IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

The Ed Show for Wednesday, September 17th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show


September 17, 2014


JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: ... to what we`re trying to do.

SEN. JOHN BARASSO, (R) WYOMING: Thank you Mr. Chairman and secretary.
Thank you very much for coming. Yesterday`s New York Times headline, Kerry
says U.S. is open to talking to Iran and you just -- and I agree with your
comments about the nuclear issues, it`s so huge.


ED SCHULTZ, ED SHOW HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed
Show. You`ve been watching a Senate Foreign Relations Committee briefing
taking place on Capital Hills, just watching Secretary of State John
Kerry`s testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the
United States strategy to fight ISIS. A short time ago, the Secretary had
this exchange with Senator John McCain.


KERRY: I don`t believe, number one, that the people supporting the
opposition in various parts of the region are ever going to stop until the
Assad problem is resolved. And number two, I don`t believe ISIL is going
to -- I don`t believe that the modern opposition will obviously stop that
in an effort.

So therefore, there will be these two prongs. There`s no way to avoid

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: I hope there`s two prongs and not ISIL
first, that that message is not given to these brave young people we`re
asking to sacrifice.

KERRY: Well, if we don`t stop ISIL first, there may not be much left to
the other prong.

MCCAIN: John...


MCCAIN: It means we can`t take on two adversaries at once. That`s...

KERRY: It`s not us.

MCCAIN: That`s bogus and false.


SCHULTZ: Joining me now is Joe Cirincione, President of Ploughshares Fund,
a global security foundation. Joe, good to have you with us tonight. It`s
been quite a hearing. The last two hours on Capital Hill and there seems
to be some real differences between both parties when it comes to how we`re
going to handle this.

From what you saw, do you think that Secretary Kerry laid out a good road
map and a good explanation as to where we are as a coalition and as a
country moving forward against ISIS?

was quite clear and seemed to have the support of many, maybe most of the
members of that committee. Senator John McCain of course continues to
insist that he should be running U.S. National Security policy. To has his
own ideas, wants there`s to be much more of a U.S. direct military
involvement. He would like to have troops on -- at the ready, maybe even
go into -- to Syria and Iraq again. Right now, he`s talked about tens of
thousands of troops.

Secretary Kerry is very clear and the President is clear, that`s not going
to happen. We`re talking about air cover, air strikes against ISIL. We`re
talking about training, that`s what the house is voting on right now, and
supporting the ground forces of our allies in the region.

SCHULTZ: The other night on this program, Colonel Wilkerson, Lawrence
Wilkerson told us that he had spoken with some of his friends in the
intelligence community and if there had been some coalition or some kind of
ceasefire agreement made between Syrian moderates and ISIS. That was
debunked today by Secretary of State John Kerry when Barbara Boxer asked
him about that after she had appeared on this program.

Do we really know what`s going on? Does our intel have a good grip on,
"Who the good guys are if we`re going to be arming these Syrian moderates?"
And of course, John Kerry, Secretary of State downplayed it saying that
that was a disinformation campaign by ISIS. How do the American people
sort all of these out?

CIRINCIONE: Ed, you`re absolutely right. This is tough. This is tricky
and part of the reason is our assets on the ground are limited. And the
ISIS group is so extreme, so tightly controlled that it`s very hard to get
human intelligence inside that group reporting out. And so what you`re
talking about is there`s been some reports that factions of the rebel
groups have agreed not to fight ISIS at this point and to concentrate on

Those -- I think those alliances come and they go. You know, it`s possible
that both reports could be right. The problem we have really and Secretary
Kerry eluded to this a bit and members of the committee pressed him on it,
because it`s unclear how many moderate forces are actually left in Syria.
This fighting has been so brutal, you know, hundreds of thousands killed
already, millions of refugees...

SCHULTZ: Well...

CIRINCIONE: ... at the -- some of the moderates have now become extremist.

SCHULTZ: So the point here is that the Syrian moderates have been depleted
dramatically in numbers here and if we don`t arm them, there not going to
be left...


SCHULTZ: ... I mean that`s pretty much what Secretary Kerry said just
within the last half hour.

Let me go back to the question about ground troops. There`re seems to be a
tremendous discord between both parties and school of thought on exactly
what, number one, our latitude is? And what, number two is, are we going
to put troops on the ground? Now, earlier today, Secretary Kerry said that
there`s no way that the United States is going to put a ground force.

And, watching this you get a feeling that if the United States were to say
yes, all option is on the table. Yes, we`re going to do ground troops.
We`re going to get in there. Wouldn`t it signal to other coalition
partners, "Hey, why in the hell should we put our guys in there where the
Americans are going to do it anyway? They`ve even said that if it gets bad
they`re going to put it on."

