DOCSLIB.ORG

WTH Jonathan Swan on Why US Allies Fear Biden Pipeline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WTH Jonathan Swan on Why US Allies Fear Biden Pipeline WTH Jonathan Swan on why US allies fear Biden pipeline Episode #92 | March 03, 2021 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Jonathan Swan Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on this week? Marc Thiessen: What the hell is going on is we're just over a month into the Biden administration and we are having our first podcast on the Biden foreign policy capitulations. Danielle Pletka: Oh my God. Marc Thiessen: It's happening already with lightning speed. Danielle Pletka: I've been super surprised. Folks, national security is the sweet spot for me and Marc, and we've been pulled away from that over the last couple of years by all of the politics. Marc Thiessen: And the pandemic. Danielle Pletka: Oh, yes, I forgot. Marc Thiessen: And the toilet paper shortage. We have pressing issues to talk about, Dany. Danielle Pletka: We're coming home this week, and what we are talking about is Nord Stream 2. Marc Thiessen: What is Nord Stream 2, Dany? Danielle Pletka: It is a very substantial Russian gas pipeline that will take from Russia, circumventing all of Eastern Europe, gas directly to Germany. Marc Thiessen: Under the Baltic Sea. Danielle Pletka: Under the Baltic Sea. Most of it is built. They've been building it for quite a long 2 time. It is a hugely controversial project, and everybody will understand instantaneously why, so stop your eyes from glazing over. The reason is that it circumvents Ukraine, which has been a choke point for the export of Russian gas in recent years. What does that mean? It means that Ukraine loses any leverage it has over Russia. It means that Ukraine is even less important than it was heretofore to our European friends and allies who pretend to be friends of democracy and freedom. And it means that the Russians are going to have something close to a chokehold on the supply of energy to Western Europe. Marc Thiessen: And not just Ukraine, but all of Eastern Europe is very concerned about this, because if the Russians can bypass Central Europe to get natural gas to the West, that means that if they wanted to, they could cut off energy supplies to Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic countries, and other countries across the region. Danielle Pletka: Without cutting off Europe. Marc Thiessen: Without cutting off their supplies to Western Europe. They know that the Western Europeans really don't care all that much about Eastern Europe and they just want their cheap gas. Until now, if they wanted to cut off Eastern Europe, they had to cut off Western Europe, and that caused a big political problem for them. Now they'll be able to circumvent them, and so, this gives Putin a huge geopolitical win. Marc Thiessen: Who stopped the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Dany? Danielle Pletka: Donald J. Trump and the Trump administration. Marc Thiessen: Thank you. Danielle Pletka: This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction stories. What I mean by fiction, of course, is the mainstream media. Here was an administration that, for all popular reporting, kowtowed to Russia. Now, you and I made the case repeatedly, and some pretty straightforward journalists did as well, that the Trump administration was hugely tough on Russia. But one of the things that we saw during the Trump administration was, as part of this perception that Trump was soft on Russia, there was all this legislation that came through the Congress, that was supported by Republicans and supported by Democrats, that was intended to really put Russia in the crosshairs. Sanctions here, sanctions there, sanctions, sanctions everywhere. Lo and behold, what happens when Joe Biden becomes president, Marc? Marc Thiessen: One of the upsides of the fact that Trump was not so attached to NATO was the fact that he was willing to pummel Germany over this pipeline and basically threatened that we're not just going to sanction the pipeline; we are going to sanction you. We are going to threaten German trade. We are going to threaten all these things if you build this pipeline, because he knew it was a bad idea. And basically, construction on the pipeline stopped. Danielle Pletka: In 2019, mind you. AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 3 Marc Thiessen: In 2019. And guess when it started? The week that Joe Biden came into office. Marc Thiessen: What has Joe Biden done about this? Nothing. They have a congressionally mandated report on the sanctions that they're imposing, and the Biden State Department announced that they had sanctioned a ship involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in this report to Congress. Turned out, the ship had been sanctioned by the Trump administration before they came into office. Because the construction restarted, under the law, they were supposed to impose new sanctions, and they haven't done it yet. This pipeline could be done by this summer. This could be a done deal, so they don't have a lot of time to fix this problem, Dany. Marc Thiessen: Everybody was so in this "Donald Trump is a tool of Putin" movement, and a Russian agent, and the Mueller Report and everything else, everyone criticized his soft rhetoric on Russia, but his actions were incredibly tough. I think what we've got now is the reverse, where we've got a president who talks tough on Russia but is actually not willing to put his money where his mouth is and actually impose costs on both Germany and Russia for this pipeline. Danielle Pletka: I actually think this points to a larger truth. Marc Thiessen: That Donald Trump was an incredibly effective foreign policy president? Danielle Pletka: No. Marc Thiessen: Is that what you're saying, Dany? Danielle Pletka: No, Marc. Let me just say, January 6th. Thank you. Marc Thiessen: You know where I stand on January 6th. Danielle Pletka: Exactly. That is the black cloud that overshadows everything and anything that was good in the Trump administration, of which you and I have agreed that there certainly were some pretty strong elements. Danielle Pletka: What I'm trying to make is a point about Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy, and I think you touched on it when you said rhetoric. Democratic administrations have always been good on the rhetoric, good on supporting freedom, democracy, good on