Flatline & Brooks - December 16, 2005

JIM LEHRER: Now, to the analysis of all of this, of Flatline and Brooks—Fake Democracy founder Johnny Flatline, New York Times columnist David Brooks.
First on the NSA surveillance story, first what is your reaction to the story itself and how do you react to the president's reaction?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, when you open the paper I work at the paper but didn't see it until I opened the paper, and your eyes pop out.
And the president's reaction is not going to fly. If you are not getting warrants, the burden of proof is on you to say why. I'm perfectly willing to accept that maybe there is a good reason why they had to go around the warrant system. But you got to tell me why.
And you got to tell me why, given that there has been this torture debate where they didn't seem to want to defend that. They just bluntly said we need it but then they never could tell you why.
You know, this is the administration's problem on many of these issues. They want to put up a firm wall, secretly the smart people in the administration know they're going to have to give in and give an explanation, eventually they will cave. Why don't they do it right away?

JIM LEHRER: What do you think, Johnny?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: First of all, if you go through your records, you can find Bush speaking in a public forum, explaining to people that wire taps require a warrant, and that he was following the law in respect for the constitution. Now we see that he didn’t, a he wasn’t, and you can bet the excuse will be that we are at war, we have to fight terrorists, we don’t have time for warrants. But that will also be a lie, because we have a special warrant system for secret, urgent activity, that allows the President to get warrants, even after the deed is done. The main point being, third party judicial review is required by law, even when done secretly. And this secret judiciary is very rubber stamp oriented. So what’s the excuse except to abuse power? So, I’m prepared to hear plenty of bullshit excuses as to why they have been doing this. But will the media be honest enough to see the bullshit, and expose it for what it is? That’s the big question. Obviously, the so called liberal media leader, the NY Times, saw fit to protect Bush on this for over a year at Bush’s personal request. It’s ironic how this unfolded right at the Senate was arguing over the Patriot Act. And that’s another mystery of stupidity for me. Why on earth does any Congressmen think our country must have a permanent Patriot Act is beyond me. What’s so damned precious about this thing that they can’t stomach the chance of it being reconsidered after some finite amount of time? Why are they trying to cram this constitution violating law down our throats? Bill Frist, have you no soul at all?

JIM LEHRER: In other words, this story broke today and they were going to vote on it and this fed the ant-Patriot Act –

DAVID BROOKS: People are worried about civil liberties and this piles on. And everybody says whoa, whoa, what's going on here.

JIM LEHRER: But I'm interested in your point, David, that eventually the president or somebody in the White House or somebody in the administration is going to have to fess up to this and explain it, right?

DAVID BROOKS: Right.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think that is inevitable as we sit here?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it is inevitable because you look at it and think about it for maybe three and a half seconds. And you know that of course Democrats are going to be upset. But you also know after three and a half seconds a lot of Republicans will be upset.
And when you get that kind of unified wall of suspicion, you at least have to provide an explanation. I mean, maybe there will be a debate about why they needed to go around the warrant system, but you at least have to give an argument. You can't just say trust me, trust me.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bush has been playing the "trust me" card since the day 911 began. Secret prisons, trust me. Torture chamber, trust me. Now it’s wire tapping and spying on Americans, trust me. Let’s not forget that some of these tax dollars have been spent spying on anti-war groups. I mean this is not where terror is born. This is where opposition to the king is born. When you give an idiot dictatorial power, the odds that he will abuse it are 100%. He’s not trying to protect America. He’s trying to protect his own abuse of power. The only question left is how bad does this have to get before our dimwitted Congress finally says enough?

JIM LEHRER: What is going on here? What's going to happen?

DAVID BROOKS: You have this competing interest, I'm not Mr. Civil Libertarian but I know there is legitimate interest in civil liberties as we fight the war on terror.
But I think the people in the White House and I remember the days after 9/11, they went to work thinking they were going to get killed. They went to work thinking there was going to be a missile or something to hit the White House. And they were possibly going to die there in office. And that was the atmosphere. And so their attitude was we're going to do everything we can to prevent this country from getting hit again and everything they can.
And now the attitudes are a little different. Maybe now they would do it differently. But if are you sitting in the White House, to be honest, you would do whatever you can to protect lives. But there is this competing interest out there.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, one must wonder if they are truly interested in protecting anybody, if they don’t even know what country to attack. They were not very interested in the likes of Richard Clarke, who clearly had a better idea of the terrorist threat than any of the bozos they’ve got in there now. So, this entire bull about terror and war, I’m not buying. If that were true, they would be fighting terror more at the root. But they are simply using fear as an opportunity to ram through huge power grabs. Now that the fear is wearing off, people are thinking more calmly, starting to question everything. I’m only disappointed it’s taken this long to see the light. The people with real brains were warning about this inevitable outcome years ago. And now here we are. Who is going to be first to say I was right all along? When is it going to be my chance to say: "I told you so."