It would seem to me that this is a certain way that the United States is
trying to keep these coalition partners` feet to the fire, that they have
got to get skin on the game on this and we can`t bail them out on that and
if we give them any kind of opening at all, it might fraction the
coalition. What about all of that?

CIRINCIONE: That is exactly right, Ed. I mean the whole point of this
careful strategy is to get the others involved. The people have a real
stake, the people whose friends, cousins, allies, ethnic, tribes are being
killed. Get them to come into the fight and resist ISIL. There`s no way
the U.S. can do this on their own. Is there a possibility that sometime in
the future, there might be a ground role for U.S. forces?

You heard General Dempsey yesterday indicate maybe, possibly. But clearly
that is not what the American people want. That`s not what the
administration want and as you say, leading with that, sending tens of
thousands of U.S. troops back into Iraq would kill the coalition effort.
Most groups would sit back and wait for us to do the work for them.

SCHULTZ: Secretary Kerry made the case. There is a clear strategy to
destroy ISIS. Take a listen.


KERRY: We`re not starting from scratch. This is an effort that we have
been building over time, most on our own and with the help of our
international partners. Even before President Obama delivered his speech
last week, nearly 40 countries had joined in contributing to the effort to
strengthen the capacity of Iraq, to be able to strengthen its military, to
train, to provide the humanitarian assistance. We`ve been focused on ISIL
since its inception.


SCHULTZ: Now, the reaction from Senator Corker who is the ranking member
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Tennessee countered
Secretary Kerry claiming that there was no plan, that -- here is the
administration asking for support in the form of vote and also resources
via the vote, yet he`s claiming that the plan wasn`t detailed enough.
Kerry came back and said, "there`s things I can`t say here, we have to go
behind and close doors and a close briefing." That didn`t seem to satisfy
Senator Corker either. So sort his out for us, Joe.

CIRINCIONE: Well, we have two problems. One is the fierce political
opposition to President Obama. His opponents have been waging fights
against the President since the day he was inaugurated. So every issue
gets caught up in the maw of this Obama hate machine. So you see opponents
and I have to count Senator McCain and Senator Corker among them, trying to
use this to fit their theme that the President is weak and dangerous and
doesn`t care about American security, that`s part of the problem.

The second part of the problem is they may not have all the information.
The American public certainly doesn`t, I mean the Washington Post just a
couple of months ago revealed that the CIA has been secretly training
Syrian rebels for over two years. This is certainly not something that was
ever said publicly. On my understanding is that this has been going on for

And the third problem is that a lot of the work that you need to do to
build the coalition -- understand that we`ve -- takes place outside the
headline. I know why people are frustrated. The President hasn`t spoken
earlier, hasn`t done more publicly but part of that is to give the behind
the scenes work.


CIRINCIONE: It`s this tape (ph) this diplomacy time to gel before
announcing a full strategy.

SCHULTZ: When I was at the State of the Union Address last January and I
reveal my source, I had congressman from Minnesota, Rick Nolan, come up to
me and say, "Ed, we`re training in Syria.


SCHULTZ: . And no one`s talking about it." I didn`t follow up on the
story at the time but I did put it away and I haven`t forgotten it. You`re
saying tonight that we have been in Syria for several years?


SCHULTZ: It doesn`t sound like breaking news to me but it sure seems to me
that we`ve understood this insecurity of that region to the point where we
haven`t been totally disconnected. Now, if we`ve been in their training
that long and take that information for what it is, how can we not be
arming the correct people? Is our intel got bad or do we know exactly what
we have to do?

CIRINCIONE: Yeah. This is an extremely confusing and rapidly developing
situation. So you have to understand that people don`t necessarily have a
full-blown plan for exactly what we`re going to do tomorrow, the next day,
and the week after that. But there are elements of the Syrian opposition
that we are working with. There are forces in the Kurdish Armed Forces for

SCHULTZ: And he used the word training to me.


SCHULTZ: He used the word training to me. We have boots on the ground
training. I want to play another exchange between Secretary Kerry and John
McCain. Here it is.


MCCAIN: Is it your view that the Syrian opposition is viable? Hello?

KERRY: Hello Senator? I`m taking you so seriously. I`m...

MCCAIN: Is it your view the Syrian opposition is viable?

KERRY: The Syrian opposition has been viably enough to be able to survive
under difficult circumstances.

MCCAIN: Are you...

KERRY: They`re own lines (ph) but not yet -- but they still have some
distance to go and we need to help them go to that distance.

