Is Obama About to Make a Huge Mistake Over Afghanistan Troop Surge?

President Obama announced this week that he'll be unveiling his war strategy for Afghanistan next Tuesday and in particular his decision on the September request made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal for an additional 40,000 troops. White House sources report that Obama will authorize just 30,000 which, if true, may be a huge political miscalculation.

Any additional troop authorization under the requested 40,000 is going to create a feeding-frenzy of Republicans rhetoric accusing the president of failing to listen to the generals; for being weak militarily; and for placating liberals. At a time when Obama's popularity is waning and he's facing uphill battles domestically on health care and the economy, the last thing he and Democrats need is to have the GOP attacking the administration on the war. So the obvious question is, if Obama's gonna up the ante to 30,000 troops, why not just give the general the 40,000 he asked for, albeit it with stringent progress demands, measurable benchmarks and realistic timetables for "mission accomplished" and a successful exit? In this explosively charged political climate, why feed right into the duplicitous hands of the "Obama doesn't support the troops" crowd?

Also, sending additionally troops--any additional amount--poses a huge political risk for the president among his supporters as well. A Nobel Peace Prize-winning Obama sounding the anti-war alarm while escalating the operation sends a very mixed, confusing message to those who voted for him and expected a troop draw-down rather than a build-up.

To be sure, the 'correct amount' of additional troops needed for the Afghanistan "surge" is an absolutely arbitrary number, with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gen. McChrystal and countless others in disagreement over how many should be sent to complete the mission, whatever that is. So, why not defer to the leading commander in the region and give him what he sees in his McChrystal-ball rather than over-analyze the situation (as Obama's perhaps done for the past two months...only to come up with essentially the same conclusion), picking another number out of thin air which may or may not be the right one, and which allows your enemies to bash the crap out of you? Wouldn't it be more pragmatic and politically expedient to give the general the benefit of the doubt and shut down the engine of the right-wing attack-machine in the process? It just seems like Obama's regrettably setting the propaganda table for his ravenous GOP dinner guests.

Now on the other hand, instead of trying to play the "let's try to make everybody happy and ultimately make no one happy" game again, Obama could do what many believe he truly wants to, and what voters elected him to do: end the war, period. But this would mean acting on his true convictions. Now that would be novel, wouldn't it?

Palin Forces Oprah Off Television!

Am I the only one who finds the timing suspect? That just days after Oprah Winfrey, Queen of Daytime Television, interviewed former Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the media titan announced she's quitting her top-rated talk show in 2011? Seems like voters are not the only ones terrified of The Wasilla Wonder's next move.

Ok, so the notion of Oprah's departure being directly tied to a fear of Sarah Palin is a little far fetched. But, Oprah's ratings, and her confidence, have been continuously slipping, and let's face it, Palin's some kind of force to be reckoned with, no? As I wrote last week, I think Oprah's genuinely disturbed by the fact that audiences seem to respond to Palin more than her. And what about the moment during the interview when Oprah joked about Palin as future competition: "Oprah, you're the queen of talk shows. There's nothing to ever worry about," . But perhaps worry she did, as it's quite possible The Big O, just days later, decided: "Oh screw it, I'm Oprah Winfrey, and I ain't gonna knock heads with this bimbo in a year or two. I'm outta here!"

Now this is all supposition, and maybe Oprah's simply throwing in the towel all on her own. After all, she's had a phenomenal 23-year run. But she's also very smart and prescient, and I suspect knows what the rest of us highly perplexed observers already know: never, ever underestimate the inexplicable popularity of Sarah Barracuda.

More Republican Lies and Deception Over Cancer Screening

It's highly unfortunate timing for the Obama administration that two new cancer-screening recommendations have been made by government and independent medical groups in a week where the president is seeking legislation for his historic health-care reform bill. While the measures have sparked intense controversy, it's irresponsible and disingenuous for Republicans to label these new guidelines as partisan-based and illustrative of the sort of "rationing" they claim reform will bring. Just like global warming, health-care has become overly politicized, and some things simply aren't political. We all breath the same air, drink the same water, and can contract cancer regardless of political persuasion.

The first finding announced earlier in the week by the federal Preventive Service Task Force recommended less-frequent breast-cancer screenings for women under 50. The second was announced Thursday by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) offering new guidelines for pap smears in preventing cervical cancer, specifically that women should delay having them until the age of 21. As expected, both recommedations have unleashed a torrent of emotions and debate on both sides of the aisle, and from women's groups, cancer-prevention advocacy groups and within the medical profession. Now, I am neither a doctor or a scientist and I am not going to pretend to have anything but a personal, and highly visceral reaction to these new guidelines. But I will strongly argue against exploiting these very sensitive subjects for political purposes, which is shamefully what the GOP is doing as it attempts to kill the reform bill.

