THE ED SHOW
September 11, 2014
Guest: John Garamendi, Lawrence Wilkerson, Karen Desoto, William C.
Rhoden; Terence Moore, Bob Shrum
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... to degrade and
ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 475 more American troops will head to Iraq to advise
their security forces.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: I`m very worried about half measures.
OBAMA: We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: The president has been criticized, "He
wasn`t tough like Cheney and Bush. Thank God".
SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: That does not prompt confidence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That threat does not yet justify the whole so
occupation of Iraq or Syria.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: Frankly, we have to give the
President what he`s asking for.
OBAMA: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks
for watching.
So last night, we get the plan. President Obama lays it out. Going to be,
degrade and destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Until this point, U.S. air
strikes have been -- against ISIS in Iraq and have been limited in scope
and defensive in nature, that changed last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: With the new Iraqi government in place. And following
consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that
America will lead a broad coalition to rollback this terrorist threat. Our
objective is clear: we will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a
comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.
Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond
protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we`re hitting
ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: So, we won`t stop until they are destroyed. That`s my
interpretation to that part of the speech. That means the endgame is, when
they`re gone, when they`re out of business, when they`ve been destroyed
then this is going to be backing off. OK.
The President said 475 additional advisers will be sent to Iraq. These
troops will not play a combat role. President Obama wants Americans to
know we will not be dragged into another ground war in Iraq. That`s really
what Americans wanted last time, how far is this going?
We learned last night the United States will now be involved in an open-
ended air campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I`ve made it clear that we will hunt down terrorist who threaten
our country wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take
action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. That`s the core principle
of my presidency. If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Now, the President`s got some credibility here. He said
something like that in the debate with Mitt Romney before the election in
2012. And he said -- actually it was -- yeah. He said, you know, if we
have actionable intelligence and the Pakistanis are unable or unwilling,
we`ll go and get Osama bin Laden. So, look, the President`s got
credibility of an A-game here when he says he`s going to do something on
foreign policy.
President Obama said that he has the authority to address the threat of
ISIS without Congressional approval. Not big debate there at all.
However, he does need lawmakers to support him in taking the fight to
Syria. The President called on Congress to give him the authority to train
and equip Syrian opposition forces.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: We have ramped up a military assistance to the Syrian oppositions.
Tonight, I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and
resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fighting this ISIL, we
cannot rely on Al-Assad regime that terrorizes its own people. A regime
that will never regain the legitimacy in has lost. Instead, we must
strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extreme this like
ISIL.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: The best counterweight, that`s a calculated line. Because I
don`t know if we had any new found loyalty on the globe when it comes to
Syrian moderates. Who are they? Every time we arm groups in Middle East,
it always comes back to bite us. And now we`re counting on a brand new
Iraqi government to work and to take to fight ISIS on the ground as we fly
over the top and do the intelligence, do the air strikes and do everything
but get boots on the ground.
The Syrian moderates, as they are called now, will have to fight now on two
fronts, ISIS and Assad. What`s the percentage of all of this working? I
think this is what Americans are missing and lacking in conversation. Is
this 100 percent chance of working -- 50, 60, 10 percent chance of working?
Now, the President has on -- been on record saying, we`re going to destroy
them. And the best thing any president can have behind them is the
American people. The fact President Obama clearly mentioned the two
executed journalists, by name indicates that he wants every American to
clearly understand the nature of this threat and who these are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no
vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way. In a region
that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their
brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They
enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious
minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of
two American journalists, Jim Foley and Steven Satloff.
If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that
region, including to the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: So if you behead Americans, you`re going to pay for it. At least
if Barack Obama is still the President you`re going to pay for it. That`s
what he`s saying.
Although we must admit and we got to be honest about this, be fair brokers
here -- that we`re not going after ISIS with full force, we`re not doing
it. It`s not going to be our troops on the ground, just our money, just
our airpower, just our technology.
Now the question is, can we get this done this way, and every American
hopes that we can. Even though President Obama said that he will act
without Congress, he said that he would welcome their support.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL. But I
believe we are strongest as a nation if when the President and Congress
work together. So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order
to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: So, can we show the world that we`re united here or are we going
to politically fight over absolutely everything? Are we ever going to say,
"You know what? He`s the Commander-in-Chief, got elected twice, let`s give
it to him whatever he wants. Just like Bush."
If the last four years have been any indications of support, the President
must receive. I wouldn`t hold my hope out. There`s going to be a fight
here. It`s clear, America will foot the bill for this and that will lead
to a huge political fight in Congress. The President doesn`t do enough to
satisfy Republicans militarily, what`s going to happen? He`s not going to
get the appropriation. That`s where it`s going as I see it.