MCCAIN: Right. And they obviously need our assistance and weapons and
training which you are going to embark on. Are you surprised sometimes of
the degree of disinformation that members of the Congress will just swallow
whole? Like there`s been a ceasefire agreement between the free Syrian
army and ISIS, put out by ISIS? Does that surprise you sometimes?

KERRY: Senator...

MCCAIN: Now, that sometimes...

KERRY: Sometimes.

MCCAIN: Is that is surprise?

KERRY: Sometimes.

MCCAIN: I got it.

KERRY: No, no, no.


SCHULTZ: And Senator McCain, I`d like to ask you, is there any information
that you`ve swallowed a hook, line and sinker like WMD in Iraq? I think
that there`s all kinds of things we can point out when it comes to who has
the correct information. The bottom line is Senator, we`re about ready to
put more arms in the Syria and it would be nice if we knew exactly who the
hell those arms are going to, case in point.


SCHULTZ: Senator McCain, if you`d like to go face to face with me on that
issue, I`d love to talk to you.

All right. Now, let me back up just a moment. They were just talking
about all kinds of support that the moderates need. Well, this is breaking
news. The House just passed the Syrian rebel training authorization. Your
reaction, the Houses voted, Republicans have stood with the President now
in this partisan environment and the President is going to get the
resources he needs to help the Syrian moderates out. Your thoughts on
this? Congress just stepping up in the house.

CIRINCIONE: Well, this is something that doesn`t happen very often. The
President has not enjoyed this kind of bipartisan backing very often. As
you can see, I`m speaking to you from San Francisco, a home base of Nancy
Pelosi, the Democratic leader and she was in favor to this legislation.
The Republican Speaker, John Boehner, he was in favor of this legislation,
overwhelming numbers of their -- both of their parties, supported this.
You have support across the board but the House legislation holds the
administration, the executive to a tight leash.

It only last until the end of this year. It requires reporting back from
the President. It is very concerned of what -- that not to let them the
arms were given to the resistance fighters slip into the hands of Islamic
fundamentalist and that is a real risk. So I think both branches of
government here, the executive by leading in this assistance program to
combat ISIL and the Congress by stepping up quickly to support at least the
training portion of this fight are doing the right thing, and that`s part
of the reason, is that that 62 percent of the American people are afraid of
the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist and that they`re seeing over the
last month and support the President`s action.

So the people, the Congress and the executive are in perfect alignment at
this point, something very rare over the last three years.

SCHULTZ: I want to go back again to Senator Corker, going back and forth
with Secretary of State John Kerry. Corker asked a direct question about
what Arab countries are going to have boots on the ground. Secretary Kerry
would not answer that question directly and referred to a private meeting
that they would have to have, that -- for security purposes, he couldn`t
reveal that.

Now, someone watching that might interpret that the administration doesn`t
have a plan, others may say that this coalition is -- might come to the
conclusion this coalition is so fragile that the details of it can`t be
revealed. And of course, Secretary Kerry spoke to a general who is working
on that at this hour.

I want your take on that, Joe. Is this coalition seeming to be fragile or
is it so tight that ISIS doesn`t know what`s going to be coming at them?

CIRINCIONE: I think this is a coalition information that some of the Arab
countries are hesitant to commit to this. Some of the countries, for
example, Saudi Arabia is afraid that fighting too hard against ISIL will
actually strengthen the Shia forces including the Shia state of Iran.

So there is real hesitation here. And the executive branch, John Kerry,
the joint chiefs have the delicate task of caucusing some of these Sunni
Arab leaders into the battle.

SCHULTZ: And finally, it`s not very often that you see -- that member of
an administration show up with a prop. The prop that was used today was
the front page of the Wall Street Journal. And the point being made by the
Secretary of State was that look at what kind of progress. You think
that`s real or do you think that`s phony? I mean, I take it as there`s
progress here or people that known exactly -- get together for a hot tea
and coffee every now and then and look what kind of progress we`re making.
What was your response to that?

CIRINCIONE: That is exactly right. When you see a Sunni Arab leader
embracing the Shia leadership of Iraq and standing with them, that`s a very
vivid demonstration of a kind of coalition building you need. It means
money, it means resources, it means need intelligence.

Several of the Arab countries have offered airpower. Can you translate
that into Arab boots on the ground? That`s the task the administration
has. So far, I think everything is moving in the right direction. The
Congress did the right thing today supporting this activity.

SCHULTZ: All right. From Ploughshares Fund, a Global Security Foundation,
Joe Cirincione, thank you for your time tonight here on the Ed Show. I
appreciate it.