In one sense, the controversy may be somewhat overblown. The ACOG's pap smear findings are similar to what the medical profession has been suggesting for years about prostate cancer prevention. That it's healthier and more effective to screen for, and treat, this very slow-moving disease as men age rather than in earlier years, especially as false positives can lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful biopsies and subsequent side-effect-laden treatments.

But on the surface, the task-force's mammography recommendations seem outrageous and irresponsible. I for one belong to the "there can never be too much cancer-screening" camp. That's just a very seemingly logical mantra to adapt, in my neophyte, medically-uninformed opinion. And I say that as someone who's lost loved ones to this dreaded, ravenous disease. In fact, I hate cancer, and I'm all for spending as much time and money researching cures. But medicine and cancer-prevention is not that simple, according to many individuals who have medical degrees hanging on their walls instead of pictures of Shakira (ok, my secret's out...). So I'm going to let the experts continue to argue the merits, or lack therof, of reduced, increased or status-quo cancer-screenings.

And that's precisely my point: let's let the medical professionals, scientists and researchers do their job and keep the politicians out of this debate. Contrary to right-wing charges, both medical groups were established as apolitical (in fact, the task force was appointed by George W. Bush) and neither focuses on health care costs in drawing their conclusions. To be sure, there's too much at stake here to reduce such a colossally important medical matter to mere pawn-status in the anti-Obama wars of partisan zealots like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok) who are literally salivating at the "let's kill health-care reform" gifts they think they've been handed this week by the task force and the ACOG. What we don't need is more self-serving, duplicitous, inflammatory rhetoric about killing granny, rationing treatments and the perils of socialized medicine. Republicans must stop spreading lies in their insatiable hunger to deceive and manipulate Americans over health care reform. They must keep their personal emotions, religious beliefs and political motivations out of the debate. Haven't we learned anything from the Terri Schiavo case?


On another note, the film I produced, SERIOUS MOONLIGHT, which was written by my late wife Adrienne Shelly (WAITRESS), will have its U.S. premiere and afterparty December 3rd in NYC. This event will also serve as the 2009 Adrienne Shelly Foundation fundraising gala, and proceeds will go towards helping ASF achieve its mission of supporting women filmmakers. Tickets are $150. Please join me, our stars Meg Ryan and Timothy Hutton, our director Cheryl Hines and others at this red-carpet event. Tickets are extremely limited (only 18 left). To purchase, please call Jessica at 212-381-1716.

ASF is a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization which provides scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.

Was This Magazine Cover of Obama "Sexist?"

I just did a radio interview where I was asked about the Newsweek cover shot of Sarah Palin in tight running shorts, and if I thought it was sexist. Clearly, the magazine cover has been capturing the attention (and I suspect the fantasies) of many. America, meet your newest pin-up, Sarah Barracuda.

To the Republicans who've been critical of Palin's mistreatment by the big bad liberal media, I say, stop your whining. Nothing's more unflattering than a thin-skinned conservative. The Newsweek shot is no more "sexist" than the May Washingtonian cover of a bare chested beefcake President Obama, who the publication called its "hot new neighbor." Nor was the "President Cool" Ebony cover, or the New York Obama-terrorist satire cartoon-cover, racist.

Let's face it, the cover is a fair representation of Palin: an empty suit with a hot bod and a pretty face. She didn't get where she is today (wherever that is) by being a highly experienced, overachieving policy wonk numbingly versed on world affairs, economics and the environment. Former Republican presidential candidate John McCain thrust her 16 months ago into the national spotlight knowing she'd become America's favorite MILF, arousing (pun intended) his base and perhaps a few dirty old independents. He could've chosen a lot of other infinitely more qualified women like Liddy Dole, Christy Todd Whitman or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, but neither of them have the sleek gams or bodacious ta-ta's of The Wasilla Wonder. And she's been milking it ever since, trading on her womanly charms for maximum profit and exposure (pun intended). As I reminded the radio reporter, it isn't Hillary Clinton or Olympia Snowe in that Newsweek shot; there couldn't have been a "sexist" cover without a complicit Palin. Playing the victim card now seems terribly disingenuous.

A couple of other Palin thoughts while I'm at it: watching the Katie Couric "what do you read" clip on Oprah this week was more humiliating and embarrassing the second time around. And, Palin's explanation for why she didn't answer the question is even worse. She said she was "annoyed," and thought Couric was suggesting that Alaska was a "foreign country," isolated from the rest of the world. "It was unprofessional of me to wear my annoyance on my sleeve like that," she admitted. So, either one of two scenarios exist: either Palin is utterly misinformed and lacking in intellectual curiosity in not reading books and magazines, or, she's a catty hothead who blows her cool on national TV. Neither individual is someone we'd want just a heartbeat from the Oval Office.