Earlier today, John Boehner said he supports the President`s request for
arming rebels but he made clear, many Republicans are unsure of the
President`s overall plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: I can tell you in our conversations this morning, a lot of our
members don`t fell like the campaign that was outlined last night will
accomplish the mission that the President says, and that was to destroy
ISIL. And so frankly, a lot of our members think a lot more needs to be
done than what was laid out last night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Give me a number, John. Mr. Speaker, give me a number. A lot of
members? Just enough Republicans to make foreign policy miserable for the
President.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is also doubtful of the President`s
plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: I`m tired of half measures. I`m
tired of misleading the American people about what we face. There is no
way in hell we`re going to beat these guys without an American ground
component in Iraq and Syria. There is not a force in the Mideast that can
take these guys on and win without substantial American help.
You don t need the 82nd Airborne, but we`re going to need thousands of
troops over time on the ground, holding the hands of the Arab armies that
are going to do the fighting along with the Syrians to make sure we win.
And the one thing I can promise the American people, if we take ISIL on and
lose, we will unlock the gates of hell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: What makes you think we`re going to lose, Senator? Maybe if you
give the President everything he needs and he`s asking for at this point
and may ask for in the future, we won`t lose.
Unlock the gates of hell he says, it`s already started. This is the
political opening for the Republicans right before the midterms. They will
make the case in evolve it that President Obama and the Democrats are weak
on national security. Our country is also facing serious problems at home,
no doubt.
Income inequality, tax aversion, middle class issues, Obamacare,
immigration, trade agreements, workers` rights, jobs, oh yeah let`s not
forget the economy. All of those issues which do favor the Democrats in
polling, they`re all going to be lost in conversation because the
Republicans are going to go right back to national security. You`re going
to her more from Dick Cheney over the next couple of months than you`ve
seen him in recent years.
Now, the truth is the President can`t hide behind a coalition on this. We
as a country need to make sure that we get this done. Who really does have
skin in the game? Today, there was some more good foreign policy and good
foreign policy news when it comes to support. Whose boots are going to be
there? Whose money is going to be there? Who`s going to be taking down
ISIS? Who else is going to be in this game? For sure.
Now, it`s not the Iraq of old, no doubt. This is not about making more
money for Halliburton or making sure we get more oil. Hell, we`re pumping
more oil out of American soil than we ever have. This is real. This is
about American security. This is about a -- gosh, I sound like a right-
winger, a gathering threat. I didn`t mean to say that but it`s the truth.
What if ISIS isn`t stopped? Almost half the nation thinks that we are less
safe than we were before 9/11. It`s the highest response to this question
since the poll started in 2002. ISIS is a threat to national security.
Are they going to hit tomorrow? Well, that`s not what the intelligence
says. But how do we know they`re a threat? We know their moral nature.
They`ve cut the heads of two Americans off, that`s all the information I
really need at this point.
We do have a moral obligation to stop people like this. And there`s really
no easy way out of this, is there? And once you get in, it`s hard to get
out. And I just hope that these Syrian moderates are the right folks to
put arms in their hands off.
Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, you`ve heard the president. You have listened to the armed
chairs out there. "Are we as a country doing the right thing?" Text A for
yes, text B for no to 67622, you can always go to our blog at ed.msnbc.com.
We`ll bring you the results later on sin the show. That`s the question.
Are we doing the right thing?
For more, let me bring in John Garamendi, Congressman from California who
sits on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, you get the first
question. Are we doing the right thing? Your thoughts?
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (R) CONGRESSMAN: We`re doing the right thing but I
think we`re also going about it the wrong way. The President welcomes our
involvement. Ed, this is a new war. This is not an extension of the Iraq
I, or Iraq II war or even Afghanistan. This is a new war.
The constitution is very clear. The President must come to Congress to get
our approval and authorization to use force. It`s very, very clear to me.
They`re arguing that they don`t need it, that they can continue the wars of
the Afghanistan and the 2002 era.
We need to limit. We need to be very, very careful. We need to limit
exactly what the President said he wanted to do last night. We don`t want
to grease the slippery slope to all-out engagement in the Middle East
again.