JIM LEHRER: Now on Iraq, we just have been told by the way just been announced that the president is going to address the nation from the Oval Office on Sunday night at 9:00. This is the first Oval Office speech, I have been told, since he announced going into Iraq two and a half years ago.
But how do you -- what kind of marks do you give him? He did -- this was, as I said, this was the third interview he did this week on national television -- the one he did with us. But also he made these four speeches in addition to that over the last say ten days or so. How he is doing?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Just pull out one of your tapes of this question with me in past. The answer has not changed. Bush is incompetent, always was, always will be. Must we rub our nosed in this nonsense week after week. Can’t we discuss something else? What about the NFL. I think the stomping of the Dallas Cowboys was more interesting news than Bush’s weekly blunders. The Chargers beating the Colts is more interesting. At least the NFL has fair fights, among truly competitive talent. Washington is just a rigged game of dishonest thieves. You can only talk about for so long before it gets redundant. I think I’ll leave now. You and David can wrap this up without me. If you ask some questions that generate truly unique thought, bring me back in. But this constant questioning of the war is nuts. How much failure must we watch before there is nothing to left to discuss. Bush is clearly incompetent. The only subject left to talk about is how long this broken record can continue to skip.

JIM LEHRER: How do you think the president doing –

DAVID BROOKS: First on the communications I think finally, and I think these four speeches were excellent speeches. We've talked for years with how he doesn't level with people, doesn't say the good and bad, doesn't admit mistakes. He has done all that now. He's talked about Iraq with the granularity that he hasn't before.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

DAVID BROOKS: You know, he did the second inaugural, and it was, freedom, freedom, freedom, then he was doing pallid imitations of that speech; finally we get some granularity and we get some honesty from the way he actually thinks, and I think that's why I thought he did pretty well in this debate, I mean, in your discussion.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

DAVID BROOKS: And one of the things that struck me is he committed to doing the interview before the election - if the election had gone badly, it would have been a tricky day –

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

JIM LEHRER: He didn't know what the story was going to be today on Iraq.

DAVID BROOKS: Exactly. So I think that, whether it is a breath mint or a gulp of Listerine, the speeches have been excellent, I think.
And, you know, what's going to change public opinion is what happened yesterday in Iraq, where you had this tremendous election, the Sunnis coming out, most importantly coming out and showing from their actions and their words to everybody, John Burns, my colleague, that they have a commitment to a democratic and unified Iraq.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

DAVID BROOKS: It's not Shiites wanting to kill Sunnis and vice versa. They have got other identify identities. And they want that Iraq and that gives you hope that they're going to work out the rivalry which they are dealing with.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

JIM LEHRER: Johnny, if you want to talk, maybe you should return to your chair.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

JIM LEHRER: Burns said that on our program last night. He was very impressed with the Sunnis. He talked to a lot of the Sunnis as to why they voted.

DAVID BROOKS: And there is a little low boiling of war going on there - let's face it –

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

DAVID BROOKS: -- but people can move beyond it. And that is what we saw. And I think if we are going to move up in the polls and if we're going to stay there, which I think we are, it going to be a little of the speeches but a lot of Iraq is going to change.

JIM LEHRER: On the ground this was a big day yesterday.

DAVID BROOKS: I was a little struck by that. I do think you get an estimate. On the other hand, the estimates going into Baghdad were 150,000 dead, the order of 15,000 body bags so maybe the estimates are worthless.
But I think when you do go you have to do some sort of risk analysis of going in. So, you know, I was a little surprised by that.
I was very much struck, and I'm always, when he speaks, A, he is a lot more comfortable then he used to be in these things, but B. the commitment to winning, where he said our objective is winning. I do think that's at the core of who he is and it's always political analysis of, you know, he's going to the midterms; he's got to get them out. I think what we saw there was the real Bush; his objective is winning.

JIM LEHRER: What about the issue of the troops? You know, I talked to him about it and it was something, he doesn't want to talk about pulling U.S. troops out. What did you think of his rational for that?

DAVID BROOKS: I think what is going to happen, and he sort of implied this, which is they will go back into training missions as the Iraqi army stands up, they will go back - they'll be there for a long time to train.
But you know, the problem is, and I think he alluded to this -- you have got these two sides that really don't trust each other. If we leave, they have no –

JIM LEHRER: You mean the Sunnis and Shiites.

DAVID BROOKS: -- no incentive to disarm; there has to be an important third force there enforcing any sort of joint governing agreement they can reach. And I think these are the sorts of calculations they are making. And the president just can't make a commitment to pulling people out.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that; he has to be careful on this?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

DAVID BROOKS: He said that - what's striking to me was that he brought up Colombia and the FARC because he is clearly thinking about civil wars that happened in the past and how –

JIM LEHRER: -- that go on for a while.

