "there are clearly and increasingly adversarial aspects of the relationship ...there are certainly competitive ones...there are still some cooperative ones." He says we have to approach them from a position of strength, no matter which aspect of the relationship we're talking about. And, we have to bring our allies along - we're stronger together.

• On the pandemic, he said we need to be able to mitigate something like this much better in the future, and we need transparency from the WHO among other things. And, "China, like every other country, has real obligations that it needs to make good on."  As to punishment or repercussions for their behavior to date, Blinken says we need "both accountability for the past, but our focus needs to be on building a stronger system for the future."

• There will be consequences for Russia on the variety of aggressions they've perpetrated on us, including election interference, bounties on our troops, and the attacks on our computers, and NATO shares our concern with Russia's actions across the board. Everything "really starts with being clear-eyed about the challenge Russia poses and addressing the challenge together." 

• On Afghanistan, we're still working on the troop withdrawal timeline, and he said there are more European troops there than there are Americans. They've been with us on this from the beginning, when "the one and only time NATO's Article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, has been evoked" was 9/11. So, we're telling them what we're thinking, but we're also listening to them. And yes, Biden will keep his promise to "end forever wars" but diplomacy is a part of that, too - and there's an upcoming conference in Turkey on that effort. 

• There was a lot of talk about MBS, the Saudi Crown Prince, and whether we should call him a murderer. In the end, Blinken said " The crown prince is likely to be the leader of Saudi Arabia far into the future" and that we have to work with them on some critical stuff, including ending the war in Yemen, which he called "probably the worse humanitarian crisis in the world." And he asked, "in terms of advancing human rights and progress in Saudi Arabia itself, are we better off recalibrating the relationship, as we did, or rupturing it?" He's confident the recalibration was necessary. 

Blinken made it clear we are not "America alone;" if the Biden foreign policy had a theme song, it would be "We Are the World."

I'll have more from the classrooms in tomorrow's Extra Credit. See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 12/23/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

There's so much wondering in my head today. For example:

Who will be in the next round of pardons, clemencies and commutations? 

Why is the United States considering offering immunity to Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi royal who's such a good What's App friend of Jared Kushner, for his role in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi?

Who will be the next target that the president will attack, now that he's gone after the #2 Republican in the Senate? Any guesses?

Why are people all of the sudden worried about foreign policy? Why haven't they been complaining all along? And why are reporters and politicians lying about it?

Why did the president decide, suddenly, to be interested in the pandemic spending bill once it had been approved, after not paying attention - for months?

If you don't put out cookies for Santa Claus, does he get free returns on your stuff? And does he keep all those receipts? 

How many Bed, Bath and Beyond coupons do you think they get at the North Pole, anyway? And, of course, while I'm typing this, a BB&B coupon landed in my inbox... 

We've been listening to our collection of Christmas CDs (we're old - we don't stream) and my husband said that the "Mayhem Steamroller" tunes would be coming up soon... and can't you just picture THAT Allstate commercial? 

How do we get out of the mess, all of this stuff I posted yesterday?

Why are people STILL so concerned about the House Speaker's ice cream habit? And why do people think that she could fund the stimulus with it? And am I a bad person for buying craft ice cream myself?

How many people will follow the applicable COVID restrictions where they live? How many of the three million+ people who've moved through TSA airport screening checkpoints around the country are going to quarantine when they get off the plane? 

How much does Dr. Deborah Birx regret travelling with multiple generations of her family?

News is breaking that the president has vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, the $740B military spending plan, mostly (he's said in the past) because it allows for renaming military bases, and because it doesn't remove protections for Twitter and Facebook, which have aggressively labelled his posts as fake news - and, really on both, what do they have to do with the military? 

How long will it take for his veto to be over-ridden? Probably not long.  And does Trump know he's the first to not sign the bill in nearly sixty years? And does he consider being the first another notch in his #winning  hair spray bottle? 