But if we fail to put through a very clear authorization to use force
that`s limited, limited in its scope, limited in how much and where we can
do it, we`re going to head right down that slippery slope and I`ll
guarantee you we`ll have thousands of boots on the ground leading the
effort to try to deal with these countries. Which we will not succeed at,
unless those country surrounding it -- the Sunni counties surrounding this
area, Iraq, Turkey, the countries in the Gulf State and Jordan. If they
don`t get engaged with their boots on the ground we cannot succeed. We
will simply enflame this thing even worst than it is.
SCHULTZ: So Congressman what I`m hearing is, you want this very well-
defined and you want Congress` stamp of approval that the 13-year-old vote
doesn`t fit anymore, that this is as you said, a new war. I have to ask
you tonight, John.
GARAMENDI: Sure.
SCHULTZ: Are most Democrats talking like this, what`s the conversation
amongst your party?
GARAMENDI: We need to find out. That`s what the debate is about.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
GARAMENDI: Under the American constitution, the president can propose war
but it is Congress that authorizes war and I don`t care how you want to
parse the language. I don`t care how smart your lawyers are, this is not
Afghanistan. This is not al-Qaeda. This is not the Gulf War II in 2002
which was under faults pretenses anyway.
SCHULTZ: OK.
GARAMENDI: This is a new war and we need to go about this with very
careful definition. The President laid out four things. Those should be
the parameters of an authorization to use force.
SCHULTZ: So Congressman, do you believe that the President can get an
appropriation to arm these Syrian moderates? Would he need to vote on
that, in your opinion?
GARAMENDI: Frankly, I was rather shocked today when we heard in a briefing
that they wanted to connect that to the continuing resolution, in other
words, the funding of government after October or after September 30th.
That is a recipe for shutting down a government because you put right smack
into the continuation of the operation of government, a very controversial
issue.
SCHULTZ: OK.
GARAMENDI: Not wise, I think it ought to be a separate vote, voted up or
down and let`s see where we`re going.
Am willing to support that? Yes, if it`s carefully defined. If it`s
limited, yes, I will. I`ve already said I support air power both in Iraq
and in Syria but we need to be careful here about how we approach this and
to connect that authorization to train and equip the Syrian rebels whomever
they maybe and a lot of questions you raised it too.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
GARAMENDI: Who are they...
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
GARAMENDI: ... to put that into the continuing resolution of the funding
of the American government and all of its various pieces, I think is a very
serious political mistake.
SCHULTZ: That is a great unknown. Who are the Syrian moderates and are
they seriously going to be that much better off if they are armed?
Congressman John Garamendi, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate
your time.
GARAMENDI: Always, Ed. Thank you.
SCHULTZ: I want to bring in Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Former Chief of
Staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell, worked in that office for sure
and was right there.
This is an ominous time for America right now Colonel. Your reaction to
the President`s overall plan as it stands?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FRM. POWELL CHIEF OF STAFF: Ed, I agree with you
and the Congressman on the point about Syria. I`m really worried about
whom we will be arming and where those arms might ultimately lined up.
I`ve seen a lot of this in my time. The second concern I have echoes
Congressman Garamendi in that, I don`t like this business of the executive
being able to take the nation to a new war without any, fairly well with
the Congress. We need to rest the war power back where the constitution
said it should be in the Congress.
That said, I think the President`s approach as expressed last night was
fairly judicious. We do not need to do anything beyond what he said until
we see if what he said works, because we are not going to defeat anybody in
this region of the world without the people who are vested in that region,
the Iraqis, the Syrians and others actually doing the heavy lifting on the
ground. There`s no one to fight for, there`s no border to fight for,
there`s no nation to fight for if these people won`t fight for themselves.
And so one questions, whether or not we would ever want to put ground
forces back in the region, being offshore and being able to strike with air
power, naval and air is very important when our interest are threatened.
But putting troops back on the ground is exactly what Zawahiri, and al-
Qaeda, and al-Baghdadi at the Islamic State and others like them want us to
do. They want to target rich environment with American soldiers and
marines to kill.
SCHULTZ: So, you`re concerned clearly about mission creep?
WILKERSON: Absolutely.
SCHULTZ: And you got a reel this thing in from the start. Is it possible
to take out ISIS -- in your opinion, without combat troops on the ground?
Now, you`ve mentioned that what, you know, who`s got to be vested in this,
the Iraqis and whoever we`re arming in Syria but can we do this without
American troops on the ground? I know that there`s a thousand Special
Forces there but I`m talking about an army of Americans. Can we get this
done?