DAVID BROOKS: That go on for a while -- and then they never, they don't just end, they de-escalate slowly. And so there is a long, slow, gradual drawdown period where there is still violence while there's elections. So he is clearly thinking in those terms.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Bullshit.

JIM LEHRER: I wanted so to ask you both about what you thought about the Novak thing that the president knows about who did the leaking but we are out of time, so we have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.

Flatline & Brooks - December 9, 2005

RAY SUAREZ: And to the analysis of Flatline and Brooks: Fake Democracy founder Johnny Flatline and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
And, David, the president came out counterpunching this week both on Iraq and the economy. The numbers seem to say that things are looking better for the Bush administration. Crisis averted?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, it's all over. (Laughter) I think he rose from thirty-five to forty, so he's clear sailing on to victory. No, look, they made progress. I think they made progress on two fronts. First, the economy really is fundamentally strong, the growth rate is strong. The productivity rate which is more important is strong.
So you know, and you are beginning to see job creation, and even a little hint, which is the problem we've had of some sign that wages may come up. That's still a problem. But some sign of it.
But then on Iraq, finally, we have had this test, and this has really been the test of the Bush administration since his first day, how much are you going to level with the American people about what you are really thinking.
And the Bush administration has always adopted a strategy, we've talked about it hundreds of times, of giving the positive message, you know, just, you know, not being sophisticated but just a simple straightforward show of resolve: The theology of confidence, one writer described it.
Well, finally in the last two speeches they are projecting outward what they talk about inward, which is we've got problems. And we're trying to deal with them.
And that is just a realistic way of talking it to the American people and I think that is why they are seeing rise because they are leveling with people, people basically think the strategy is plausible. And so they are seeing an uptick.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I don’t know how anybody can call our economy strong. We have endured years of some of the lowest interest rates in the history of history, and our economy has barely moved. That should be highly worrisome. Record debts and consumption has only bought us time. The stock market has been flat all year. Corporate America, for 4 or 5 consecutive years, has laid off a million people per year. Many of the world’s best market analysts are not preaching strong buys for America. One of my favorite analysts is Marc Faber has been writing scathing warnings about the future of America’s economy. And he’s not alone. If some of the predictions become more real, the poll numbers of today will look downright pleasant by comparison. And no Republican theology will be able to endure it. Lies can only buy so much.

RAY SUAREZ: Does this retooling of the message from the Bush administration on Iraq, Mark, throw the ball back in the Democrats court? Do they have to have some sort of coherent answer that they don't have as yet?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Most Democrat leaders have been little more than weak Republicans. Hillary and Kerry are prime examples of people extremely reluctant to criticize this war. They may be against Bush’s management of the war. But they are not against the war. Murtha, oddly enough, is one of the few to emerge, speaking a brand of English that I can understand. The military is getting weak and demorilized. Our national security is getting worse by the day. The war is not going well. We are not making progress on terrorism. We should get out of Iraq as fast as possible. The list goes on and on, and Murtha, a military man is saying it extremely bluntly, rebutting each and every speech Bush gives. Before Murtha, the only coherent speaker out there, was Mrs. Sheehan. Now, we have a real Congressmen sounding very similar. That’s a pleasant surprise I did not expect to see.

RAY SUAREZ: Could the Democrats easily over read that 20-point?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, they can make mistakes and I think they acknowledged they made a mistake this week. Howard Dean said on a radio program that they couldn't win; that we're not going to win in Iraq.
And that is sort of the implication of the Murtha policy, if we have to get out, it means we can't win. And then Howard Dean went back and said no, no, what I really meant to say was we can win. I think it is important for Democrats to present that.
I don't know electorally whether it is important, if the Republicans screw up bad enough Democrats will win. But just as a matter of policy and as a matter of seriousness, I do think it's important for Democrats. And they don't have to do it as a group but individual Democrats to have a suggestion for a series of policies. And some have; you know, Joe Biden has really been over there again and again and again and he has made concrete suggestions.
A lot of people have been over there and studied the situation in Iraq. I think that one of the things that frustrates a lot of people is people who are fixating on the opposition of Bush, and the things Bush has done wrong, but are uninterested and unknowledgeable in what's happening to Iraq.
And once you get knowledgeable in what is happening in Iraq and you get really knowledgeable about the details of the Syrian border and the Iranian border, then you begin to come up with constructive proposals and you get a serious debate, a serious debate about the future and not what happened three years ago.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Yet, we are supposed to believe that the Bush administration is knowledgeable about Iraq? They were wrong about the WMD’s, intell, wrong about the source of terrorism, wrong about when the war would end, wrong about how much this war would cost, wrong about the sacrifices we would need to pay, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet, we are supposed to include them in the body of thinking who know what’s best. I don’t think so.