CIRINCIONE: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: We`ll have more coverage on this as well.

Now, we turn into the Minnesota Vikings. They changed their game plan
again. Coming up, we`ll have the latest developments in the case against
star running back Adrian Peterson.

And Deja vu, another Republican politician wants to drug test welfare
recipients. Stay tuned. We`re right back on the Ed Show.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Adrian Peterson is off the field again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to change an E to an A. I`d rather have
Paterson right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His jersey? He`s got it. The dude in front of those

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is that $110? Sure. I got to win it.


something people can`t get enough of.

sponsors, the community and especially our fans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s about sponsors.

MOONVES: That`s why people are paying so much money and yet we still make
a profit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In a game we`re winning is everything, the NFL maybe at
risk of losing some key sponsors.

SCHULTZ: Notice the signage behind Rick Spielman, the Vikings` General
Manager during Monday`s news conference.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... the reversal. Just one day after the team
announced it would reinstate the former MVP.

WILF: By him stepping back it would give ours an -- our football team an
opportunity to focus on football.

MOONVES: The NFL is basically invincible.


SCHULTZ: Well, the story that America is talking about is of course about
this gentleman, Adrian Peterson. You know, this story will actually make
Viking fans forget that they lost four Super Bowls. This just won`t go
away, will it?

New major developments out at the NFL today, early this morning the Vikings
have announced that star running back, Adrian Peterson, well he`s going to
be suspended indefinitely in fact. Peterson is barred from all team
activities. He cannot go to lunch with them, cannot go to practice.
Technically, Peterson is on this exempt commissioner`s permission list
which I have never heard of but it does exist and there are other players
who have been on it before. He will continue to get paid.

The NFL praised the Vikings` decision to set today saying that it`s a good
decision that will allow Adrian Peterson to resolve his personal situation
and the Vikings to return to the focus of football on the field. OK.

Peterson was charged on Friday with felony injury to a child in Texas. He
allegedly beat his four-year-old child repeatedly with a thin tree branch.
Minnesota Vikings have no doubt shown poor and indecisive leadership in
this matter and they pulled up political move. They`ve done some flip-
flopping all along.

This is the timeline of their shaky decision-making. At roughly 4:15 P.M.
Eastern time on Friday, Peterson was indicted by a grand jury in Texas.
Pretty serious, I have a question tonight. Just what did the Vikings know
about the grand jury going on or nothing?

At 7:00 that night, the Vikings announced that Peterson would be benched
for Sunday`s game against New England Patriots. That didn`t go a very good
for him. At 4:15 on Sunday, the Vikings lost to the Patriots, 30 to 7, we
certainly can have that anymore. And so at 11:30 A.M. on Monday morning,
the Vikings reversed course. They announced that Peterson was going to be
reactivated saying that the legal process, well, it should just play out.

Throughout the day on Tuesday, sponsors began putting pressure on the
Vikings and the National Football League. Then early this morning, in the
middle of the night when no one was paying attention, 1:58 A.M., the
Vikings announced that Peterson would again be suspended.

Pressure from sponsors no doubt had a major impact on their final decision.
Earlier today, Vikings owner, Zygi Wilf, well he admitted that the Vikings
messes one up big time.


ZYGI WILF, MINNESOTA VIKINGS OWNER: We have given this issue much thought
and consideration since last Friday. We have decided that the appropriate
course of action for the organization and for Adrian is to put them on the
exempt list until the legal proceedings are complete.

We made a mistake and we needed to get this right. It is important to
always listen to our fans, the community and our sponsors.

To be clear, we have a strong stance regarding the protection and welfare
of children. And we want to be sure we get this right.


SCHULTZ: Key phrase in there I think is "it`s important that we always
listen to our sponsors". It wasn`t the fans or the community, it was the

And before the sponsors started dropping, this is what the Vikings were


information that we have right now and what we know about Adrian, not only
as a person but what he has also done for this community, we believe he
deserves to play while the legal process plays out. At the same time, we
must defer to the legal system to determine whether he went too far but we
cannot make that judgment.


SCHULTZ: OK. Because of what he`s done for the organization and what he`s
done for the community, we`re going to let the legal process play out.

Now if he was a lousy football player, hell, he`d be out of here right?
And it would be a very serious situation. They are an unguided missile in
the front office of the Minnesota Vikings. In fact, they might even change
their mind after tonight.

On Tuesday, Radisson ended it`s sponsorship with the team. Other sponsors
like Anheuser-Busch started piling on with statements saying that they are
disappointed and increasingly concerned with the NFL.

Earlier today, Nike announced that it is suspending its sponsorship for the
running back of the Vikings, Adrian Peterson. The only reason Peterson is
suspended without pay is because of money.

