It's Good to be ridiculous :)

Date: November 20, 2008 at 11:06:06
From: Al Viola, []
Subject: It's Good to be ridiculous :)

Copyright 2008 Cable News Network
All Rights Reserved.

CNN

SHOW: ISSUES WITH JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL 7:00 PM EST

from November 13, 2008 Thursday

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD DREYFUSS, ACTOR: My office sent to you spy satellite photos that showed that WMDs could be hidden in caves that you never responded to.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We analyzed those photos, Mr. Vice President, and they are actually trenches, watering holes for cattle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ MITCHELL: That is the movie "W.," talking about WMDs and the buildup to the war. But what would have happened if there had been a cabinet member from the Department of Peace in those discussions? Would we have gone to war with Iraq? Maybe not.
Back with our fabulous guests, Cheri Jacobus, Republican strategist and president of Capital Strategies P.R., and Zahra Buck, Democratic strategist and counsel for Capital Counsel. But we begin with one of the leaders of the campaign to get a Department of Peace, Wendy Green.
Wendy, of course, as we all know we have a Department of Defense, which prepares and executes war. So how would a Department of Peace work? What exactly would it do?
WENDY GREEN, CAMPAIGNING FOR DEPARTMENT OF PEACE: Well, a Department of Peace would be a cabinet-level position that would allow to us launch a strategic, scientifically-based approach to reducing and preventing violence in the United States as well as abroad.
VELEZ MITCHELL: So essentially, going back to that example we just used, if you were deciding whether or not to go to war with Iraq, you would have a cabinet member in there arguing the case that, hey, maybe war is not the answer?
GREEN: You would have a cabinet member in there saying here are some alternatives. Here are some things we haven`t tried yet. Here are ways that we can work with these people that may allow us the capacity to avoid this war. And if these things don`t work, now we still have the tools that we need, if we do, indeed, need to bring violence. But the focus is how do we resolve the conflict before it erupts into violence?
VELEZ MITCHELL: And Cheri Jacobus, you`re a Republican. Now that we have a Democratic president coming in and a Democratic Congress, this is actually a bill in Congress. Do you think it has a chance of passage, and would you support a Department of Peace?
JACOBUS: It has no chance of passage. I doubt it even gets a hearing. You`ll never get a committee markup. You don`t have bipartisan support. I`d be surprised if Nancy Pelosi, even though she`s pretty much on the far left, if she wanted to bring this up. It would embarrass the party. It would almost ensure that there would be a Republican majority.
We have a Department of Peace. It`s called the Pentagon. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. And if you start bringing in -- it`s my understanding that this ridiculous piece of legislation also would require that the secretary of peace be consulted by Department of Defense, State Department, the president, whomever, before the United States can engage in military exchanges. This is frightening and ridiculous, and to answer your question...
VELEZ MITCHELL: Why is peace ridiculous? Why is peace ridiculous? You bring up the idea of peace -- I mean, to me, war is ridiculous. It kills people.
GREEN: Yes...
VELEZ MITCHELL: Why is not, not killing people and having a peaceful resolution?
JACOBUS: I`m not suggesting that peace is ridiculous. What we`re suggesting is that the Department of Defense is the proper and proven entity for peace.
BUCK: I totally disagree.
VELEZ MITCHELL: OK. Let`s let Zahra jump in.
BUCK: I totally disagree. Let me start by saying, first of all, the days of cowboy diplomacy are over. And thank heavens for that. The reality is that Barack Obama will have his hands full in this new administration. And here`s why. We have to restore our credibility in the international community. We have to restore our diplomacy and our diplomatic efforts. And that all goes through the State Department. So it`s not just the Pentagon that has responsibility, as -- as Cheri has stated. It`s certainly the State Department.
VELEZ MITCHELL: Zahra, do you think we should have a Department of Peace?
BUCK: Actually, I do not. And here`s why, although I commend the efforts. I certainly believe that, if we restore our diplomatic efforts to the State Department, that that is where it is properly placed.
VELEZ MITCHELL: We only have -- we only have a couple of seconds. Look, we`ve had a State Department and a Pentagon and a Defense Department for eons, and we still wage war. The time has come...
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ MITCHELL: Let Wendy Green make her argument. Wendy, make your argument.
GREEN: Something that actually might be very interesting to your viewers, is you look at the remarks that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has recently been making. He has been, actually, the most articulate person in Washington today calling for an expansion of what he refers to as our soft power.
And the fact that our military, in fact, is being asked to do a job that is not their job, that they are not trained for and that we need to expand this capacity. He himself has called for new structures in the government.
Now, I`m not saying he supports a Department of Peace. Don`t misunderstand.
VELEZ MITCHELL: OK.
GREEN: But what`s important to recognize is the need he`s discussing is something that could be something that could be filled by the Department of Peace.
VELEZ MITCHELL: We have to end it there, but...
(CROSSTALK)
VELEZ MITCHELL: We`re out of time. But I have to say that peace and the discussion of a Department of Peace should no longer be ridiculous. That`s called evolution.

Posted with TalkShop version 2.76
[Previous Message] [Next Message]

Replies:

[ Voices For Peace ]

TalkShop 2.76, updated: 13-May-2008 15:06:11, 103894 Bytes