Should pandemic-denying Republican members of the House and Senate be getting the vaccine ahead of front line health care providers, the elderly, essential workers, and folks of all ages with pre-existing conditions? Are they really that much more valuable or that much more worthy of the protections than, say, my 90-year-old-with-a-heart-condition Mom?

What are you wondering about?

Sunday School 1/5/20

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was all over the place this morning, with appearances in all of the Sunday classrooms. Also making appearances? Senator Elizabeth Warren (Meet the Press) and both Warren and Pete Buttigieg  on CNN's State of the Union.

Because I've committed to highlighting the candidates for the Dem nomination when they appear, we'll look at Warren and Buttigieg here, and save Pompeo for this week's Extra Credit report.

First up, Warren and Chuck Todd; here are some highlights.

• Warren says we're not safer because Soleimani was killed, rather, we're "much closer to the edge of war" and wonders "Why now? Why not a month ago? Why not a month from now?" She also sees similarities between this latest action and how the administration responded to the Ukraine situation, which was all about Donald Trump acting in his own best interests. And how we need to know that's now what happened here. 
• On her support for the USMCA, what's called NAFTA 2.0, which she previously opposed, she said the "Democrats got in and negotiated a very different deal than we had a year ago" even as she said it wasn't a "great arrangement," noting that workers and farmers have been hurt by the Trump administration and need support.
• In response to a question on how voters should see her backing away a little from her original Medicare for All plan and from USMCA/NAFTA, she spoke about being "practical" so that we can get relief to farmers and workers, and then take action as president, negotiating a different deal, one that 'raises labor standards around the world" among other things. Similarly on health care, she'd do what she was allowed to do without Congressional approval, including lowering drugs costs and supporting the Affordable Care Act. She "wants to get as much relief to as many people as quickly as we can," saying that "ought to be the job of the President of the United States." Then she can move with Congress on M4A. 

Moving over to CNN's State of the Union, Warren's discussion with Jake Tapper was pretty similar to what she said on MTP; here are a few things that were different.

• Tapper asked her "as president, would you not prioritize the US military killing the leaders of the organizations designated terrorist organizations," a question she did not answer; instead she reiterated the comments made earlier with Todd.
• He asked how she'd "counter the argument" Joe Biden is making, that people are supporting, that he's the best candidate from a foreign policy perspective. She didn't really come close to answering that one either, speaking in generalities about having to get out of the Middle East, working with our allies, dealing with China and Russia and climate change - but not a word on her experience compared to Biden. 
• On impeachment and general criticism from Sen. Dick Durbin about senators not being impartial, Warren talked about the separation of powers, and the administration's failure to release any information that's been requested, noting "Boy, that tells me this is someone who has violated the law. And this is someone who needs to be accountable. No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States, and that is what impeachment is about."

And here are highlights from Tapper's interview with Mayor Pete. 

• He said that "just because Soleimani deserved" what he got, it doesn't mean that taking him out was the right strategic decision, and that we deserve more information from the administration on the consequences for Americans in the Middle East and around the world. He also said as Commander in Chief he "would never hesitate to use force if it was necessary" to protect American lives, but doing so "has to be better than the alternative." 
• On the Biden/foreign policy question. Mayor Pete said his own judgment is informed by his military service, and understanding how much is on the line when we ask our troops to go and carry out our foreign policy. He also reminded Tapper of the generational thing, that "you could be old enough to enlist...to be on one of those planes going to Kuwait right now, and not have been alive when 9/11 happened." 
• As to Tapper's saying Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's qualifications  are similar to his own, Buttigieg pointed to the support he's gotten from "over 200 very well-respected civilian and military former national security officials, ranging from a former deputy director of the CIA to a former National Security Advisor to a former Secretary of the Navy." 
• Regarding Senator Warren's attacks that he's a favorite of billionaires and corporate donors, and that he's all about what's impossible, he said that he's "running based on what's possible..." and on what "will actually unify and not polarize more of the American people." And, basically, if you don't understand that, maybe you need to learn more about his policies.
• Again, staying with Warren's attacks, Tapper asked if Buttigieg would match her commitment to not appoint any high-dollar donors as ambassadors. Anyone he appoints "will be there on their merits, and will be neither qualified or disqualified based on the idea that they supported and believed in my campaign."
• And the last attack, regarding a suggestion by Sen. Amy Klobuchar that Mayor Pete lost his only statewide race by 25 points, so how can he win Michigan? He said, he's a Midwesterner  "who has executive experience building an administration, leading a government, guiding a population, in addition to" his military and other experiences. 
• And, he added that one thing most presidents and nominees have in common "is losing an election or two. I was under no illusion what I was up against the first time I ran as an unknown figure in 2010, one of the biggest Republican years in history" in his very conservative state. He added, "I have learned as much from the races and the moments in life that didn't go my way as I have from the ones that did." He's a better candidate, he said, and would be a better president, too, because of that. 

