Click Here!Click Here!
Home / Spotlight / Shields and Brooks on reconciling with Cuba, Sony censorship
Shields and Brooks on reconciling with Cuba, Sony censorship

Shields and Brooks on reconciling with Cuba, Sony censorship


JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to pronounce about a full week of news, we spin to a research of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, so most to pronounce about.

David, a story today, a title story is North Korea, a administration confirming that they are behind this cyber-attack on Sony Pictures.

First of all, a trainer pronounced prosaic out currently that Sony finished a mistake. What do we think?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, we theory we consider so.

You know, it’s — like a trainer said, we can’t have a nation where people are self-censoring, and formed on some unfamiliar attack. If this was — if they had finished a film about a polite rights figure and a garland of racists said, we’re going to do something to your association unless we lift this movie, and they pulled a movie, it would have been transparent it would have been a infamous thing to do.

And we consider this is rather similar. we do have some magnetism for Sony. They’re out there all alone opposite a nation spending apparently hundreds of millions of dollars to aim them. This is a common movement problem. The companies have to hang together. The supervision has to contend an conflict on a U.S. association or any association sited in a U.S. is an conflict on a country, and a supervision has to step in. And, frankly, reporters have to step in.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Step in? What do we mean?

DAVID BROOKS: When these — when a e-mails were leaked, we consider creditable news organizations shouldn’t attend in publicizing them.

Now, obviously, they’re going to be out on a Web somewhere. Somebody is going to ventilate what was in a e-mails. we do not consider we should be concerned in that business. It’s arrange of — let somebody else do it. It is arrange of helping what is fundamentally a militant act.


MARK SHIELDS: I consider David’s call for self-censoring on e-mails is high-minded. we don’t consider it’s practical.

And we consider this did apportion in partial to Sony’s action. we mean, there’s an aged Earl Long expression. Never write what we can speak, never pronounce what we can whisper, never wheeze what we can nod, and never curtsy what we can wink.

And we consider a e-mails were annoying to — not simply professionally, though privately to a people there. And we determine they’re trafficking in gossip. we consider that accelerated Sony’s decision. And a doubt as to what happened between them and a museum owners is open, whether, in fact, Sony unequivocally did wish a museum owners to say, take a vigour off us by observant we don’t wish to uncover a film.

I mean, a president, we thought, was utterly forceful. He was unequivocally measured. And he has let it know — we mean, proportionally, we don’t know what form it will take. we suspicion a envoy finished good points in a prior square as to what form it can take, given a fact that there is no mercantile commerce between a dual countries.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, is there a transparent trail for a — in a conditions like this, David, where we have a supervision going after a private company?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, we know, a trainer pronounced that he spends twice as most time as his prototype as cyber-security and his inheritor will spend twice as most time than him.

And so this is clearly going to be a enormous issue. And among a cyber-security people — trust me, I’m no consultant — though they pronounce about going on offense and that we have to have deterrents. We pronounce so most about intelligent and soothing power.

This is a new form of tough power. It’s a kind of crusade that is being waged on us. And we simply have to dominate and deter. And so a U.S. has to, as it does, obviously, have a capability to deter. And that means going on offense opposite a people who are doing bad things either they’re in China, North Korea, Russia or anywhere else.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, some have looked during this and said, should there be boundary on what cinema are finished about or what books are created about? If you’re going to go after a sitting personality of a country, are we opening yourself adult for something like this?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, we mean, we assume it was discussed during some point.

I mean, David’s point, are we going to be indifferent by creation a biographical square on Martin Luther King or John Lewis since some racists contend we can’t do it, or Mandela, or whatever a case, we can’t be stampeded.

There had to be some care given to a marketability and what a impact would be of creation — on a sealed society, on someone who is not simply usually paranoid, though apparently a self-deity as well. So, it’s a — we theory we surrogate any other country. we mean, would we do it — would we make a joke on a assassination of a primary apportion of Israel, of a pope, of a black of England?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Are there any boundary here?

DAVID BROOKS: No, of march not. If a man is a dictator, a cruel tyrant like this guy, we roughly have a dignified shortcoming to write disastrous things about them.