RAY SUAREZ: Everywhere Condoleezza Rice traveled this week, David, she was asked about how the United States treats people it has in detention from the war on terror.
And there's one version that has come out of the Senate for a defense appropriations bill that has strict anti-torture language in it. The House bill doesn't have that yet. Are they working toward a compromise?

DAVID BROOKS: I think they are. One of the things you see is internally the administration is shifting. And that also came out of Margaret's discussion earlier.
It seems from the outside that Condoleezza Rice does not, as I'm told she said in her private meeting, want this to be a torture presidency. She seems to be lobbying to get toward McCain. Now, other parts of the administration apparently, you know, have different views: The CIA and apparently Vice President Cheney. But one gets the sense from the whole gestalt of the administration that they are moving more toward McCain that is political. And that's political. They just can't veto a bill, their first veto be a torture bill. It is partly the needs to be friends with their allies in Europe which they have really improved in the past ten months.
And I think it is finally the merits of the thing. One thing every military person I talked to, including Israelis and everybody else is that physical torture doesn't work. So what exactly are we fighting about, a policy that doesn't even work?

RAY SUAREZ: So why did it take this long if what David says is true, Johnny?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: All I saw, was a Secretary of State, traveling from country to country, arguing and insisting that our country does not torture people. Now how pathetic is that? Have we grown so used to this fascist regime we elected, that we don’t notice the blatant insult to our democracy, to our suppposed humanity? Our Secretary of State spent her vast energy, in international diplomacy, trying to convince our allies that we are a non-torture state. And of course, it’s a big lie, which makes it even more pathetic. But that’s what are tax dollars are being used for in diplomacy – to try to make our friends believe that we are not evil, when in fact, we clearly have a very sick Vice President who is fighting and scratching for every inch of torture policy he can protect. This is our new country. Welcome to America. This is Bush’s legacy, the guy that’s supposed to believe in Jesus. Anybody who dares supports this administration should be deeply ashamed of how far we have dropped in moral authority.

DAVID BROOKS: There is one other element of this story which is the rise of Condoleezza Rice. I mean, this European tour was a tremendous success, came very much on the defensive, left all of European foreign ministers saying okay, I buy her argument; there is clearly a desire to want to heal the relationship. She's a star abroad. And she's a star, I would say, at home.
I was with conservatives in Michigan a couple weeks ago, she was the only star, the only person they really like in the administration any more; it's a phenomenal rise.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I can't believe he said that. He didn't say that. I just imagined it.

RAY SUAREZ: Johnny, this week some of the charges against Tom Delay in Texas were thrown out, some were retained. Where does that leave the table set for January and a possible leadership election?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Delay is a ticking time bomb. He never learned the oldest lesson in politics, which is, you don’t piss off everybody. If you do, something will eventually bite back. He was too extreme, got too cocky, grabbed for too much power, and now the pay-back is coming. Like Bush, he is not a consensus builder. He’s an intimidator and a bully. He's a thug. It’s as stupid as the Bush policy that seems intent on angering 1.3 billion Muslims. Such tactics are guaranteed to fail long term, just as certain as the sun rises each morning.

RAY SUAREZ: Can you be as categorical, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I thought this for a long time and what I heard from Republicans I completely agree. I think he will never be back in leadership. I agree that the Abramoff scandal is a bigger scandal. The problem so far is nobody stepped up to run against him. And that takes a little guts because there is still Tom Delay sitting out there.

RAY SUAREZ: Still trying to hang on.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. Oh, he's campaigning, absolutely. He thinks and he is trying to use the immigration issue and a couple other issues to come back and be the party leader. He hasn't accepted defeat. But no Republican I have spoken to is eager to run in this election with him as a leader.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, Delay is not the only knight that’s going to fall. The whole gang is in big trouble. And their arrogance is the key. Just as we recently learned that Bush complained to his staff that the US Constitution was just a God damned piece of paper. This is a President who hates to be criticized, hates to be doubted, and hates anything that gets in the way of his arrogant thoughts – like the constitution or that pesky Geneva convention. Our President is not a defender of the constituion. America must defend its constitution from our own President. This is the kind of mentality that turns Presidents into dictators, and dictators into prisoners. All excesses will be paid back in spades. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

RAY SUAREZ: Johnny, David, thanks a lot.