See you around campus - and check back for the Pompeo Extra Credit, which should be fun.

Sunday School 6/16/19

Two quick classroom visits today: CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper, and CBS' Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.  Those were two of the three conversations with South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who of course is running for president along with some 20-odd others on the Democratic side, including still-not-a-Democrat Bernie Sanders, which, well, you know how I feel about that.

Anyway -- let's see what Mayor Pete had to say. Several topics were addressed on both shows, so I'll incorporate both answers on those.

On the Democrats not having much of a consistent foreign policy over the past many years, he told Brennan

I think it's been difficult, even confusing, to figure out what our foreign policy is because Democrats became so absorbed in opposing whatever the Republicans were doing - now, often, rightly so. What the Republicans were doing often was terrible. But we got so sucked into that. 

...take the Iraq war, which I opposed as a student and continue to think was a terrible idea. We were so horrified by the way that democracy promotion was done at gunpoint then, that it nearly made our party into isolationists when actually we've often been the ones who believed in more international engagement. 

Turning that into what Dems need to do, he offered this to Tapper (and similarly to Brennan)

And so I think now is a moment, given that, in some ways, the politics around foreign policy have been scrambled for my entire adult life, I mean, really, ever since the end of the Cold War, that we establish a new set of foundations for how American values, American interests, and American relationships are going to interact with each other. 

On Trump's comments about accepting dirt on an opponent from a foreign government, listening to it first and maybe turning it over to the FBI, he Told Brennan, in part

We're talking about foreign interference in American politics. And by the way, this isn't hypothetical. This isn't theoretical. We were attacked by a hostile foreign power that decided they could damage America, destabilize America, by intervening in the election to help him win. And they did and he did, and now America's destabilized. 

He told Tapper that Trump's comments were "both unbelievable and all too believable" and that the answer is not hard.

If you get an offer of material help from a foreign government, you call the FBI. This shouldn't be difficult. This shouldn't be complicated. 

Both asked about pursuing prosecution of Trump after he's out of office. The main point Buttigieg made here, similarly in both interviews, is that no one is above the law, but that, as he told Brennan

I also believe that the last place you look for guidance on how to conduct a prosecution is to the Oval Office. The less our law enforcement and prosecution has to do with politics, the better. 

On a related note, Brennan asked about  a presidential pardon (Buttigieg is not a fan of the pardon being used in this circumstance), including whether Gerald Ford should have pardoned Richard Nixon.

You know, I don't know what I would have done in the 70s and that historical counterfactual, other than that I'm bothered by the possibility that public corruption went unpunished and the idea that that could happen in the future is equally problematic. 

On Iran the most interesting conversation was with Tapper. Buttigieg has a unique perspective among all the presidential candidates, and among many in Congress - he's a veteran. Here's what he told Tapper.

As somebody who felt five years ago, when I left Afghanistan, that I was one of the last troops leaving, and five years (later), notes that we're still there... And pretty soon you're going to be old enough to enlist and be sent over and not even been alive on 9/11...

I think we  have learned as a country in my lifetime just how hard it is to end a war. We'd better be working very hard to make sure we don't start one. 