being tough on Russia, nuclear proliferation, of course, climate change. Marc Thiessen: Except during the Cold War. Danielle Pletka: Well, okay, let's just talk about the 21st century for a second. My favorite of this, and I'm going to say it parents, cover your children's ears my favorite of this bullshit rhetoric is the Atrocity Prevention Board. The Obama administration that presided over the wanton massacre of half a million people in Syria and refused to do anything about it, despite the president of the United States declaring it was a red line for him, instead created something called an Atrocity Prevention Board. This is a presidential directive. This is not some garbagy, airy-fairy think AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 4 tank thing, she said sitting in her airy-fairy think tank. Danielle Pletka: What has the Atrocity Prevention Board done? Abso-bloody-lutely nothing. This is what the Obama administration is going to have in common with the third term of the Obama administration, the Biden administration, which is that they're going to talk a good game and do absolutely nothing, talk a good game and allow Russia to get a stranglehold on Europe, talk a good game and allow Iran to get towards nuclear weapons, talk a good game and allow China to dominate the Pacific. We could go on and on here. This is a big problem. Marc Thiessen: Who, Dany, enforced the Obama red line, not once, but twice? Danielle Pletka: Well, again, I would say not effectively- Marc Thiessen: More effectively than Obama and Biden did. Danielle Pletka: Yes, well, that is the pathetic thing. Yes. Marc Thiessen: Twice. Twice struck them. Danielle Pletka: Yes. That is the pathetic thing. Marc Thiessen: That was his atrocity prevention board. It's a hell of a lot more effective. Look, I agree with you on January 6th. It doesn't erase the foreign policy accomplishments, and the contrast is still striking, just a month into the administration. Marc Thiessen: Anyway, we've got a great guest to talk about this, and I am particularly excited because many of you listeners don't know this, but Dany Pletka was born in Australia. Danielle Pletka: They do know this. Marc Thiessen: She sounds like a plain old American, but whenever she gets on the phone with an Australian, like when she talks to her parents, and I'm in her office and she's talking to her mummy, then all of a sudden, she sounds like Crocodile Dundee. So, we have not only a great reporter on with us, but an Australian, and so going to struggle hard to keep that Australian accent down, but it's going to sneak through a little bit. You're going to get to hear the Australian side of Dany Pletka. Crikey. Danielle Pletka: Thank you so much and managing to bury the lead. Our guest today is Jonathan Swan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trumpism on College Campuses
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Previously Published Works Title Trumpism on College Campuses Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1d51s5hk Journal QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOGY, 43(2) ISSN 0162-0436 Authors Kidder, Jeffrey L Binder, Amy J Publication Date 2020-06-01 DOI 10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Qualitative Sociology (2020) 43:145–163 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z Trumpism on College Campuses Jeffrey L. Kidder1 & Amy J. Binder 2 Published online: 1 February 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract In this paper, we report data from interviews with members of conservative political clubs at four flagship public universities. First, we categorize these students into three analytically distinct orientations regarding Donald Trump and his presidency (or what we call Trumpism). There are principled rejecters, true believers, and satisficed partisans. We argue that Trumpism is a disunifying symbol in our respondents’ self- narratives. Specifically, right-leaning collegians use Trumpism to draw distinctions over the appropriate meaning of conservatism. Second, we show how political clubs sort and shape orientations to Trumpism. As such, our work reveals how student-led groups can play a significant role in making different political discourses available on campuses and shaping the types of activism pursued by club members—both of which have potentially serious implications for the content and character of American democracy moving forward. Keywords Americanpolitics.Conservatism.Culture.Highereducation.Identity.Organizations Introduction Donald Trump, first as a candidate and now as the president, has been an exceptionally divisive force in American politics, even among conservatives who typically vote Republican.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion Talk Radio Is Turning Million...Nto Conservatives
    https://nyti.ms/2SFJqYc Talk Radio Is Turning Millions of Americans Into Conservatives The medium is at the heart of Trumpism. By Paul Matzko Dr. Matzko is the author of “The Radio Right: How a Band of Broadcasters Took on the Federal Government and Built the Modern Conservative Movement.” Oct. 9, 2020 At least 15 million Americans every week tune into one of the top 15 talk radio programs. They are not monolithically conservative, but they are overwhelmingly so. A dozen of the top 15 shows feature conservative or libertarian hosts — with devoted followings like Rush Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” or Michael Savage’s “Savage Nation” — and only one leans left. Talk radio may face an aging audience, a decline in ad revenue and competition from new mass media forms like podcasts, but there are still millions of Americans whose politics are shaped by what they listen to on talk radio all day, every day. Fox News gets more of the attention for shaping conservative opinion and for its influence on the Trump administration, but we shouldn’t overlook the power of conservative talk radio. The conservatism of talk radio only partly overlaps with institutional conservatism, that of right-wing Washington think tanks, magazines and the Republican Party itself. By the early 2000s, it had embraced a version of conservatism that is less focused on free markets and small government and more focused on ethnonationalism and populism. It is, in short, the core of Trumpism — now and in the future, with or without a President Trump. Talk radio’s power is rooted in the sheer volume of content being produced each week.