WILKERSON: Simple answer, Ed. Is if we can`t, it can`t be done. Let me
just tell you that the hype about this group is phenomenal. I frankly find
it difficult to believe, great powers like the United States taking council
of their fears is the first step to destruction. We do not need to fear
these people in a way that the media and others are hyping it and people
for my own party like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who incidentally
aren`t going to be on the front lines I will guarantee you, I`ll take an
oath on that.
These people are Arabs for the most part, just like the Iraqis, just like
the Syrians, they are beatable. Moshe Dayan once said, when someone ask
him a question about the 1967 war and why Israel won it so easily, he said
in frustration, "Well, it helps to be fighting Arabs."
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
WILKERSON: These are not the most formidable military forces in the world.
The only reason, they have any capability right now is they stole it. And
if there is a force on the ground in Iraq that we trained -- remember Ed,
we spent billions of dollars, David Petraeus finished it up, we certified
that we had a genuinely good Iraqi army and it melted in front of these
people who are no better than it.
SCHULTZ: And you sound very concerned if we could be doing a replay. We
could be doing an instant replay here.
WILKERSON: I`m very concerned about that.
SCHULTZ: OK. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, it`s great to have you with us.
I appreciate your insight and your time tonight. Thank you, sir, I
appreciate it.
Remember to answer tonight`s questions there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter at Ed Show and on Facebook and at
wegoted. We want to know what you think.
Coming up, former FBI Director, Robert Mueller will conduct the private
investigation of the NFL in their handling on the Ray Rice video. Bill
Rhodes of the New York Times will tell us if the league can be trusted to
police itself.
But first, the latest on the Oscar Pistorius trial, Karen Desoto joins me.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. What`s hot out there? Trenders,
here we go. Social media, join the ED team, facebook.com/edshow,
twitter.com/edshow and ed.msnbc.com. The podcast, you can find it at
wegoted, rawstory.com, ringoffireradio.com and on iTunes. It`s available
24/7 free. Ed Show social media nation has decided. We`re reporting.
Here are today`s top trenders voted on by you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: The number three trender, Ted talks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s called in the Defense of Christians Summit, the
Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz will give a keynote address.
CRUZ: Those who hate Israel hate America.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cruz gets booed for his comments on the Middle East.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The event was built as a gathering of Middle Eastern
Christian leaders.
CRUZ: If you will not stand with Israel and Jews, then I will not stand
with you.
SCHULTZ: The number two trender, socked.
CARY CHOW, ESPN: A former stripper has accused Jerry Jones of sexual
assault.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jones`s attorney calls it a shakedown.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dallas Cowboys` owner Jerry Jones faces a sexual
harassment lawsuit.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A 27-year-old woman claimed Jones sexually assaulted
her more than five years ago.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This situation at the Cowboys have known about for
quite sometime.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Her lawyer says she was bullied and intimidated. He
says Jones and the Cowboys tried to cover up the assault by telling her to
keep quite.
CHOW: Jones`s lawyer says it`s nothing more than an attempt to embarrass
and extort the Cowboys` owner.
SCHULTZ: And today`s top trender, verdict.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The judge of the Oscar Pistorius murder trial had
cleared the Olympic played runner of the most serious charges against him.
THOKOZILE MASIPA, SOUTH AFRICAN JUDGE: The evidence failed to establish
that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let
alone with premeditation.
SCHULTZ: Oscar Pistorius is cleared of the most serious charges against
him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The judge clearly convinced that Pistorius did not
intend to kill his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
MASIPA: I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used
excessive force.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He could still go to jail for culpable homicide which
means he was negligent when he killed her.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This carry a sentence for up to 15 years.
MASIPA: In the circumstances it is clear that his conduct was negligent.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He could still walk out of this court room today a
freeman...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: And we are joined tonight by Karen Desoto, Defense Attorney and
Former Prosecutor. Karen, thanks for your time. The word intent plays big
here doesn`t it?
KAREN DESOTO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It plays huge.
SCHULTZ: What was the heavy lift for the prosecution here?
DESOTO: Well, apparently, the heavy lift for the prosecution is that the
judge kept on saying that, you know, he didn`t intend to, it wasn`t
foreseeable. So what the prosecutor has to do is kind of make it so that
it was premeditated in the sense that, in the facts that he used that she
was locked in the bathroom.
She was in the small room. He`s using an inherently dangerous gun and
therefore you can glean the intent from the fact that he picked up the gun,
didn`t locate her, went to the bathroom, didn`t fire off a shot, didn`t
say, "Hey, where are you? Who`s in there?"
So there`s enough there Ed, to get to that premeditation but the judge was
not convinced. She said that the owner was on the prosecution and that she
appeared to have agreed that the facts were not in the prosecution`s favor.