Brennan asked about his position that we should rejoin the Iran nuclear deal, and pointed out that some of the arms provisions coincide with our election and the next president's inauguration. She asked what he would do.

Any negotiation is going to have to meet the needs and the realities of the moment. Unfortunately, the moment we're in is one where the United States' influence in this region has diminished because of the-- the way that we have withdrawn. So what we're going to have to do is re-engage with our partners, re-engage with anybody who has an interest in stability in the region and do whatever we can to once again meet the objective of stopping Iran from developing nuclear capabilities which is exactly what that deal was doing. Even this administration certified that that was the case.

Tapper asked about the border, mentioning this call-out in a NY Times op-ed:

 "In short, it is time for Congress to stop dithering and pass emergency funding to deal with this nightmare. Democrats are standing in the way of this. They don't agree with it."

His question? Was it possible that Democrats were putting politics above what the migrants need, and pressed Buttigieg on what needs to be done right now to deal with the emergency.

I'm not against directing more funds in order to help with the issue at the border. But I think part of the reason why there's such frustration and concern and even resistance among congressional Democrats is that it's not doing anything about the bigger problem.

 We have got a president who got elected on a promise to fix immigration, whatever that meant to him. And what we have seen is that all of the issues that were with us then are with us now, and issues at the border, including a humanitarian crisis, created by this president through cruel policies, like family separation, are only getting worse. 

Meanwhile, the one thing that would really help the issue of increased migration flows from Central America -- the words of one migrant, who said: "I'm not here to seek the American dream. I'm here because I'm fleeing the nightmare in Honduras." We're actually, under this president, seeing a threat to take funds away from stabilizing those Central American countries. We have got this completely upside down.

And measures that are designed to put out fires in the near term would be a lot more convincing if they were set up in the context of an actual immigration reform, which, by the way, if you're talking about Americans, people on both parties want to -- in both parties want to do it. If you're talking about Congress, not so much. 

And I think the real dark fact behind all of this is, if immigration were solved, if we had comprehensive reform, this administration could claim it as an achievement, but it's more useful to them as a crisis unsolved than it would be as an achievement if they actually did something.

 Interesting conversations, both of them.

See you around campus.

Like Deja Vu All Over Again

Today the president spoke at the United Nations for the second time. You might be wondering how different today's speech was from the one he made last year. 

Fear not, I've got you covered. Excerpts from 2017 will be in italics; excerpts from today's message will appear in normal font. Last year, he started out by telling the world how great he was.

Fortunately the United States has done very well since Election Day last November 8th. The stock market is at an all-time high -- a record. Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States than ever before. Companies are moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time. And it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it's ever been.

This year was no different. Well, after the laughter, that is, when Trump proclaimed his accomplishments in less than two years to be greater than almost any administration in the history of America, it was no different.

America's economy is booming like never before. Since my election we have added $10 trillion in wealth. The stock market is at an all-time high in history, and jobless claims are at a 50-year ow. African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American unemployment have all achieved their lowest levels ever recorded. We have added more than 4 million new jobs, including half a million manufacturing jobs. We have started the construction of a major border wall and we have greatly strengthened border security. We have secured record funding for our military, $700 billion this year and $716 billion next year. Our military will soon be more powerful than it has ever been before. In other words, the United States is stronger, safer and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago. 

Surely, his strictly American accomplishments were bigly meaningful for the rest of the world, right? He might have struck a more welcome tone with his chants of sovereignty.

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is the foundation for cooperation and success.

Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect.

Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.  

Each of us here today is the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition and the values that make our homelands like nowhere else on Earth.

That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination. I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.

Doing your fair share is another Trumpian theme, and one that he touched on last year as well as today.

The United States is one of of 193 countries in the United Nations and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more. in fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes. The United States bears an unfair cost burden, but to be fair, if it could actually accomplish all of its stated goals,especially the goal of peace, this investment would easily be worth it.

Major portions of the world are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell. 

I don't like much about the president, but that's a truly classic line, in fact.