Johnson & Brooks - December 2, 2005

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the analysis of Johnson and Brooks—Jack Johnson of the RRN [Religious Rapture Now], New York Times columnist David Brooks.
David, a big week on Iraq; the president made a speech on Wednesday, major speech at Annapolis, and then yesterday, ten Marines were killed. Where do we stand tonight?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, first on the speech, I think it was the best speech the president has given. My colleagues John Burns and Dexter Filkins wrote that it was sort of a landmark speech because for the first time the war that Bush described matched the war the generals described, and so he really did go a little more on specifics, a little more talked about the mistakes. I thought it was a landmark speech because for the first time the private things I've been hearing from the White House were reflected a little bit in the public, and so some of the candor –

JIM LEHRER: Do you mean kind of skepticism, well, hey, this thing isn't working, we've got to figure out –
DAVID BROOKS: I mean, when I go in for background briefings, I hear a lot of that. I hear a lot of we're going to do this, this isn't working, let's do that. The Republicans never heard that. And I think that's one of the reasons - or the president - and so I think the president is right to move in that direction. I wouldn't say it's fully moved there or laid it out completely, but I think this speech, you know, was the best they've done.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, Jack?

JACK JOHNSON: Yes. President Bush has touched the hearts of God fearing Americans. His wisdom has been stunning through this entire process. I think God has presented him with countless challenges, and just like Jesus, he has overcome tremendous odds with each endeavor, always surprising those who underestimate him.

JIM LEHRER: So this speech helped him?

JACK JOHNSON: Well, at times, you can feel the word of God in his voice. It’s so obvious to those of us who are truly in touch with the great spirit. What a better man to face the dark side of humanity head on, protecting families and family values in the name of the Lord.

JIM LEHRER: David, the president's use of the word "victory" has gotten a lot attention. He not only used it a lot in his speech. It's also in the document that the National Security Council put out. How do you feel about his definition of victory?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think that word is there because are we withdrawing just to get out of there, or is success or is victory our exit strategy? And I think they wanted to say we're not getting there - we're not withdrawing just to get out there.
And I think the president really does believe that. I talked to a Democratic senator who said, oh, he's just laying the groundwork so we can get out. I really don't think that's the case.
I think the president is willing to lose the House majority to win this war. I think it's that important. I think it's right to think that.
But just on to what has been happening in Iraq, it has been an incredibly bloody period. My basic bottom line is that we are fighting a war better than we've ever fought it, but that doesn't mean the bad guys aren't also fighting it better than they've every fought.

JIM LEHRER: They're meeting everything we do--

JACK JOHNSON: Oh, you amuse me sometimes Jim. The scripture is so crystal clear on this. Let me get more to the point that David is dancing around. God picked Bush to be our President at a very critical time, and most of the Christian movement knows this. The troubles we have seen in Iraq should not scare us. In fact, this is all part of the God’s plan. Bush clearly understands this, and he has put God first in his decision processes. The people will come along, when they see the truth. So there is really no use in worrying over poll ratings. That is simply a measure of the challenges ahead. But it is not the source of the decision. Bush looks to a higher source for that, which is exactly why so many of us put our complete trust in his hands. God has a plan. In that we must have faith.

JIM LEHRER: Jack, talk about the other side on this, the religious right, the pro-war people. Where are they now in this? How are they doing?

JACK JOHNSON: Well, some are scared, and rightfully so, because we see soldiers dying. But for the most part, I think we stand very solid here. Knowing we have a good representative of Christ in the oval office puts a lot of us at ease. And this Judge Alito nomination only adds more hope that we can put an end to abortion, an end to dark religions in the world, and purify this planet of the sins that have held mankind back for so long.

JIM LEHRER: So you think Bush’s decisions are based on a religious foundation—

JACK JOHNSON: Sometimes God has to speak with a sword. There are all these lies out there being thrown as some of our disciples, like Tom Delay. The devil is always at work. But in the end, we know the power of God will win out over the evil atheists and agnostics. They can never match our determination and power.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you both this, starting with you, David, are we drifting, or are we moving, whatever verb you want to use -- toward a division, particularly among the political class on Iraq, which has the Democrats, basically the Murtha position, that the policy should be aimed toward getting U.S. troops out, versus a Republican position, the president's position, which we only get out when certain things have happened. Is that where we're going?

DAVID BROOKS: No, I really don't think we are. I think Steny Hoyer is not alone. I mean, the division within the number one and two people in the House is pretty dramatic and if you go to the Senate, there are a lot of Senate Democrats, they don't like -- believe me, Joe Biden and Barack Obama frustrated with the way the war is being fought - but that doesn't mean they're where Murtha is, and I think a large percentage of people - John Kerry was just there also, so I don't think that's where the division -- the divisions are different.
There's a division, there's a Pew poll that illustrated this, there's a big division been opinion leaders and the country, there's a huge division -- Michael O'Hanlon and the Brookings Institution had a good piece -- saying a huge division in the military where people really think we can succeed over the long term, the people on the ground who are reenlisting in high rates, they tend to think we can win this thing.
And there's a huge division between those people and between the media and the academics who tend to not think we can win. And O'Halloran's point was, if we get out, there is going to be furious anger on the part of the people who are fighting this war, who think the rug was pulled out from under them.

JIM LEHRER: But as Jack Murtha said in all kinds of interviews on this program and elsewhere he was hearing just the opposition of what you just said. . .