    [Show full text]
  • Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program
    Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Robert E. Ebel E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org March 2010 ISBN 978-0-89206-600-1 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy066001zv*:+:!:+:! CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program author Robert E. Ebel March 2010 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decision- makers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    Tow Center for Digital Journalism CONSERVATIVE A Tow/Knight Report NEWSWORK A Report on the Values and Practices of Online Journalists on the Right Anthony Nadler, A.J. Bauer, and Magda Konieczna Funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 7 Boundaries and Tensions Within the Online Conservative News Field 15 Training, Standards, and Practices 41 Columbia Journalism School Conservative Newswork 3 Executive Summary Through much of the 20th century, the U.S. news diet was dominated by journalism outlets that professed to operate according to principles of objectivity and nonpartisan balance. Today, news outlets that openly proclaim a political perspective — conservative, progressive, centrist, or otherwise — are more central to American life than at any time since the first journalism schools opened their doors. Conservative audiences, in particular, express far less trust in mainstream news media than do their liberal counterparts. These divides have contributed to concerns of a “post-truth” age and fanned fears that members of opposing parties no longer agree on basic facts, let alone how to report and interpret the news of the day in a credible fashion. Renewed popularity and commercial viability of openly partisan media in the United States can be traced back to the rise of conservative talk radio in the late 1980s, but the expansion of partisan news outlets has accelerated most rapidly online. This expansion has coincided with debates within many digital newsrooms. Should the ideals journalists adopted in the 20th century be preserved in a digital news landscape? Or must today’s news workers forge new relationships with their publics and find alternatives to traditional notions of journalistic objectivity, fairness, and balance? Despite the centrality of these questions to digital newsrooms, little research on “innovation in journalism” or the “future of news” has explicitly addressed how digital journalists and editors in partisan news organizations are rethinking norms.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka Is Senior Vice President for Foreign And
    Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka is senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she oversees the Institute’s work on foreign and defense issues. Ms. Pletka writes regularly on national security matters with a special focus on Iran, the Middle East (Syria, Israel, ISIS), and South Asia. She is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Before joining AEI, Ms. Pletka was a longtime senior professional staff member for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where she specialized in the Near East and South Asia as the point person on Middle East, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. Ms. Pletka has authored, coauthored, and coedited a variety of studies, monographs, and book chapters, including the report “Tehran Stands Atop the Syria-Iran Alliance” (Atlantic Council, 2017); the chapter “America in Decline” in “Debating the Obama Presidency” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016); “America vs. Iran: The Competition for the Future of the Middle East” (AEI, 2014); “Iranian Influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan” (AEI, 2012); “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran” (AEI, 2011); and “Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats” (AEI, 2008). A regular guest on television, Ms. Pletka appears frequently on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” Her broadcast appearances also include CBS News, CNN, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. She has been published in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Hill, and Politico, among other outlets. She has an M.A. from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Findings from Sunday Talk Show Study
    Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy September 2017 Report on Network Sunday Morning Talk Show Content and Ratings, Comparing 1983, 1999, and 2015 By Matthew A. Baum Kalb Professor of Global Communication Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Program Content 5 3. Guests 7 4. Topics 9 5. Gender Preferences 13 6. Guest Demographics 19 7. Agenda Setting 20 a. Agenda Setting by Members of Congress (1980-2003) 20 b. Agenda Setting Overall (1983, 1999, 2015) 22 8. Conclusion 28 9. Acknowledgments 29 10. Appendix 1: Codebook 30 11. Appendix 2: Examples of Guest Categories 34 12. Appendix 3: Examples of Substance-Process and Politics-Policy Variables 36 2 Executive Summary We studied the content and Nielsen ratings for interviews on the three network Sunday morning talk shows—Meet the Press (henceforth MTP), Face the Nation (FTN), and This Week (TW). We compared three time periods—1983 (MTP, FTN), 1999 (all three shows), and 2015 (all three shows). In order to insure apples-to-apples comparisons, for over time comparisons, we either restricted our analyses to MTP and FTN or analyzed the data with and without TW. For “overall” snapshots we included all three shows (MTP, FTN, TW). Our goals were fourfold: (1) identify any discernable trends in the topics and types of guests featured on the Sunday talk shows, (2) identify any trends in audience ratings, (3) assess whether and to what extent trends in topics and guests correlate with audience ratings, and (4) assess whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances, the Sunday talk shows influence the subsequent news agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript Prepared from a Tape Recording.]