The American people hope that one day soon the United Nations can be a much more accountable and effective advocate for human dignity and freedom around the world. In the meantime, we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially. 

Now, remember that he started this year by saying how rich we are and all, which makes this next part kind of funny.

The United States is the world's largest giver in the world by far of foreign aid. But few give anything to us. That is why we are are taking a hard look at US foreign assistance... 

Um, what exactly do we need in terms of foreign aid, anyway?

We will examine what's working, what is not working, and whether the countries that receive our dollars and our protection also have our interests at heart. Moving forward, we will only give foreign aid to those who respect us, and frankly are our friends. We expect other countries to pay their fair share for the cost of their defense.

 And in closing,

The true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one: Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures? Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures, and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?

So let this be our mission, and let this be our message to the world: we will fight together, sacrifice together, and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity, and for the almighty God who made us all. 

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the nations of the world. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much. 

And this year?

Together, let us choose a future of patriotism, prosperity and pride. Let us choose peace and freedom over domination and defeat. Let us come here to this place to stand for our people and our nations.  Forever strong, forever sovereign, forever just.

Forever thankful for the grace and the goodness and the glory of God. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the nations of the world. Thank you very much. 

OrangeVerse XXXIV: Supposably

Yes, I know it's not supposedly not supposably, but since I'm quoting the president, well, you know. And supposably, here's what happened when presidents Trump and Putin had their private meeting at  #HELLinHELSINKI2018.

 Supposably I

We made significant
progress towards addressing
some of the worst conflicts on Earth. 
So when I met
President Putin for
about two and a half hours
we talked about numerous things.
And among those things
are the problems that you see in the
Middle East where they are
very much involved
we're very much involved.

Supposably II 

 I entered the negotiations

with President Putin from a position

of tremendous strength.

Our economy is booming. And our military 
is being funded $700 billion this year

$716 billion next year.

It will be more powerful as a military 
than we've ever had before.

Supposably III

President Putin and I addressed

the range of issues starting with 
the civil war in Syria... 

We also spoke of Iran...

As most of you know

we ended the Iran deal

which was one of the worst deals

anyone could imagine and

that's had a major impact on Iran

and it's substantially weakened Iran

and we hope that at some point Iran

will call us and we'll maybe make a 
new deal or maybe we won't.

But Iran is not the same country

that it was five months ago

that I can tell you...

They've got some big problems
 that they can solve probably 
much easier if  they deal with us
so we'll see what happens

but we did discuss Iran.

 Supposably IV

We discussed Israel

and the security of Israel

and President Putin is very

much involved with us

in a discussion with Bibi...

A major topic of discussion was

North Korea and the need

for it to remove its nuclear weapons.

President Putin agrees with me 100 percent...

Discussions are ongoing

and they're going very very well.

We have no rush for speed...

We have no time limit.

We have no speed limit

We have -- we're just

going through the process.

But the relationships are very good.

President Putin is going 
to be involved in the sense that he is with us. 

He would like to see that happen.

Supposably V

Perhaps the most important issue

we discussed at our meeting...

was the reduction of nuclear weapons

throughout the world. 

The United States and Russia

have 90 percent as I said

and we could have a big impact. 

But nuclear weapons is I think,

the greatest threat of

our world today. 

And they're a great nuclear power.

We're a great nuclear power.

We have to do something

about nuclear.

And so that was a matter that we discussed

actually in great detail and

President Putin agrees with me.

Supposably VI

The matters we discussed are profound

in their importance and have

the potential to save millions of lives.

I understand the many disagreements

between our countries but I also

understand the dialogue - 

and when you think about it -

dialogue with Russia or dialogue

with other countries.

So if we get along with them, great.

If we don't get along with them

then, well, we won't get along with them...

Supposably VII

I thought that the meeting I had
with President Putin was really
strong. I think that they are willing 
to do things that frankly I wasn't sure
whether or not they would be willing to do 
and we'll be having future meetings
and we'll see whether or not
that comes to fruition
But 
we
 had
a
very
very 
good
meeting