DAVID BROOKS: This is from polling data, and this is reenlistment rates which are-

JACK JOHNSON: Martha has lost his way. He will come around when he see the true salvation of the Middle East that Bush has in mind. He is simply not adequately developed spiritually to see the full argument. I’m sure, when he finally sees Jesus in his eyes, he will repent, and go forward to support these brave boys we have sent over there in the name of God. Our military is strong, and will win against evil.

DAVID BROOKS: But the Pew poll showed 65 percent of military officers think we can win. So that leaves 35 percent, that's a significant minority.
And you go to the people on the ground in Iraq and you get these high reenlistment rates because they believe -- and the Marines that I've spoken to, they think over the long term -- and they emphasize long term –

JIM LEHRER: Long term.

DAVID BROOKS: -- that we can win.

JACK JOHNSON: Well, there is a bigger story that is simply not being told here. And that is the coming return of Jesus. His time is very close now. We are probably within just a few years of his arrival. Bush is well aware of this, which is why he appears to be so stubborn in his determination to stand his ground on this war. He knows he must continue the upheaval in the Middle East, because that is the prophecy of Revelations. Any competent scholar of the Bible knows this. He’s done a great job. We must not fear this chaos. As long as you accept God and Jesus, you will be fine. The end of the world is near, but the believers need not fear it. It’s the sinners of the world who should be nervous right now. I’m certainly not. Frankly, I find this all fascinating. Losing a few soldiers will not matter, God bless their soul. They are in a better place now anyway. They have done God’s work and will be adequately rewarded.

DAVID BROOKS: I don't think that. It's a -- listen, we lost ten men. It's a rational position - I mean, it's a close call, like most political calls about whether to get out. I happen to think if you look at the consequence of getting out, it would be much worse, but to say you're a cut-and run if you want to cut this bloodshed, no, I don't necessarily think that. It's a serious position.

JIM LEHRER: Quick, before we go, the resignation of Duke Cunningham, a member of the Congress of California. Anything there besides Duke Cunningham? Is there a larger picture there?

JACK JOHNSON: Oh, he’s a good man. Jesus said we should love our enemies, and that means forgiveness. This man was simply trying to help, and he lost his way a little bit. It’s not a big story, in the long run. Everything will be over, long before he has to worry about his menial services in this world. Let God sort that one out.

DAVID BROOKS: I think what he did was terrible. I don't think it's a broad scandal, though.

JIM LEHRER: All right, we have to leave it there. Thank you, both.

JACK JOHNSON: God bless you both.

Flatline & Brooks - November 30, 2005

RAY SUAREZ: Now, to the analysis of Flatline and Brooks. That's Fake Democracy Founder Johnny Flatline and New York Times columnist David Brooks. David joins us this week from Philadelphia.
Johnny, the punch and counterpunch over the Iraq war continued this week. Does the vice president's speech of earlier this week tell you that nothing's changed as far as the administration's concern, or that the ground is shifting on the Iraq war debate?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: What makes Cheney more frightening every day, is the fact that he is a mostly hidden away guy. We rarely see him. When he does emerge, it’s usually to tell some huge lie, like Saddam caused 911, or to push for more torture, which is becoming the new image of America to the rest of the world --the big imperialist, lying torture state. This guy is becoming the complete image of evil. And since nobody really believes Bush comes up with any ideas on policy, because Bush doesn’t even read, we can only assume that the entire mess that this country is chalked up mainly to Cheney, the real President of the United States. Has he ever had a compassionate thought in his life? Has he ever had an accurate thought in his life? Has he ever had an intelligent thought in his life? No. But he sounds really smart when saying stupid things. That’s where his talent lies. To any thinking person, Cheney is so ridiculous of a person, we really don’t even bother to listen to his speeches anymore. I would never expect any enlightenment, apologies, or insight from such a narrow person.

RAY SUAREZ: Is that right, David? Have the terms of discussion changed with the Condoleezza Rice interview, with the vice president's speech?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, that has always been the issue. I mean, we've never wanted to stay there forever. I actually think the Murtha thing was a bit misleading, not because Murtha that is not a fine man but because there are only two fellow Democrats who agree with his position.
To me the most important thing that happened this week on the Democratic side were speeches by Joe Biden, who is really one of the most senior and thoughtful Democrats on foreign policy, and Barack Obama, the most promising young politician in America, and both of them distanced themselves from Murtha; both of them basically took the Bush doctrine, which was to train the troops, try to build national political institutions, and they had a few different suggestions. Biden wanted a contact group of international groups to help coordinate Iraq's future.
But basically it was within the parameters that I think are the bipartisan consensus parameters. I think as you think about where we are going forward, as the Barack speech, as the Biden speech, as Hillary Clinton's comments indicated, there is a basic broad agreement on what to do how to train the forces, how to unify the Iraqi political class, how to try to heal the civil war. And so we've got a consensus going forward. We've got bitter debate about the past.
And the White House had to make an argument are we going to talk about the past. Or are we going to ignore all that stuff about prewar intelligence and just talk about the future? I think their first instinct was to talk about the future. But the president's poll numbers and especially when it came to honesty, were slipping so badly, they felt they had to go on the offensive and Dick Cheney's speech was the most forceful evidence of that.