Lastly, in her interview with Barbara Walters this week, Palin was asked to rank President Obama's performance to-date from 1-10. "Four," uttered the unsurprisingly derisive Palin. Well, if Obama's a four, she's a negative four-trillion. You betchya.

The Big Surprise Moment During the Oprah/Palin Interview

For weeks now we've been teased with promotions for the much-anticipated interview between talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey and America's most infamous political train-wreck, Sarah Palin, which finally aired Monday. Everyone wondered how the chat would go. Would Palin spill some dirt on McCain? Bash almost-son-in-law Levi Johnston? Announce that she's running for president in 2012? But the real telling moment came in the first seconds of the sit-down, as Oprah, perhaps feeling threatened and insecure by a woman who for some strange reason seems to captivate audiences more than her, attempted to make the hype all about her. They don't call it The Oprah Winfrey Show for nothing. It was a moment worthy of a WWF Smackdown: The Narcissist vs The Maverick.

Did you feel snubbed that I hadn't invited you to be on the show during the campaign?, Winfrey immediately asked The Wasilla Wonder. To which a rather snarky Palin quipped, "No offense to you, but it wasn't the center of my universe." Oh no she di-'int! Palin then added, "I've heard more about that during the last few weeks than during the campaign." Clearly taken aback, an incredulous Winfrey asked, "You didn't even know about it?!" Wow. It was kind of painful to watch. It was as if Oprah was pleading, Wait, don't you know who I am? I am Oprah...Winfrey....I elect presidents...I turn no-name authors into superstars....I make middle-aged, middle-American white women swoon more than Josh Groban! Are you telling me you didn't obsess about me when you were on the campaign trail? Shocking! Truly shocking!

And there you have it. The one big, and only truly relevant moment in the interview. The Mammoth Ego from Chicago meets the Mighty MILF From Alaska. Last time I saw theatre this good a bunch of human cats were jumping around on Broadway.

But just when I thought it was all over, another AHA! moment occurred when the Id-bruised Winfrey wondered if she should take heed of all the chatter about Palin getting her own television program:

"Oprah, you're the queen of talk shows. There's nothing to ever worry about," . Nicely done, Sarah. Perhaps you're a little smarter than we think...

Republicans Once Again Shamelessly Exploiting Terrorism For Political Purposes

It's been a great week for Republicans, that is if you consider raging hypocrisy and shameless propaganda successful virtues. Two national security issues have come to the forefront and have given the GOP and its allies a major opportunity to criticize President Obama and the Democratic leadership.

The first case involves the November 5th Fort Hood shooting rampage by US Army Major Malik Nadal Hassan, who Republicans are demanding be called a terrorist for killing 13 people in what they claim is the first act of terrorism on U.S. soil since the September 11, 2001 attacks. The second involves the Obama Administration's decision last week to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists in civilian court in New York rather than through a military tribunal, a move the right warns puts Manhattan, the judge, jury and victims' families in grave danger. You can literally smell the political posturing. The opportunity to hang a terrorist attack on Obama is a Republican's wet dream.

In the Hasan case, it's certainly quite politically expedient for Republicans to throw the terrorist tag on the psychotic psychiatrist. But perhaps they should wait for evidentiary proof that Hasan was indeed an Islamist jihadist connected to a terror organization in a plot to kill U.S. soldiers and not simply a horribly deranged, conflicted individual who committed a random act of violence.

Those who rush to label Hasan a terrorist must remember the charges of WMD and al Qadea connections against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. They were wrong then and they could be dead wrong now. If Hasan is indeed a terrorist, and his rampage a true act of terrorism, let that be the conclusion of a military investigation rather than indictment by partisan rhetoric. As heinous as Hasan's massacre was, perhaps that's all it was: a horrific, premeditated massacre. But that conclusion would not afford the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other conservatives the opportunity to exploit the dead purely for political purposes.

The most important test for Americans in the Hasan case is deciding what actually constitutes as terrorism, and therefore who is a terrorist. Any mentally ill Muslim can walk into a supermarket and yell "Allahu Akbar," as Hasan had before opening fire on his fellow soldiers, but does that in and of itself make him an Islamist terrorist rather than simply a violent fringe lunatic? Does this give license to Republicans to frame the debate with reckless, irresponsible and incendiary rhetoric? As ThinkProgress’ Matt Duss put it: "The definition of terrorism is not ‘any violence by any Muslim anywhere at any time for any reason’."