    1 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY TOWARD A NEW IRAN POLICY A SABAN CENTER SYMPOSIUM Tuesday, November 23, 2004 The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003-2802 (202) 546-6666 2 [TRANSCRIPT PREPARED FROM A TAPE RECORDING.] MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003-2802 (202) 546-6666 3 A G E N D A Introductory Remarks Martin Indyk, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution Opening Address "U.S. Policy Toward Iran in a Second Bush Administration" Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute Panel 1: Iran's Foreign Policy and Motives Moderator: Shaul Bakhash, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution Ray Takeyh, Council on Foreign Relations M. Hadi Semati, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Panel 2: The Lay of the Land: The Threat from Iran and the International Perspective Moderator: Martin Indyk, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution Daniel Byman, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group Philip Gordon, The Brookings Institution Lunch Address "An Alternative Approach to Iran" Ken Pollack, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003-2802 (202) 546-6666 4 P R O C E E D I N G S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS MR. INDYK: Welcome to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and to the symposium that we are hosting today entitled "Towards a New Iran Policy." We've gathered a group of experts on Iran and on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Days of Trump's America: a Timeline 18
    100 DAYS IN TRUMP'S AMERICA WHITE NATIONALISTS AND THEIR AGENDA INFILTRATE THE MAINSTREAM a report by the southern poverty law center © 2017 ABOUT THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Alabama, is a nonpartisan 501(c) (3) civil rights organization founded in 1971 and dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. For more information about THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER visit www.splcenter.org 2 100 days in trump's america CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TAKES SHAPE 7 100 DAYS REPORT PROFILES 9 THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST-IN-CHIEF: TRUMP AND THE MAINSTREAMING OF THE RADICAL RIGHT 14 100 DAYS OF TRUMP'S AMERICA: A TIMELINE 18 HOW YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN OUR DEMOCRACY 26 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 28 southern poverty law center 3 4 100 days in trump's america WHITE NATIONALISTS AND THEIR AGENDA INFILTRATE THE MAINSTREAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As he spoke to the nation on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump reminded white nationalists why they had invested so much hope in him as their champion and redeemer. He painted a bleak picture of America: a nation of crumbling, third-world infrastructure, “rusted-out factories,” leaky borders, inner cities wallowing in pov- erty, a depleted military and a feckless political class that prospered as the country fell into ruin. He promised an “America First” policy that would turn it all around. “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now,” Trump declared. The inaugural address echoed the themes of a campaign that had electrified the white nationalist – or “alt-right” – movement with its promise to stop all Muslim travelers at the border and deport millions of undocumented immigrants – killers and “rapists,” Trump called them.
    [Show full text]
  • A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: the Case of Trump Thomas J
    Chapter A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump Thomas J. Froehlich Abstract This paper lays out many of the factors that make disinformation or misinformation campaigns of Trump successful. By all rational standards, he is unfit for office, a compulsive liar, incompetent, arrogant, ignorant, mean, petty, and narcissistic. Yet his approval rating tends to remain at 40%. Why do rational assessments of his presidency fail to have any traction? This paper looks at the con- flation of knowledge and beliefs in partisan minds, how beliefs lead to self-decep- tion and social self-deception and how they reinforce one another. It then looks at psychological factors, conscious and unconscious, that predispose partisans to pursue partisan sources of information and reject non-partisan sources. It then explains how these factors sustain the variety and motivations of Trump supporters’ commitment to Trump. The role of cognitive authorities like Fox News and right-wing social media sites are examined to show how the power of these media sources escalates and reinforces partisan views and the rejection of other cognitive authorities. These cognitive authorities also use emotional triggers to inflame Trump supporters, keeping them addicted by feeding their anger, resentment, or self-righteousness. The paper concludes by discussing the dynamics of the Trump disinformation- misinformation ecology, creating an Age of Inflamed Grievances. Keywords: Trumpism, disinformation, cognitive authority, Fox News, social media, propaganda, inflamed grievances, psychology of disinformation, Donald Trump, media, self-deception, social self-deception 1. Introduction This paper investigates how disinformation-misinformation campaigns, particularly in the political arena, succeed and why they are so hard to challenge, defeat, or deflect.
