Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International New York Times.
Don’t have an account yet?
Create an account »
Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more »
DAVID BROOKS: Well, first, internationally, it looks a little more unilateral, so it looks a little more Bush-like, to be honest.
Before, Russia seemed isolated. Now we’re looking not isolated, but with a smaller coalition, as Mark said. In Congress, I think it’s bad. I think the decision to go to Congress was a very unfortunate decision, because it made it much bigger than Syria itself.
Now it’s a test case for Obama’s credibility, credibility around the world, and credibility at home. There is a common assumption that he can rally public opinion, he can lean on Congress, and ultimately they will force Democrats to say — they don’t like the policy, but they will say you can’t let Obama go down and have his credibility destroyed.
I’m really dubious that that’s going to be the case. I think Republicans are going to be largely against. That’s really clear. The Democrats in their hearts, they’re against. The noise from their districts is going to be solidly against. Pelosi is very good at rallying votes. But I think this is a — going to be an uphill fight for them, and if he loses, it will be really bad for the administration.
JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS NEWSHOUR: You agree it was a mistake to go to Congress?
MARK SHIELDS: No, I don’t think it was a mistake to go to Congress, Judy.
I think I have never seen any president on the eve of initiating military action that is war action, that is hitting another country with less popular support, less public support, less political support, and less international support than the president had a week ago, when we met.
The idea of doing it then, I don’t — I mean, it just amazes me — and with all respect to David — people on the left who say, oh, ignore the Congress. The Congress is lousy.
I mean, would they have the same attitude if a President Ted Cruz were there? I mean, it is the constitutional order for a president to do that. And when you’re making a decision, there’s none more grievous than that to go to war. To involve the Congress and the country in that decision, I think is absolutely imperative.
It’s the only way there’s going to be any sense of national support, let alone unity, for this action, which is controversial.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You don’t agree?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, no, I don’t.
I mean, I certainly agree, if Syria was the main thing. I think, when you go to war, if Syria was the main thing we were worried about, and if we actually had a plan to actually change something materially for the good in Syria, then going to Congress would be fine, and that would be a good thing to do, to get popular support, so the president isn’t isolated, so you get enough people on board in the beginning, so they’re there at the end when things get complicated.
That would be fine. But this really isn’t about Syria. The policy is not going to do anything materially to affect Syria. We may lob a few missiles in there. That’s just face-saving. Let’s face it. The real issue is the broader credibility of the president, the international credibility of the United States, especially vis-a-vis Iran.
This is really about Iran more than Syria. And by going to Congress and potentially getting slapped down, then our credibility vis-a-vis Iran is in shatters, and the president’s credibility at home is in shatters.
And so I just — on substantive ground, I think Mark is right. On Machiavellian ground, I think it was a mistake.
JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS NEWSHOUR: David, to you first. Has the Obama administration made a compelling case for going into Syria?
DAVID BROOKS: Not public. But I do think they have a compelling case.
You know, we have an international system here. We all profit from it. Trade profits from it. Peace. We can travel around the world because of it. And part of that system is certain ideas, the certain ideas you can’t invade other countries for no reason. You can’t commit genocide. You can’t — rogue regimes can’t have nuclear weapons, and you can’t gas your own people.
And so if we ignore those basic standards, then our international system basically begins to erode. And I think what he’s doing is probably the least bad options. They’re all pretty terrible. But if we armed the militia, those — the opposition, that might have been a good idea a couple of years ago, but they’re too rabid now for us to be arming.
If we have a no-fly zone, that would just invite — look — make us look weak. So, I think what the president is trying to do is basically, one, establish the norm that you can’t gas your own people, two, try to change the cost-benefit analysis, make it more costly to gas your own people, and, finally, just to establish the idea that we will strike out and try to change your calculus.
There are certainly dangers down the road, but I think the loss of the credibility, as we try to face Iran and other countries, would be more immediate and more realizable, and, therefore, he more or less has to do what he’s doing.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, how do you see it? Has he made — has the administration, has the president made the case?
MARK SHIELDS: I don’t think so, Judy.
I think the president, and particularly the secretary of state, John Kerry, today made a very strong case about what has been done is abhorrent. It is unacceptable. It does — it cannot go unnoted and unpunished. But, at the same time, I don’t think there’s a case been made as to what we will do, other than to punish in some way the Syrian regime for doing it, and to make ourselves feel better.
I mean, I don’t — I don’t see that — there’s no regime change. There’s no U.S. troops or coalition troops. There’s no coalition troops. It’s to be short and over. And I think, as General Anthony Zinni said, you can’t be a little bit pregnant. I mean, you can’t — one and done — that is you, you go in and you send in the missiles and you feel better, and you have put some damage and some hurt upon the other side — but it is not a long-term solution.
If this were Dutch Masters instead of American Masters, I’d have a box of cigars, gripes Mel Brooks about the enterprise of including a documentary about him in the prestigious PBS series. On Wednesday night, an audience at the 92 Street Y got a sneak preview of the show, Mel Brooks: Make a Noise, that will air Monday night. The evening also included a conversation with director Robert Trachtenberg, The View co-host and comedian Joy Behar, and director Susan Stroman. The image of Mel Brooks hovered above them, a huge presence on Skype, echoing a moment in the film when Gene Wilder is asked whether it registered as important when he met Mel Brooks: Does Moses think it’s important when God speaks to him?
Weighing in on working with Brooks are Sid Caesar, Barry Levinson, Tracey Ullman, Joan Rivers, Carl Reiner, Rob Reiner, Marty Feldman, Richard Lewis, Cloris Leachman, Bill Pullman, Buck Henry, Neil Simon, Richard Benjamin, Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, to name a few. Clips from famous films and plays -among them The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, The History of the World I –feature Peter Boyle, Madeline Kahn, Bea Arthur, a show business who’s who–and something of an in memoriam. You see Mel Brooks’ self-effacing humor, irreverence on Jewish subjects, fart jokes, as well as his genius.
Yes, Mel Brooks waxes on about how much he loves himself, how much he writes to please himself and the audience merely joins in, but he mists over talking about the great Anne Bancroft, his wife of 40 years, who died in 2005. They’d been together since Brooks came to see her at the Perry Como Show, and boldly turned up wherever she was going. As she says in one interview clip, thank God.
A version of this post also appears on Gossip Central.
Entertainment on HuffingtonPost.com