The rhetoric is no less in Attorney General Eric Holder's decision on Mohammed. To show how political this situation has become, consider the blatant hypocrisy since Friday of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who's been harshly criticizing the Obama administration as being soft on terrorism yet had nothing but praise and support amid the New York prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers:

"It seems to me that the Obama administration is getting away from the fact that we’re at war with these terrorists. They no longer use the term, ‘War on Terror’....This seems to be an over concern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern for the rights of the public...
It gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists and why would you want to give an advantage to the terrorists, and it poses risks for New York."

But back in the mid-90's Giuliani sang a different tune:

"It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal
system in the history of the world, that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated." [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

"...New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon: the law." [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

"I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead." [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

The notion that a civilian trial is tantamount to letting these terrorists walk, or inviting them to turn the criminal justice system into a circus, or posing a tremendous threat to New York City, is completely without merit whereas history is concerned: since 2001, 195 cases of terrorism have been uneventfully prosecuted in civilian courts, with 91% ending in convictions, including those of '93 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe-bomber Richard C. Reid. But this little factoid surely won't stop Republicans from turning both of the cases into an extremely noisy rallying cry.


On another note, the film I produced, SERIOUS MOONLIGHT, which was written by my late wife Adrienne Shelly (WAITRESS), will have its U.S. premiere and afterparty December 3rd in NYC. This event will also serve as the 2009 Adrienne Shelly Foundation fundraising gala, and proceeds will go towards helping ASF achieve its mission of supporting women filmmakers. Tickets are $150. Please join me, our stars Meg Ryan and Timothy Hutton, our director Cheryl Hines and others at this red-carpet event. Tickets are extremely limited (only 25 left). To purchase, please call Jessica at 212-381-1716.

ASF is a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization which provides scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.

Katie Couric Should Be Fired!

So, former vice presidential candidate and girl-wonder Sarah Barracuda Palin writes a 413-page memoir, Going Rogue, (due out Tuesday) and sits with mega-media-mogul Oprah Winfrey to dish about the big bad partisan press that treated her unfairly during the 2008 campaign. She took extra special jabs at CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric--who she accuses of being biased, condescending and "badgering"--and ABC newsman Charles Gibson, who she said appeared bored, patronizing and judgemental as he "peered skeptically" at her from his authoritarian nose-dangling reading glasses.

I have to say, I agree with Palin. In fact, I am calling for CBS to fire Katie Couric for her outrageous inappropriate, unprofessional and offensive behavior. Let me remind you of Couric's crime: During the interview, Couric asked MILFY to explain why Alaska's proximity to Russia translates to having foreign policy experience. And then, Couric had the uber-audacity to ask the woman who wanted to be next in line to the Oval Office what newspapers and magazines she reads regularly, and an uncomfortable Palin replied: "Um, all of them, any of them."

I'm sorry, but what part of "seeing Russia from my window" does Couric not get? This is exactly the kind of foreign policy vision America needs. And, to ask Palin what she reads? How dare Couric throw Palin such a hardball question like that, one that truly smacks of some serious liberal-fueled badgering? This is a woman who lobbied to literally be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Leader of the free world. Show some respect, Katie, and ask her to explain the complicated cultural and religious differences between Iraq's Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations as relating to a solution to the war. Ask her to give an overview of the Arab-Israeli conflict and what her strategy would be for bringing about a lasting peace in that region. Ask her to explain the role played by the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries in America's health-care problem. Ask her to explain how credit default swaps, derivatives and other risky financial instruments nearly brought Wall Street to its knees. Now these would be softballs; slam-dunks Palin could've answered with her purdy lil eyes closed, thus demonstrating her overall intelligence and political savvy. But instead, Couric opted for the low road and spilt her vitriol in the form of the brutally difficult what she reads question.

And Gibson? She should've smacked those obnoxious glasses right off of Gippetto's face. Sure, Gibson tried to mask his intense hatred for Palin by seeming to act in the same near-catatonic, monotone manner that he does during every single other interview he's ever given, but we could see right through that charade. He can't stand Palin, and it showed...or didn't...but we knew it was there...sort of...I think...we just couldn't see it, that's all. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. Kind of like WMD.

Call me crazy, but I deem Couric's behavior, and the harsh treatment by Gibson, an egregious abuse of the public's trust and an affront to professional journalists everywhere. Fire them both!


Watch CBS News Videos Online


On another note, the film I produced, SERIOUS MOONLIGHT, which was written by my late wife Adrienne Shelly (WAITRESS), will have its U.S. premiere and afterparty December 3rd in NYC. This event will also serve as the 2009 Adrienne Shelly Foundation fundraising gala, and proceeds will go towards helping ASF achieve its mission of supporting women filmmakers. Tickets are $150. Please join me, our stars Meg Ryan and Timothy Hutton, our director Cheryl Hines and others at this red-carpet event. Tickets are extremely limited (only 30 left!). To purchase, please call Jessica at 212-381-1716.

ASF is a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization which provides scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.