    [Show full text]
  • Friday, July 10Th, 2020 TO: Interested Parties FROM: Reed Galen RE: State of the Race “Over These Next 11 Months, Our Efforts
    Friday, July 10th, 2020 TO: Interested Parties FROM: Reed Galen RE: State of the Race “Over these next 11 months, our efforts will be dedicated to defeating President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box and to elect those patriots who will hold the line. We do not undertake this task lightly, nor from ideological preference. We have been, and remain, broadly conservative (or classically liberal) in our politics and outlooks. Our many policy differences with national Democrats remain, but our shared fidelity to the Constitution dictates a common effort.” The Lincoln Project The New York Times December 17, 2019 The Lincoln Project launched six months ago in a different time and place in America. The country was preparing to experience its third impeachment trial in the history of the United States. The impeachment of President Donald J. Trump for abuse of power ended in political farce as Mitch McConnell and his supine Senate majority looked away from the clear evidence that President Trump had extorted a foreign government to assist his re-election. It is in that context, and the previous three years of Trump’s administration that The Lincoln Project began its efforts with a clear message: To rid American politics of Donald Trump and Trumpism in the November general election. At that moment, saving the Republic from the worst of Trump’s behavior was paramount. That goal was ambitious, but we knew even then that it would be an uphill fight. As the coronavirus made its way to our shores, Donald Trump’s inability to lead changed our outlook on how to conduct our efforts against him.
    [Show full text]
  • Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Israel, the UAE and Bahrain
    WTH is going on with peace in the Middle East? Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Israel, the UAE and Bahrain Episode #71 | September 29, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Amb. Ron Dermer Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: he Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on? Marc Thiessen: Peace in the Middle East! Danielle Pletka: God I never thought we'd have this podcast. Marc Thiessen: Who would ever believe we'd have a podcast on peace in the Middle East? Danielle Pletka: It really is ridiculous. People always ask me, "So why did you get into the Middle East as a region of study?" And I always say because it's a gift that keeps on giving. The problems there will never be solved. But in fact, it shows, sometimes they get solved. Marc Thiessen: Absolutely they do. First of all, just for a housekeeping note, this is going to be the first of two podcasts on this subject because we have today the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer who's joining us and then on the next episode we have the ambassadors of Bahrain and the UAE who are going to join us. So we have the three ambassadors from three countries that have reached this historic deal and it's going to be a pair of epic podcasts. Danielle Pletka: So, you know, there's been a lot of arguing because in Washington of course even peace in the Middle East isn't something that people can agree is a good thing, at least not when Donald Trump is involved.
    [Show full text]
  • Not for Citation Or Circulation Trumpism, Post-Truth, and the Crisis of Political
    NOT FOR CITATION OR CIRCULATION TRUMPISM, POST-TRUTH, AND THE CRISIS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE1 By: Edwin Kent Morris, Ph.D. Radford University Department of Political Science CHBS 5302, P.O. 6945 Radford, VA 24142 Phone: 540-831-6598 Fax: 540-831-6599 [email protected] AUTHOR DETAILS EDWIN KENT MORRIS holds a Ph.D. in Social, Political, Ethical, and Cultural Thought from the ASPECT (i.e., Alliance for the Social, Political Ethical, and Cultural Thought) interdisciplinary doctoral program at Virginia Tech. He has been published in the International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music (IRASM), and has published five articles in the ASPECT online journal SPECTRA. He has presented papers at the International Studies Association and the Western Political Science Association. As an instructor at Virginia Tech, he received recognition for excellence in teaching and research, including a 2014 “Thank a Teacher” by the Center for Instructional Development and Educational Research (CIDER), and has been a recipient of the 2012 “Favorite Faculty Award” by the Virginia Tech student association, and the 2011 “Best Master’s Thesis Award” by the Virginia Tech Department of Political Science. He is currently an adjunct faculty member with the Department of Political Science at Radford University. 1 I assume like many folks in this line of work that we all felt compelled in some way to ‘respond’ to the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. This paper began the day after that election and was ‘finished’ September 2017 (that is, I grew weary of working on it and had other projects and matters to attend too).
    [Show full text]