Roger Goodell and the League -- there was an investigation going on for
months. And they of course didn`t know about it.

I mean, look, Goodell and the NFL seem to have a hard time deciding.
What`s more important, having a moral compass or a real good bank account
and a fat salary himself?

This guy is much a problem as he is caused and the amount of leadership
that he has failed to show, he still doesn`t have it within him to say, you
know what, maybe the League should have somebody else.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, "Does the NFL care more about its sponsors or its fans?" Text A
for sponsors, text B for fans to 67622. You can always go to our blog at We`ll bring you the results later on in this show.

For more, let me bring in Terence Moore, National Sports Columnist and
Professor at Miami of Ohio University. Terry O`Neill with us tonight,
President of the National Organization for Women and a very prolific and
very talented sports columnist and Talk Show Host in Minneapolis of the
Star Tribune, Jim Souhan.

Jim, you first tonight. What are the Vikings doing? Do they have a clue?
I read your article the other day, you laid it out, you very profoundly,
just how misguided they are and that was before they said, you know, maybe
he better sit out the rest of the year for a while or whatever. What do
you make of their moves?

they`re doing and the amazing thing is that they had more rest than any
team in the NFL since the beginning of the 2000 season. They`ve had
numerous off-field embarrassments including the so called Love Boat scandal
in 2005 that caused Zygi Wilf to say he`s on crackdown on people who
wouldn`t behave right in his organization. And they still don`t know how
to manage crisis.

They`re -- It`s the NFL, they`re going to have players doing the wrong
things, they`re going to have violent acts and they don`t know how manage
it. And so, they -- I think they panicked on Friday. I think they
deactivated Adrian for Sunday`s game because they didn`t know how the
logistics will play out with him being arrested in Texas trying to get
back. I don`t think they knew what to do. It was based of their way of
calling timeout.

And then they had time to think about it. They watched their team get beat
by 23 points. They said, "We need this guy in the fields." So they made
that decision on Monday which was unconscionable but that`s the way the NFL

And then once sponsors started bailing out, late Monday and on Tuesday,
they panicked. They realized that they are trying to sell naming rights to
a new stadium. They realized that a lot of -- that more advertisers and
more sponsors are going to be pulling out if they continued to say they`re
going to play Adrian Peterson on Sunday and they made the third panic move
in a row which is to finally -- and they finally got it right but they got
it right for the wrong reasons.

They finally decided to deactivate Adrian and I`m not sure if he`ll ever
play for the Vikings again.

SCHULTZ: Well, really? You think he`s done with the Vikes? And I was
going to ask you, what are your callers saying? What`s the community
saying on your talk shows there?

SOUHAN: Honestly, as a sports columnist -- if Terence can speak to this --
usually you write about fairly superficial subjects and usually you get
very superficial responses. I`d never had such an outpouring of e-mails
and correspondents from serious people as I have after writing these last
few columns.

I`ve gotten numerous, numerous e-mails from people who were abused when
they were children. And numerous e-mails from psychologists, from doctors,
from professionals, numerous e-mails from people who -- from mothers, from,
you know, from parents.

It`s been pretty profound. There`s still the lunatic fringe that`s calling
for Adrian to be -- on the field for this team but I really think it`s a
minority. I think that the most Minnesotans, most fans, most citizens
don`t want to see the guy again.

SCHULTZ: Terence, how do you explain the Vikings reversal? I guess pretty
much you called it, you said it`s the golden rule who has the gold rules
and that`s really what seems to -- is unfolded here. What are your

further and I`m going to say what I told you on your radio show today, all
right? My reporter`s gut instinct is there`s a whole lot more going on
than what we know, OK? There is no way in the world that all of a sudden,
the Vikings and the NFL are going to get together in the wee morning hours
to do this unless, in my opinion, something they discovered scared the
living daylights out of them.

Now, we`ve talked about this before. All of these NFL teams in the League,
they have this extensive security force with FBI agents here in Atlanta
with Arthur Blank. The head of his Secret Service -- the head of his
security detail, he`s a former secret service agent. I think they
discovered something and that`s why they came out with this animal house,
double secret probation thing -- I can`t even remember, I`ve got it write
it down, the exempt commissioner permission list. I mean, this is
something they got out of the bottom of the file cabinet, not through from
Jim Thorpe when he was commissioner back in the 1920s, OK?

And this is just designed, in my opinion, to take care of knuckleheads like
Adrian Peterson and Greg Hardy and the rest of them a nice convenient way
to put them to the side until things in their mind the NFL...