SCHULTZ: And she talked about his actions after the shooting, your
impression to that?
DESOTO: Yes. After the shooting, one of the things that she did say was
that there was a witness that said that he was very remorseful and he was
crying but -- and I have to say that even if you killed somebody, whether
you intended to or not there`s a lot of emotion and you`re going to cry and
you`re going to be upset because you`re going to get arrested. So I --
that was very surprising knowing that she was a judge who`s been sitting on
the bench for a long time.
SCHULTZ: Well, the prosecution continually went after him having a hot
temper, having a pattern of behavior that was possibly out to the norm and
the term of some, it just -- it came down to what unfolded that night. It
seems like.
DESOTO: Yeah. And whether or not, she believed that he was thinking that
he wasn`t confused. She said a lot of times that he testified that he was
under anxiety but then, she also said contradictory statements that he had
time to collect himself, to conduct himself. So here in the United States,
that would equate to a second degree murder if he had time to be
reasonable.
SCHULTZ: Culpable homicide and their judicial system, what`s he looking
at?
DESOTO: Well, there`s going to be a hearing, a sentencing hearing and he
could do 15 years if it`s grossly negligent and he can do 5 years if it`s
just negligent but the judge has a lot of a leeway. And the rule of thumb
in South Africa is that if you get a sentence more than two years, you`re
going to do at least half of your time.
SCHULTZ: Would this be viewed as a real failure by the prosecution?
DESOTO: I am sure that the prosecution is livid because this is one of the
situations that had appears, that it was a severe domestic violence
situation. And the fact that he woke up like most men would do if there`s
an intruder and locate your loved ones but instead go off for shooting
seems beyond reckless so I`m sure that the prosecutor probably does see
this as a failure and he`s probably thinking how he can correct it with an
appeal.
SCHULTZ: As far as the physical events that unfolded, do you think we know
exactly what happened in that house?
DESOTO: Well, no. Nobody -- unless you have a video tape, you`ll never
know for sure what happened but what you do know is that it was Valentines
Day. She was fully close. She was in the bathroom the size of a very
small stall and he had a gun which is a very dangerous, inherently
dangerous, you know, tool and went and he shot it into a very small area.
How, Ed, is that not foreseeable? Is that truly not foreseeable that you
would think that if you shot into a small area and you knew somebody was in
there that you wouldn`t foresee that they would possibly die.
SCHULTZ: OK. Karen Desoto, thank you for your time tonight. I appreciate
it.
Coming up, access granted. Former FBI Director Robert Mauler will lead an
investigation into the NFL`s handling in the Ray Rice video.
Plus the Wall Street Journal thinks President Obama should admit defeat?
No, this isn`t the funny section. I`ll tell you about it.
Your questions coming up, Ask Ed Live next on the Ed Show on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Appreciate all your questions. Our
first question tonight comes form Debby. She wants to know, "Where were
you on 9/11/2001?" Well, Debby, like anybody else, it`s a day I`ll never
forget. My wife and I were doing a radio show out of Senator Conrad`s
office at the Hart Senate building in Washington D.C. and just before the
show started, we were there to cover the Farm Bill and it got -- the world
changed right after that.
So the hit took place. It was a scramble. I`ll never forget what we went
through. Long story short, we ended up right across from the parking lot
of Hart building in front of the capitol police headquarters in Washington
and we were roped in with about 30 other journalist. And I was in a
position to get comment from some of the senators who were being pushed
into the capitol police headquarters for security because we really didn`t
know what we were dealing with as a country.
And I`ll never forget, one of my first interviews just going up with the
microphone and asking Senator Shelby from Alabama. "Senator, what
happened?" He says, "We knew we were going to get hit. We just didn`t
know when. We`re going to hunt them down like dogs because that`s what
they are."
I don`t forget that. There was Hillary, there was Biden, there was -- all
of them. They, you know, I`ll never forget -- Dick Gephardt came out in a
car, security car got out and someone yelled out across to him.
Congressman, there`s thousands of Americans who have been killed, do you
have comment? And he had a look on his face like he hadn`t heard that.
And so, I`ve got so many memories of it and I do had a lot of it on tape
and someday I`ll play it for you on my podcast. God bless those Americans
who lost their lives on that day. September 11th, we can never forget.
Stick around, Rapid Response panel is next.
HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC MARKET WRAP: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC
Market Wrap.
Stocks end mixed but little change. The Dow falls 19 points, the S&P up 1,
the NASDAQ adding 5 points.
