Punting the Pundits: Sunday Preview Edition

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

The Sunday Talking Heads:

This Week with Christiane Amanpour: Since the goal post for starting troop withdrawal has been moved to 2014, Ms. Amanpour’s interview with he Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen should be interesting.

The cholera outbreak kills hundreds in Haiti and puts thousands of people at risk. With 1.5 million Haitians still living in tents, “This Week” has a report from the cholera hot zone on the frantic medical effort to contain the outbreak.

The roundtable with George Will, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, Ed Luce of the Financial Times and former Labor Secretary and author of “Aftershock,” Robert Reich will discuss General Motors’ historic IPO returning billions of taxpayer dollars to the treasury.

Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer: Mr. Scheiffer’s guest will be Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Majority Leader and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

The Chris Matthews Show: Sitting in for Mr. Matthew’s, who is on vacation, will be Nora O’Donnell. This week’s guests Katty Kay, BBC Washington Correspondent, Dan Rather, HDNet Global Correspondent, Rick Stengel, TIME Managing Editor and Kelly O’Donnell, NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent who will discuss these questions:

Will Republicans Restrict Any Compromise with President Obama?

Americans on Marriage: Who Needs It?

Meet the Press with David Gregory: Mr. Gregory will host Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and an exclusive interview with Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal.

The Roundtable will discuss the post election landscape with  Robert Draper, who takes us “Inside Sarah Palin’s Inner Circle” in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, The Wall Street Journal’s Paul Gigot, Tea Party-backed Rep.-elect Allen West (R-FL) and Richard Wolffe, author of the new book “Revival: The Struggle for Survival Inside the Obama White House.”

State of the Union with Candy Crowley: Moving forward in Afghanistan. How to wrap our heads around a 2014 security hand-off in 2010–the deadliest year for U.S. troops since the war began. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, joins us to look ahead.

Then, Thanksgiving flyers might not be so thankful for their holiday pat-down from one of their local airport’s TSA agents. Are these new measures too invasive? Or are they a necessary new reality to flying in the 21st century? What’s the right balance between security and privacy?

John Pistole, the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, joins us to defend the system; and Florida Rep. John Mica, the ranking member on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, will join us to explain his plan to reform the agency.

Fareed Zakaris: GPS: The deficit. Fareed says it’s the most important issue facing Americans today. But will American politicians listen to the recommendations of the U.S. Fiscal Reform Commission? Maybe. Fareed’s Take on how to fix the deficit.

Then, a fascinating and exclusive look at the inner workings of the Iranian Regime. Fareed sits down with a member of one of Iran’s most powerful political families — often referred to as the “Kennedys of Iran.” The Iranian government’s human rights commissioner, Mohammed Javad Larijani Discusses not only Iran’s human right’s record, but also his nation’s nuclear ambitions and whether Tehran is ready to sit down at the table and negotiate with the U.S.

And you might be asking “What in the World?” has the U.S. government done right lately? How about bringing the largest U.S. automaker back from the brink of death to the largest IPO in American history?

Next up, 2014 is the new date for combat troops to be out of Afghanistan. Is that possible? How DOES the coalition get out of Afghanistan? And what will Afghanistan look like after they leave? We’ve gathered a panel of experts from all sides of the debate.

And finally, a last look at a real clown elected to congress.

Jon Walker: Toxic Shock: Poll Confirms Social Security Cuts Are Still Political Third Rail

Cutting Social Security benefits, either directly or by raising the retirement age, is deeply unpopular. No Democrat should even entertain the notion, especially given that the trust fund currently solvent for the next two decades, and the public is clearly behind the more progressive alternative to dealing with any future shortfall.

If Democrats in Congress or President Obama seriously try to advance these two regressive and damaging ideas put forward by Catfood Commission co-chairs Eriskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, one can only assume it would be a monumental political disaster for the party. The fact that Obama has not already moved to quickly distance himself from these recommendations is, in itself, already an action of political malpractice.

Dana Milbank: Republicans in a post-post-9/11 era

Suppose that during the previous administration the Democrats had opposed President Bush’s efforts to protect airplanes from would-be bombers and had blocked his strategy to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorists’ hands.  

It’s a safe bet Bush would charge, as he did more than once during his presidency, that Democrats are “not interested in the security of the American people.” Other Republicans would no doubt be running ads juxtaposing Democrats with Osama bin Laden, or alleging, as they did then, that Democrats are giving “comfort to America’s enemies.”

Yet right now, Republicans are providing the comfort. They are objecting loudly to new airport security measures designed to detect bombs hidden under clothing. And they are blocking a Senate vote on a treaty with Russia that is critical to securing loose nukes and keeping Iran from gaining the bomb.

Gregory Johnsen: A False Target in Yemen

EARLY last week, as a federal court in Washington was hearing arguments over the Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing of an American linked to Al Qaeda, the man at the center of the case was having his own say. The same day, Nov. 8, Anwar al-Awlaki appeared in a 23-minute video that concluded: “Don’t consult anyone in killing Americans. Fighting Satan doesn’t require a religious ruling.”

The coincidental timing of the video added to the urgency of a case the judge has called “extraordinary and unique.” Unique, indeed. But in truth Mr. Awlaki is hardly significant in terms of American security. Contrary to what the Obama administration would have you believe, he has always been a minor figure in Al Qaeda, and making a big deal of him now is backfiring. . . .

The federal lawsuit, which is being brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights at the request of Mr. Awlaki’s father, has set off a broader debate over whether the government should be allowed to assassinate an American in a country the United States is not at war with. The administration maintains that the president has sole authority over such strikes, while the other side is arguing that judicial review is required.

It’s a vexing legal question worthy of debate. But no one should remain under the mistaken assumption that killing Mr. Awlaki will somehow make us safer.

Daphne Eviatar: Indefinite Detention Would Harm, Not Help, National Security

Since Ahmed Ghailani’s conviction on only one of 285 criminal counts on Wednesday, the verdict has been pronounced by supporters of military commissions as the reason to stop trying any terror suspects in civilian courts.

In their op-ed in the Washington Post today, Brookings Institution fellow Benjamin Wittes and Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith attack that reasoning, explaining that there’s no reason to believe that Ghailani would have been convicted of all the charges against him in a military commission, either. Military justice rules ban tortured evidence as well. As in the New York trial, none of Ghailani’s statements made to the CIA during what the government admits were coercive interrogations would have been admissible. Evidence derived from those statements would likely have been deemed inadmissible as well. Still, civilian prosecutors in a New York federal court managed to convict Ghailani for a crime imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years, and up to life in prison.

That isn’t good enough for Wittes and Goldsmith. Although they acknowledge that military commissions “raise legal uncertainties” that could undermine future military commission verdicts, they argue that the better choice is simply not to try suspected terrorists at all. It’s not clear why they think the civilian justice system is insufficient, other than that, because a conviction isn’t guaranteed beforehand, there’s always the possibility of the government being embarrassed by an acquittal.

Joe Conason: “Patriotic millionaires” call for their tax cuts to expire

More than 40 of the nation’s top taxpayers ask Obama to raise their taxes

Dozens of America’s wealthiest taxpayers — including hedge fund legend Michael Steinhardt, super trial lawyer Guy Saperstein, and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s fame — have appealed to President Obama not to renew the Bush tax cuts for anyone earning more than $1 million a year. Calling themselves “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,” the 40-plus signers today launched a website and a campaign that they hope will draw support from others who agree that fiscal responsibility should begin with those who can best afford it — as their letter to Obama explains:

We are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.

   For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.

   We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.

   We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

   Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.