MOORE: ... sort of blows over.

SCHULTZ: Two portions have society that are huge fans and important to the
NFL, kids and women.

Terry O`Neill, the way this has all unfolded in the last week, what are
your expectations right now?

honestly, Ed we are continuing to call for Roger Goodell to resign. What
we`re seeing in team after team and at the executive level of the NFL is
management by public outrage. That`s not leadership.

You know, every move that they make seems to be guided by how angry are the
fans, how upset are the sponsors. Where is their plan? Where is their
strategy for dealing with these acts of violence? And honestly, I keep
waiting for someone in the NFL Executive Office to say, "I at least have a
plan to keep that little boy safe from now on. I had a plan to keep
victims of domestic violence safe." I`m not hearing that either.

This is an individual who has cast such -- Roger Goodell -- I mean, such a
dark cloud over the NFL but unless he leaves, I don`t know how we enjoy
football again.

SCHULTZ: It would be a good start over but the culture of the League is
commissioners just don`t leave. They hang around for a long, long time.

Jim, you mentioned the stadium rights and the naming. You know, all of the
sponsors, you know, Anheuser-Busch, Campbell, all these stuff, you know,
they`re making statements that sound tough but nobody has bailed out on the
NFL yet.

No one has said, "OK, we`re going to -- we`re done" what about that Jim?

SOUHAN: It`s very superficial. And Anheuser-Busch didn`t pull their
advertising. They said that they aren`t -- that they`re unhappy with the
recent development.

You know, I give Radisson a credit that Radisson just said we don`t want to
have our names on the banner behind the people who we`re talking about --
having a player abusing children, you know. So, Radisson`s was a very
direct reaction to seeing their name behind the, you know, the Vikings`
brain trust.

The other ones, I really think they`re just there -- I think, really, it`s
a cynical for the sponsors to do this for the NFL. The sponsors are doing
this to save face, the NFL is -- it only does what it needs to do to save
face. There`s no real good intent here. They`re just covering their butt.

SCHULTZ: Now, you mention a moment ago that you don`t think that he`s
going to play for the Vikings anymore. The legal process could play out
for months on and be all the way in the 2015 as I understand it. So, do
you think he is done for this year or is there a special little compartment
that they put them in under the commissioners` rule here that could
reinstate him I think simmer down someone?

What do you think Jim?

SOUHAN: You know, he has a hearing I believe on October 8 but unless he
goes there and plea bargains and basically -- for himself on the mercy of
the court so he can get back on the field, which I`m not sure is going to
happen. You`re talking about, you know, let`s talk about the reality in
NFL. He is a 29-year-old running back, a running back as a devalued
position in the NFL.

The Vikings are paying him about $40 million a year which is way more than
anybody else who`s playing a running back. At the end of this season,
they`re going to be asking themselves hard questions about whether they ask
him to get a -- to renegotiate or whether they should trade him. To me,
this is just moves the time -- and that this makes it simpler to get rid of

SCHULTZ: OK. Terence, moving forward now as far as the Vikings are
concerned, can they move anymore here? I mean, are they stuck with this
right now? I mean, they -- for the credibility of the community and the
League, I mean, how many more times can they avoid the flip-flop here or
afford the flip-flop?

MOORE: Well, many more times. And I`m going to end with this Ed. The
piggyback on the sponsor thing that I talked about yesterday and as I
pointed out as -- as I`ve been pointing out all day, this is all
superficial and here`s one big thing to take note of, sponsors put their
finger to the air to see where the wind is blowing. This, whether we like
it or not, has had zero effect on the public. People are talking big and
bad for the reason we know it has zero effect. On Sunday, the 49ers played
the Bears, OK? And guess what, that was the most watched NFL game,
reckless as a game, in history involving a West Coast team. What does that
tell you?

SCHULTZ: You think that all of these surrounding the NFL increase in the

MOORE: Well Ed, it may have and this in fact -- and then the other thing
too is kind of probably Adrian Peterson will play again.

Just as long as he`s able to get out there and do something, he is going to
play again. Otherwise, they wouldn`t put him on this mysterious list...


MOORE: ... where he still gets paid, OK? They didn`t kicked him out of
the League and if they wanted to get rid of him, he would`ve stayed on the
-- deactivated rather, because that -- you can do that up to four times but
you do at this way, you can, at any point, bring him back and that`s going
to happen if he can still play.

SCHULTZ: Well, the first bombshell that unfolded here of a magnitude of
unbelievable proportion was the actions of running back Ray Rice. And
Terry O`Neill, he is now appealing to the league his indefinite suspension.
What is your reaction to that?