The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits unexpectedly
jumped last week. Filing grows by 11,000 to 315,000 -- that`s the most
since June. Economist expected a reading below the 300,000 level. And
shares of the Lululemon rallied about 14 percent today. The maker of the
yoga wear reported earnings and revenue that beat estimates.
That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight. In
less than three hours the Baltimore Ravens are set to take the field
against the Pittsburgh Steelers. No doubt the game is being overshadowed
by what`s going on off the field.
Last night NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced that former FBI
Director Robert Mueller will conduct an independent investigation into the
NFL`s pursuit and handling of the evidence in the Ray Rice domestic
violence incident.
Giants Co-Owner John Mara and also Steelers owner Art Rooney Jr., both
lawyers will oversee the investigation. The results of the probe will be
made public. Calls for Goodell to resign intensified Wednesday night after
an Associated Press report contradicted his statement that no one in the
League office saw the video until Monday.
A law enforcement official told the Associated Press, he sent the elevated
video of Ray Rice knocking Janay Rice unconscious to an NFL executive three
months ago, though the A.P. cannot confirm if anyone of the NFL watched the
video.
They were played a 12-second voicemail from an NFL office number confirming
the video arrived. A female voice expresses thanks and says, "You`re
right. It`s terrible."
At this point it comes down to a question of credibility. In a memo sent
to NFL teams earlier Wednesday, Goodell said, "None of the law enforcement
entities we approached were permitted to provide any video or other
investigatory material to us."
Joining me tonight Rapid Response Panel, William C. Rhoden of the New York
Times Sports Columnist and also Terence Moore, National Sports Columnist
and professor at Miami of Ohio University. Two of the best, two of the
most experienced. Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight.
The question tonight is -- Bill you first, is this presence of Robert
Mueller and two other NFL owners going to change the dynamic here?
WILLIAM C. RHODEN, N.Y. TIMES SPORTS COLUMNIST: Well, it`s going to the
dynamic in terms of credibility but if you -- the question is, do I trust
the National Football League? Listen, you`ve got -- as you`ve just pointed
out, you got Jerry Jones being one owner, being a convict-- I mean being --
is facing a sexual assault suit. You`ve got the New Orleans Saints
Bountygate, you got the New Orleans Patriots -- you got the patriots who
are -- has Spygate.
You`ve had the owner of the Indianapolis Colts is in drug rehab. You`ve
got the Carolina Panthers player Greg Hardy who`s faced a horrendous sexual
assault issue. So, do I trust these guys to follow the truth where it
leads? Not really, not.
SCHULTZ: Terence Moore, do you agree? Do you think that this will change
anything?
TERENCE MOORE, NATIONAL SPORT COLUMNIST: Ed, I`m going to start with this.
If Robert Mueller who`s been put in charge to this investigation is
serious, he will look at everything involved with the Roger Goodell era and
it goes back to 2006. And what he will find is an ugly pattern, OK?
And it all starts with Spygate, what William just talked about here. The
Spygate is when Bill Belichick, the coach of the New England Patriots was
caught by the NFL cheating on games including three Super Bowls.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
MOORE: . by videotaping illegally other teams. Now, bring this up because
Roger Goodell gathered all the evidence, all the videotapes, all the notes
and destroyed them. And then when a Senate Judiciary Committee asked him
why he did it, he said smugly, "Well, it was the right thing to do" OK?
And then he said, he was just trying to keep from other teams.
Now, the point is this, OK? You add that to this and to other things, he
is literally living his credo of trying to protect, to shield by any means
necessary. So this is a going to be a very difficult investigation to get
to the heart of what needs to be -- gotten to.
SCHULTZ: Well, if you change commissioners do you change the league?
RHODEN: No -- that`s the problem. No, you plug one in you plug everyone.
And by the way, you know, you let off by saying that this incident
overshadowed the game in Baltimore, no way.
SCHULTZ: You don`t think so?
RHODEN: The NFL is so happy that they`re at Thursday and then in Sunday
because they`ve realized that they`ve got this product, there`s plenty of
money. People are addicted to this sport and if they get by Sunday night,
people will end it by Monday Night Football, people will completely have
almost forgotten this. That is what they`re counting on and.
SCHULTZ: So, do you sound -- is if you believe that Ray Rice has a future
in the NFL that he.
RHODEN: No, I`m not going that far.
SCHULTZ: OK.
RHODEN: Now, look.
SCHULTZ: But you think that this is going to be.
MOORE: I think it does.