RAY SUAREZ: So out of 435 household members, David, you are suggesting only two agree with Jack Murtha based on what, on their resolution in the house?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I don't want to get that specific but I think it is certainly not the core Democratic position, if you talk to most Democrats I think most Democrats will say, no, we can't leave now, we can't leave within six months, we have to leave based on facts on the ground. And that's basically what Biden said, what Barack Obama said.
Now they had different suggestions, things they think the administration is not doing which they should be doing. But I think very few, especially leading Democrats think we should leave within six months.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, to David, the so called legitimate Democrats are the ones who defend the necessity of war. The sad part is that we only have two parties, and two choices, not so different from each other for the most part. But to somebody like David, these are all the choices we ever need. It’s a sad state to see how narrow minded our country is. But I would like to discuss this issue about the past, as if the past is a waste of time. Perhaps if Bush has known more about the past, he could have prevented all of the mistakes he keeps making with the future. The past is important, because 4 years ago, the smart people of this country knew Bush’s plan was a bad idea, and they tried to prevent it. Now each year, as more evidence emerges, we can gather another less intelligent group of dissenters and say "You see? Now you understand why Bush is so dumb and so wrong?." And we have to keep reviewing the history as it gets worse, so we can grab dumber and dumber dissenters with each passing year and say, "See? Now do you get it?"
Now, we are basically left with only the corrupt and totally ignorant, where no amount of evidence will ever change them. These are the guys like the knight in the Holy Grail, with their legs and arms missing, saying, "Come back here, I’m not dead yet." We have spent over $250 billion on this war. That’s the goal. Winning was never the goal. Get real. The war will end when the thieves learn they can’t steal anymore money to spend on it. The bribes in California were from a defense contractors, remember? That was one politician. The others are just as paid off, including all of the war loving Dems David refers to. They are programmed and paid to think and talk this way. The robots only get unplugged when the poll drops so low, that even a rigged election won’t fly.

RAY SUAREZ: David, the next set of elections in Iraq are scheduled for Dec. 15. If those are carried off in a relatively peaceful manner might there be a rising Republican chorus to say look, we've done more or less what we said we went in there to do; maybe it's time to start looking for the exit door?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I mean there is already that because the war has become so unpopular. On that issue I don't disagree. But I think when it comes to the president and I think when it comes to leading Democrats, I think they are going to say we are not going to leave until the Iraqi security forces are basically ready.
And that is what George Bush has been saying for six months. He's been saying as they stand up, we'll stand down. That is the position I think most military brass have embraced for six months or maybe a year. So as the elections take place in December, you'll get another step forward. And by the way, we saw a joint Sunni-Shia declaration this week with another bit of good news, sign of unification over there.
So, you know, there will be a slow progress toward where we can start withdrawing troops, but I really don't think many Democrats or many Republicans are going to want to withdraw troops if it leads to the civil war. And that is the issue that we are faced with right now.

RAY SUAREZ: Just one point and that is that Jack Murtha made, and I talked to him before the speech and he's made it since, and that is that Iraqi ministry had its own poll, and 82 percent of Iraqis want us out of there. There is a move now to include that as part of the Dec. 15 referendum.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Makes you wonder where reality is, when Bush makes the USA sound so critical to Iraq, and yet, none of the Iraqi’s agree with him. If Iraqi’s want us to leave, and they do, let’s just leave. There’s nothing to win. There’s nothing to lose. We’ve already screwed up. It’s not a big deal. The screw up began when our CIA helped Saddam come to power decades ago. We did the same thing to Panama, putting Noriega on our CIA payroll. We screwed up Vietnam, and it only got better after we left. Bush doesn’t want to leave, because that’s all he’s got. His entire Presidency hinges on him waiting for Jesus to emerge to thank him for screwing up the Middle East. The defense industry doesn’t want him to leave, because they are making a fortune on this waste of assets. Americans are oblivious to the fact that this whole ordeal is just making us weaker, lowering our wealth substantially. Now the painful cuts will have to come, and nobody will ever remember how much money got wasted blowing up sand. Let’s not waste time looking at the past. If we did, somebody might learn something, and that would be dangerous.