O`NEILL: Well, what he`s saying is that he was punished twice for the same
offense and you know, in fact, the League`s response to Ray Rice, to Adrian
Peterson, to Greg Hardy, to others has simply been so incoherent, so
inconsistent. There is no real governing policy that they seem to be


O`NEILL: And this is why, you know, of course Ray Rice would make that
argument. That is exactly what the executives of the NFL have done. They
have governed their responses exclusively by public opinion.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. And Jim finally, are Minnesota fans emotional about this?
Are they -- you`ve said you`ve gotten some very -- e-mails from some
various smart and deep people on all of these but what about the emotion
running here?

SOUHAN: I think incredible emotions on both sides. You know, standing
outside the stadium on Sunday, you saw people proudly wearing Adrian
Peterson jerseys and basically, you know, mocking anybody who would
question that. And then you saw a lot of people who had, you know,
Peterson jerseys with the name crossed out or the numbers crossed out, I do
think most people would like to see him punished, would like to see him
kept away from the team but, you know, sports are not rational and they
don`t breed rational fans.

There are a lot of fans out there who just want their fix on Sunday.

SCHULTZ: Jim Souhan, Terry O`Neill, Terence Moore, great to have you with
us tonight for the discussion. Thanks so much.

Coming up, a historic win for 14,000 American airlines employees. Larry
Cohen joins me to discuss the company`s union representation after the big
merger. We`ll be right back.


KATE ROGERS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Market

Stocks end of valuable session today on the upside with Dow closing up 24
points at a new record. The S&P adds 2 and the NASDAQ rises 9.

The Federal Reserves says interest rates will remain low for a considerable
time after its assets purchases end. The Central Bank will end its bond
buying program in October.

And home builders are more competent and inductive industry sentiment rose
for the fourth month in a row hitting its highest level since the late

That`s it from CNBC, your first in business worldwide.



OBAMA: But I want to be clear, the American forces that have been deployed
to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi
forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these
terrorists. As your Commander-in-Chief, I will not commit you and the rest
of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.


SCHULTZ: President Obama, earlier this afternoon at CentCom in Florida and
breaking news at this hour just a short time ago, the House voted to pass a
measure to authorize President Obama`s request to train and equip moderate
Syrian rebels to fight ISIS militants.

For the past few hours, Secretary of State John Kerry has been given
testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in an attempt
to make clear that the Obama administration does have a comprehensive
strategy and a coalition.

Joining me tonight, Rosa Brooks, National Security Expert and Law Professor
at George Town and Former State Department Senior Advisor in the Obama
administration. Rosa, good to have you with us tonight.

Do you think Secretary Kerry made the case today?

ROSA BROOKS, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT: I don`t think he made it terribly
persuasively but he is probably going to get the authorization anyway.

SCHULTZ: What kind of debate is it going to be like in the Senate? I mean
there didn`t seemed to be too much pushback to the President what he wants
to do over on the House side which is rather stunning considering how the
House has treated President Obama. What it`s going to be like in the
Senate and do you think the administration is confident they`re going to
get what they need?

BROOKS: I think they are rightly confident that at the end of the day,
they will get what they need. Nobody disagrees that ISIS is a group of
nasty people. Nobody wants anything other than to see them stopped.

There`s a lot of skepticism I think about whether the President`s plan is
going to work but as several people said, nobody on the Hill has a better
idea and I think it`s very hard for them at this point given the public
pressure to vote against authorizing what the President is asking for. So
I think we`re going to see a little bit of political theater and a lot of
legitimate skeptical questions about the viability of this approach but at
the end, they are going to -- they are going to vote I think for it.

SCHULTZ: You think they`ll get the vote. I mean there have been
Democratic senators...

BROOKS: Well...

SCHULTZ: .. such as Begich from Alaska and also Manchin from West Virginia
who have got real reservations about whether this plan is going to work and
then of course on the other hand you`ve got John McCain leading the charge
along with Lindsey Graham but this doesn`t even go anywhere near far enough
to address this.


BROOKS: You know it`s funny. I mean it`s the President`s plan I think
that`s the problem. It`s simultaneously too much for some and too little
for others. He is trying to split the difference politically and as
(inaudible) he`s not really making anybody terribly happy. His pledge not
to commit U.S. ground troops to the left is not reassuring because they
rightly suspect that redlines have been crossed in the past, that he`s had
to change his mind about issues in the past. This could be at another
thing on the right, it`s unreassuring from the opposite perspective.

