amna: To discuss this week's
news both here and abroad, we
turn to the analysis of brooks
and Capehart.
That's New York Times columnist
David brooks and Jonathan
Capehart, associate editor for
the Washington post.
Good to see you both.
Let's talk about these cluster
bombs.
Jonathan, we heard earlier some
debate about why people think it
is a good idea but the huge risk
it poses to civilian
populations.
Is this the administration
sacrificing the moral high
ground for a battlefield
advantage?
Jonathan: This is war.
President zelenskyy is forced to
fight a Russian president who
has been ruthless, bombing
civilian targets for almost
minute one, with Ukraine
pleading for tanks, planes,
please send us the most advanced
military equipment you can give
us because we need it.
Sending cluster munitions is I
think -- it probably crosses a
line for a lot of, but when you
are the western alliance and the
mantra is this is
authoritarianism versus
democracy and democracy must
win, democracy must have all the
tools possible to make it
possible.
Amna: David, the U.S. Itself
stopped using these in 2003.
What does it say to you about
how they see the war?
David: One, there were no other
munitions to send.
You have horrible choices.
I think it says a few other
things.
Why do they have no other
munitions to send?
What was wrong with air supply
chains that we don't have normal
artillery shells?
Also, chose the Ukraine advance
is not going so great.
In part because of the lack of
munitions and in part because
the areas are mined up.
And the final thing they should
ask and I am sure they are
asking this, people make
terrible decisions thinking
something devastating will
devastate the enemy.
Some of them have no value at
all.
They've been fighting a war
largely an artillery war.
Why should we think -- I am not
a military expert -- why should
we think this will yield any
advance for either side?
I hope they ask these
fundamental questions.
Amna: Jonathan we've seen some
opposition even from in the same
party.
One representative put out a
statement, saying we are strong
because we live up to our values
and defies that.
Could this signal a wider rift?
Jonathan: With all due respect
to the congresswoman, she is one
voice.
There might be others in
congress who are behind her and
we will see if more Democrats
start coming out and opposing
the administration, with regard
to munitions or to funding.
Then my question everyone is
should the U.S. Send the fighter
jets president zelenskyy wants?
And should we accept his
assurances he won't use them
inside Russian territory?
These are the tough questions
David is talking about.
Amna: What about next week's
nato summit?
We know Germany has already
publicly opposed sending these
munitions.
David: I expect they will
publicly oppose it and then
understand privately.
There may be some heartfelt
opposition.
If president zelenskyy things he
needs them and there's no other
way to mount the campaign, the
U.S. Is in the unfortunate
position of being the super P
lower having to make the tough
calls.
I hope nato will be realigned,
getting Sweden and, in part
because of the Ukraine -- the
way Ukraine is being treated.
This is the gradual reshaping of
post-ukraine were Europe and I
think the president is being
pretty aggressive and probably
the right way.
Amna: On the 2024 campaign
trail, we saw some numbers from
campaigns, fundraising numbers,
not verified, they are from the
campaigns.
The Desantis campaign announced
it raised $20 million he
announced his campaign six weeks
ago.
The super pac backing him helped
raise $130 million.
Is this going to help him close
the gap between himself and
president trump?
Jonathan: That's what he hopes
and you can do a lot with $130
million.
Donald Trump raised $35 million,
but what he made in q1, and
these huge numbers tell me and
should tell Democrats, that half
the country wants their guy to
win, once their candidate --
wants their candidate to win.
It's astounding that twice
impeach and twice indicted,
president trump raising money
hand over fist.
With governor Desantis, money
can only buy so much.
If he doesn't change the way he
campaigns and is able to at
least break through and have
people think he is warm or human
or really wants to do this, I
don't seem going anywhere.
Amna: David, I want to ask you
about something we heard from
vice president Mike pence,
having to answer from things in
the past.
He was confronted recently by
one resident in Iowa who asked
him why he didn't refuse to
certify the 2020 election
results on January 6, 2021.
>> Do you ever second guess
yourself?
That was a constitutional right
that you had to send those votes
back to the states?
It's not like you were going to
personally elect him.
Mr. Ce: I'm sorry, ma'am.
But that's actually what the
constitution says.
No vice president in American
history ever asserted the
authority that you have been
convinced that I had.
But I want to tell you with all
due respect, I said before, I
said when I announced, president
trump was wrong about my
authority that day and he's
still wrong.
Amna: David, he needs the votes
of the people who don't believe
the last election was
legitimate.
What do you make of his acts are
-- his answer?
David: It was a true answer.
The problem they face is Donald
Trump is not just a candidate,
he is a social club.
My colleague made this point
this week, that when you are in
the trump rally or in the
caravan or one of the boat
crusades, they are having fun.
They are joyous, around people
who agree with them, they have a
beer, and it is a sense of
belonging.
I think we have not covered that
element should for a lot of --
that element.
For a lot of people is not just
an attachment to a candidate, it
is a movement that provides a
sense of belonging.
Despite all that happens, Donald
Trump has 78% approval among
Republican voters.
That is very high.
It's hard to shake people off of
that.
All of the candidates -- Mike
pence, Ron Desantis -- who are a
little trumpy, or a little
anti-trumpy, it won't shake
people from the social club.
Amna: I have to ask you about
the decision that bans the Biden
administration from
communicating with social media
companies about misinformation
or disinformation online.
We know the administration is
seeking an emergency order to
halt that band.
This is the same week we saw a
man armed at the teeth show up
at the Obama residence because
he saw the address posted
online.
Where are we in this
conversation between the online
world and real world violence?
Jonathan: [Laughs]
This decision boggles the mind.
You have an administration in
the middle of a pandemic, the
Biden administration comes in in
the middle of a pandemic with
disinformation and
misinformation, literally trying
to save people's lives, and see
that all of that disinformation
and misinformation is having on
social media.
A responsible, functioning
government would go to those
companies and say hey, can we
have a conversation about this?
We understand your first
amendment rights but we are
trying to save lives.
I don't understand how the
arguments from the fever swamps
have made their way into
judicial decisions and are now
preventing the administration
from combating things that are
doing real harm to the American
people.
I'm glad you made the link to
the guy who was arrested outside
of the Obamas's home, with
guns and machete.
Who is to say that if he hadn't
been caught that he would not
have acted on that information?
That's the question.
We are in a time where we should
not have to ask these questions.
I think we know what the answer
would be.
Amna: David?
David: Obviously they need to
pull stuff down, they pulled
over a billion things down.
I don't trust tech to be in
charge of this and I don't trust
government and big tech in
private to be in charge of this.
There is a bill in the senate
that would make the process more
transparent.
So outside sources can see if
they are being honest and fair
and what they pulled down and
that seems the best way forward.
It is a problem for democracy to
have in Washington, elites, and
elites in silicon valley, making
these decisions.
Amna: Good to see you both,
please have a great weekend.
♪♪