SCHULTZ: What do you think Terence?
MOORE: I think he does have a future in the NFL and I`m going to take a
step further -- what William just said right there.
I am firmly convinced, OK? As bad as this going to sound, that this is
going to just be ripple in the ocean for the NFL.
RHODEN: Right.
MOORE: Because this country is addicted to the NFL. You got all these
fantasy leagues out there. Last year, during the last regular season, 34
of the top 35 T.V. shows were NFL games. The only exception was the NBC
Thanksgiving Day Parade, OK? What does that tell you?
People love the NFL. And this is partly why the NFL thinks they can get
away of a lot of these stuff and does.
SCHULTZ: OK. John Mara, one of the two owners overseeing the
investigation was out defending the commissioner. Before the A.P. report
he said, "The notion that the League should have gone around the law
enforcement to obtain the video is, in my opinion, misguided, as is the
notion that the Commissioner`s job is now in jeopardy." What`s your
response to that now Bill?
RHODEN: Well, I think if you ask him now, it wasn`t misguided. You`ve got
-- the NFL can have a both ways. You can`t brag that you`ve got one of the
top security forces in all of sports. And then somehow this tape is like
lying in the bottom of somebody`s desk.
He`s either incompetent or a cover up. You cannot have it both ways.
Right now the NFL is facing two wrong answers. There`s nothing they can
really say is wrong, and I feel as though -- that yes, they`re an arrogant
League but they`re facing an unprecedented backlash, particularly from
women`s groups.
And if they think if they going to blow this off, they`re badly mistaken,
this is a huge -- not only a tarnish but this is the dent (ph).
SCHULTZ: But you just said a moment ago that you thought that this is
going to be off of the headlines.
RHODEN: By Monday.
SCHULTZ: . by Monday.
RHODEN: By Monday but seeing what -- well, go ahead Terence -- go ahead.
MOORE: Yeah, I`m going to tell you why -- I`ve got a serious problem on
this investigation, OK? There`s no doubt when you got the former FBI here
in-charge of it they`re going to find stuff, OK?
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
MOORE: But two bad things here, there is no subpoena power here -- there`s
no obligation of anybody to talk and if they not to be forthcoming and the
other thing is this is such a joke to put two owners on this thing. As a
matter of fact, two of the top owners in the NFL, John Mara and also Dan
Rooney -- because who selects the commissioner? The owners, that`s
ridiculous.
And I`ll tell you Ed, how this going to turn out. The 4th person is going
to be -- this woman back at the NFL office who got this videotape, she`s
going to be the 21st century Rose Mary Wood, you know, the old Richard
Nixon secretary, the 18.5...
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
MOORE: ... minute gap.
It`s going to be that, "She got the video, never gave to anybody else", "Oh
we discipline her, let`s move on with the rest of our lives."
SCHULTZ: They`re saying that Goodell was down in Augusta when the video
showed up.
RHODEN: That doesn`t matter if he...
SCHULTZ: Yeah, exactly.
RHODEN: I just want to say -- let me just finish my thought, is that.
SCHULTZ: Sure.
RHODEN: . is that -- yes, I think that people are addicted to the game.
But I think that you`re going to see such a steady stream of comment at
this guy. October, next month is -- I think domestic violence month. I
think you`re going to see protest around stadiums. I think you`re going to
see pickets.
This is not going to abate. This is not going to abate -- and women are
something like 30 to 40 percent of this league. And so, I think we`ve only
seen the beginning -- the addiction could only go so far.
SCHULTZ: All right. William Rhoden and Terence Moore, great to have both
of you gentlemen with us tonight. Thank you so much.
Coming up, John bomb, bomb, bomb McCain sounds like a broken record. Stay
with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, paper jam. The Wall Street Journal,
the Editorial Board turned the newspaper into a fantasy play book this
week. Their opinion article says that President Obama should praise Dick
Cheney in his ISIS address and admit that the former Vice President was
correct on foreign policy, do you believe that?
The Editorial Board wrote, "We hope tonight`s speech -- meaning yesterday -
- shows a more realistic President. One way to start undoing the damage
would be to concede that Dick Cheney was right all along."
Cheney didn`t have a foreign policy strategy. He had a thirst for oil.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICK CHENEY, 46TH U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Simply stated, there is no doubt
that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
He has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept and
prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel.
The kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge.
There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against
our allies, and against us.
TIM RUSSERT, NBC MODERATOR: And do you think the American people are
prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with an significant American
casualties?