They say how -- "If this is really a priority, how can you upfront say
we`re not going to do that? That just doesn`t make any sense." So I think
that people are rightly concerned about the internal contradictions in his
approach but on the other hand they don`t have a better idea and they don`t
want to be the once going back to the voters and saying, "We said at the
headings we don`t care", you know, "We`re not going to help you out, Mr.

SCHULTZ: No boots on the ground. That`s what`s coming from the
administration right now. That the forces that are in Iraq right now are
not going to be used for combat. But that doesn`t mean that there might be
more forces sent that could be used for combat. I mean, it depends on how
you want to interpret all of this.

It seems to me that the United States is not committing the combat forces
because they got to make other people in the coalition get their skin on
the game. What do you make of that? Is this as much a negotiating ploy?
Is anything else, because if they know that the United States is, "Well,
they are the Americans, they`re going to put troops in there. We don`t
have to do it."

BROOKS: Well, your -- that`s a generous interpretation actually. And it`s
possible that that`s what their thinking. I have not seen any sign so far
that any other states are showing the slightest willingness to put troops
on the ground as oppose to help in other ways. But certainly, I will
applaud the administration as secret geniuses if this does in fact get
other nations to commit the ground troops.

SCHULTZ: OK. Rosa Brooks, good to have with us tonight. Thank you so

BROOKS: Thanks a lot.

SCHULTZ: Up next, after 19 years of efforts on historic wind for American
Airlines employees. Larry Cohen joins me next. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We have breaking news out of the
NFL at this hour. Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy has
voluntarily agreed to go on the exempt commissioner`s permission list. He
will sit out games for the time being while his domestic abuse conviction
is appealed.

We`ll be right back here on the Ed Show.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

This is a story for the folks who take a shower after work.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called Tuesday a historic day. After 19
years of unionization efforts, American Airlines customer service agents
will finally get the representation they`ve been fighting for.

On Tuesday airline employees of the merged American Airlines and U.S.
Airways voted to join a joint union. Roughly 86 percent of those voting
elected to join the union. The election covered over 14,000 employees
including those who work as checker, folks at counters, boarding gates and
also call centers and reservations. Nine thousand of those workers were
previously non-union employees at American Airlines.

The agents will be represented by the Communication Workers of America or
the International Brotherhood the Teamsters. It`s important to note,
American Airlines is based in Texas not exactly union-friendly territory.
And three-quarters of the agents for the combined airlines work in the
South which makes this really a big victory for labor particularly in that
part of the country.

Joining me tonight, Larry Cohen, President of the Communication Workers of

Larry, good to have you with us tonight and congratulations. An honor
(ph). It`s interesting these workers were given a chance to vote and look
what happened.

Your thoughts on this. How big is this?

of these workers are based at home talking to customers from there
primarily in North Carolina and Texas. Most of these workers are women.
They showed that they can build this unity over the 19 years since that the
9,000 of the 15,000 had never had a union that have worked with our union
for that entire 19 years.

I was with him yesterday at the National Immigration Board and that vote
came in. And it was an emotional high that I will never forget, more
importantly neither will they. 50 or 60 of them had flown in to see those
numbers. It`s an electronic vote flashed up on the screen and I couldn`t
describe the joy that they will now be able to participate in their future
actively with the management as this airline recovers. It`s the largest in
the country and if they will be able to engage, negotiate and share in the
well-being of the company not sit back and get whatever they`re dished out.

SCHULTZ: Well, it`s interesting. American Airlines` stock rose. It went
up after the news of the vote came out. What do you think that signals?

COHEN: Well, the stocks been rising and I think actually it`s a part of
why this was a landslide. This was like seven to one and I think, you
know, the enthusiasm that they`re part of number airline now that`s
growing, not in bankruptcy and if they can look forward to our brighter day
for them, their communities, and their families.

This is a big deal and as you`ve said across the South, the biggest two
centers Texas and North Carolina, I can`t help but say the elected
officials stayed out of it. The management mostly stayed out of it. They
just wanted a high turnout. This was a high turnout, 75 percent turnout.
This is a great day for America.

It shows we can still have democracy on the job.

SCHULTZ: So what happened at American Airlines didn`t happen in Tennessee?

COHEN: Not at all. And again not to blame at all the Volkswagen
management but in this case the elected officials in those states stayed
out of it and it`s the way it should be in the democracy. Employees got to
decide, "Do we want to have collective bargaining or not?" And Ed, they
answered loud and clear, "We want collective bargaining in North Carolina,
in Texas, in Florida, across the South and across the country."

SCHULTZ: Yeah. No doubt. Larry Cohen, President of Communication Workers
of America. Big win for your union tonight and also the Teamsters.

Good to have you with us.

That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

Good evening, Rev.


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.>