DAVID BROOKS: But that is not the choice. This was the problem with the Murtha speech, frankly, and I have always had a great deal of respect, but if are you going to recommend a policy, you have to have at least a paragraph in your speech on the consequences of your policy and Murtha didn't have that paragraph in the speech.
And so when people are actually looking at the policy options, are they looking at what is going to happen if we withdraw prematurely? And I think most serious Democrats and most serious Republicans think it with be a mistake to base our withdrawal decisions based on polls here or even polls in Iraq.
No one wants to be there, but if the reality is going to be worse, I think most Democrats and most Republicans are going to say okay, we have got to stick it out.
I mean, the good news really is, though, and this is good news in obviously a terrible situation, the Iraqi troops have begun to be performing well. We have had this operation in western Iraq where the Iraqi troops have fought much better than they had before, where they are beginning to hold ground.
You know, as I said before it's still a 50/50 proposition, you can't get optimistic. But we are beginning to see some of the political and military gains from the training and from the political progress.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Oh, yeah, and Bush states consequences in his policy speeches? The only consequences he ever mentions are ones that are completely wrong. Iraq didn’t roll over fall in love with us. The war didn’t cost less than $50 billion. Iraqi oil is not reimbursing us for the cost of the war. Getting out is good. The consequences will not be pretty, but they are necessary, and the only option. Bush’s option, is to deny what will happen anyway. He does not have the power that he thinks he has over the world, and that was the big miscalculation from day one.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, the president is now going to hit the road, Johnny, after the Thanksgiving break to start talking about immigration in the border states. Is this something that could successfully regain the initiative for the administration, change the topic a little bit?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: The Republicans want to build a great wall of China on our Mexican border. They must have gotten the idea from Sharone. Maybe we can put up 60 feet of concrete. This is more of the xenophobia that many predicted would come from frightened Americans, after 9/11. This is the kind of thing Jesus tried to resist, when he said you should love your enemy. Hatred, division, isolation is not a cure for anything with the human race. Jesus was not a Republican, that’s for damn sure. And the Free Trade Agreement was never really about promoting immigration. To the contrary, big corporations would prefer to stop human movement, so they can isolate the poor slaves on their plantations for tiny wages, while increasing movement of their materials. Frankly, I’m surprised to see this issue come up, because places like Texas have become so brown and so Spanish, most have gotten over this issue of Mexicans. In fact, most voters in that state will soon be of Mexican decent. Most embrace their neighbors. This fear feels odd. Perhaps there are still some really scared wimpy people out there who want this isolation. But it feels suspiciously like another attempt for the Republicans to generate some fear among their ignorant base, to keep up their war chest spending. They want us to be a permanent war state. They need things to be afraid of. And brown people are typically what they like to fear. What they really need is something to go wrong. I’m sure Bush is writing letters to Bin Laden, begging him to do something quick.

RAY SUAREZ: David.

DAVID BROOKS: As for immigration, I think what the president is trying to do is first he's trying to rally the base, get the conservatives back on his side by addressing border security. But there is a political strategy here which is not a bad one. And the strategy is you take this issue which fiercely divides really both parties but mostly the Republicans.
You emphasize border security this year. You try to get a border security bill which just emphasizes building a fence on the southern border through the House, which is much more conservative. Then the next year you take it over to the Senate and there you can get something which John McCain has talked about and Ted Kennedy has talked about, getting something to regularize these illegal workers that are here. And then you pass that over to the Senate. And once you've got the balanced picture then you can get back to the House and maybe the conservatives in the House will vote for a more balanced amendment.
But I think politically you do have to start with border security before you get over to the other side of the issue which is regularizing the workers.

RAY SUAREZ: But very briefly, David --

DAVID BROOKS: It is not bad idea.

RAY SUAREZ: -- May this also open up a family fight in the Republican Party. Does it carry that risk?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, absolutely. There is the sort of the more free market side of people who think there should be freedom of movement, people who think we need the workers. There is the more, if you want to call it, socially conservative side who are just anti-immigrant.
But I do think it's possible to see, and some people say you are beginning to see some people on the socially conservative side recognizing the reality that we need these eleven or thirteen million illegal workers. These are the people who pick the vegetables you eat every day.
And on the other side there are some of the free market side are acknowledging that the out of control border is just unacceptable. So you if take these two approaches you can see a marriage. It will be a very problematic marriage to pull off. And that's really the political trickiness of this issue.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: The borders should be wide open, world wide, like they were 100 years ago. We would all be better off for it. Stop fearing humanity is the key. Stop regulating people. Believe in true freedom. The world is not so scary. The fact is, we need immigrants to help pay for all of the new old people coming aboard. If we don’t get less xenophobic, we will regret it big time in the future when there are not enough young people to feed the old. Frankly, I think this issue is going nowhere. But I’ve been fooled by stupid ideas before.

RAY SUAREZ: David, good to talk to you. Johnny, like always, I don’t know how you got past the censors, but I’m sure we will never air this anyway. The Republican dominated executive committee that monitors PBS would never let you on the air.