CHENEY: Well, I don`t think it`s likely to unfold that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Oops, none of those showed up on the editorial board page.
Cheney put American lives in danger under false pretense. He can`t get
around it.
If the Wall Street Journal thinks hiding behind an editorial board will
hide the facts, they can keep on pretending.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, President Obama`s address of the situations
in Iraq and Syria have really been given us one predictable result, that is
Republican criticism.
John McCain is leading the charge as always. McCain in fact is making the
T.V. appearances around the clock since the speech. He`s sounding like a
broken record.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: Obviously, he doesn`t understand the nature of the threat. His
statement that America is safer, that`s fundamentally false.
The President of the United States, when he didn`t leave a withdraw --
force behind lead to all of these.
And the fact that they didn`t leave the residual force in Iraq, overruling
all of his military advisers is the reason why we`re facing ISIS today.
Our withdrawal from -- all of our troops from Iraq was a major contributor
to this situation that we are in today.
Find me one statement that the President of United State made publicly that
he wanted to leave a residual force behind and I can find you 50 where he
bragged about the last combat troop had left Iraq and we`d left a safe,
stable, prosperous Iraq behind, a lot of howlers, a lot of howlers about
how well we had done in Iraq.
If we have left the residual force, the situation in Iraq would not be
where it is today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: It seems like that John McCain, the former presidential hopeful
is still a sore loser.
Here is a reminder of where McCain`s mind was in 2007.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: That old -- that old Beach Boys song, "Bomb Iran." Bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb -- anyway.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Not to mention of McCain were in office right now that would be
that Sarah Palin would be Vice President.
Bob Shrum, Democratic Strategist joins us tonight.
Good to have you with us Bob. Why is McCain.
BOB SHRUM, WARSCHAW PROF. OF POLITICS, USC: Glad to be here.
SCHULTZ: . he is constantly inserting himself into this conservation all
the time like he is obligated to do so. Is he a sore loser of does he have
a point about the residual force as you see it?
SHRUM: Well, I`m sure he believes what he is saying. I`m also sure that
he`s a sore loser. He is an embittered guy who`s never met a war, he
wouldn`t wage. We`re lucky he never got elected president.
Look at his arguments. He says, if we have left the residual force behind
the situation it wouldn`t be the way it is? We had tens of thousands --
70,000, 80,000, 90,000 troops in Iraq in 2005, 2006 and the place was in
chaos.
McCain then says, "Oh, we had the surge" which leads one wonder whether he
think we should keep 130,000 troops there. But the surge only worked
because we brought the Sunni tribes over to our side. That would never
have happen while Maliki was running a government in Iraq the last several
years that was deeply sectarian.
Beyond that Maliki was absolutely unwilling and he`s now gone from power in
Iraq unwilling to sign the status of forces agreement. If McCain really
want to leave troops behind but at any kind of legal protection, you know,
the more you listen to him, the more you listen to Dick Cheney you wished
they just go away. Why would we take advice from people who invaded Iraq
under false pretenses and set up this mess in the first place?
SCHULTZ: Yeah. I don`t know how he can make the case that the residual
force would have prevented ISIS from forming the way they did.
SHRUM: Well, he can`t. The fact -- I mean, he asserts that and there`s a
lot of bluster in this but he can`t make that case because what happened
here was an alienation of the Sunni part of the Iraqi population. It was
because the Maliki government was running a very anti-Sunni administration,
was running a deeply as I`ve said sectarian state.
And so Sunnis moved over to the other side. Now, what`s happened now, when
you look at John Kerry in Saudi Arabia, we seem to be putting together a
genuine coalition of Arab States that are going to get involved in this...
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
SHRUM: ... the Sunni -- yeah, it was a big day (ph) and -- there are Sunni
Arab States and that`s going to give some reasons for Sunnis in Iraq along
with a new government. That`s going to give them some reason to think that
they should oppose ISIS.
And we`re going to use air power all out I think, as Bill Clinton did in
the Balkans in the 1990s. John Boehner, of course said air power isn`t
enough, he just said this afternoon. "Air power isn`t enough. It won`t
work." That`s what they said to Clinton.
I think the President has got a tough situation here but I think he is
doing the right thing. And the pathetic thing is that the Republicans are
just looking for political advantage.
SCHULTZ: OK.
SCHRUM: Not McCain. He actually believes this stuff.
SCHULTZ: Bob Shrum, great to have you with us. Thank you so much.
That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.
Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.
Good evening Rev.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
The Ed Show for Thursday, September 11th, 2014
Read the transcript to the Thursday show