And that’s a pursuit of what we do. Now, it’s difficult since we have had so many of these cases involving Islam. Now, in another faith, afterwards we wish to uncover respect, obviously, since it’s a faith. But that doesn’t meant if somebody is an Islamist radical, we couldn’t — shouldn’t go after them.

And there have been cases obviously, in Europe particularly, where museum companies, where newspapers have corroborated down in a face of that threat. But we arrange of have a dignified responsibility. And being what we do it’s not that complicated, it’s not that dangerous, though we do have some shortcoming to impugn people who merit criticism.

MARK SHIELDS: Those of us a certain age do remember Charlie Chaplin’s Hitler, and, we know, a idea, and a luminosity of a square like “The Producers,” of being means to make — capacitate people to giggle during somebody, that is a final thing in a universe that a autocrat can live with.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let’s pronounce another large story this week, and it’s Cuba opening adult to this country, David, after 53, 54 years.

Was it a right thing to do for a trainer to do this on his possess and to say, we’re going to — we have given it a shot for half-a-century, it’s time to do something else?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, we consider it was a right move.

Listen, this process has been in place longer than we have been alive and it’s unsuccessful all that time. So, eventually, maybe we try something else. And so this is about regime change. And we consider Marco Rubio, who objected so strongly, has a case.

Venezuela is now bad since of a cost of oil. They can’t means to finance Cuba. Maybe a Cuban regime would have depressed faster and maybe we’re giving them a salvation by opening adult some trade and giving them some mercantile support.

Nonetheless, we consider a approach to demeanour during it is, are we strengthening Cuban multitude with American influence? That regime is going to fall. We wish Cuba to be a decent place to live after that regime falls. It’s improved to have American change there economically, culturally, intellectually. It will be a improved society, so when a regime finally does fall, a transition, that we now know is so hard, from communism will be a small easier. we consider a trainer did a right thing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What do we say, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: David Brooks has been some-more successful in his 5 decades than has been this process toward Cuba.


MARK SHIELDS: You can make a case, Judy, that sanctions have worked economically. And we consider they have — we consider they’re operative right now opposite Russia. They positively worked opposite South Africa.

They worked — we consider we can make a box they brought Iran to a negotiate table. They have not worked with Cuba. They were intended, when they were installed, to put vigour by a Cuban people on a Castro regime and it would topple.

The retreat occurred. It made, if anything, a administration — a regime became stronger and some-more entrenched. And so — and irrespective of Senator Rubio’s arguments, that might be — have ancestral validity, we consider we wish to acknowledge what we have finished is wrong, it’s finished no sense.

And if we do wish to dive that change and be partial of that change, be an representative of that change and to make — assistance make Cuba a freer and fairer and improved country, afterwards we consider that we trust in a exchange, a giveaway exchange. So we regard a trainer for it. we consider he did a right thing.

Politically, we would usually indicate this out. John Kerry in — Al Gore in 2000 got 29 percent of a Cuban American opinion in 2004. And Florida is a epicenter of what — Cuban Americans politically in this country. Al Gore got 29 percent in 2004. Barack Obama got 35 percent in 2008. And they separate a opinion in 2012.

So it is some-more of a domestic event than it is a domestic liability.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And usually quickly, a fact a trainer did it on his own, he didn’t wait for Congress to get absolved of a trade embargo?

DAVID BROOKS: I consider that’s fine. we have conniptions when he does something on immigration, on domestic policy. But on unfamiliar policy, a trainer has a lot some-more leeway. And we so consider it’s excellent that he did it.


I mean, no, wait for a Congress, Judy? Come on.


MARK SHIELDS: Let’s be — I’m critical about this.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Did we contend something crazy?

MARK SHIELDS: We have a Republican primary entrance up.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, well, vocalization of Florida politicians — we both mentioned Marco Rubio — there is another Florida politician, David, Jeb Bush, a former governor, who hasn’t had his name on a list we theory in 12 years.

But he is relocating closer to running. He’s going to set adult an exploratory committee. What do we think? What does it demeanour like?

DAVID BROOKS: I consider he’s a favorite.

I wouldn’t contend he’s a outrageous favorite, by any means, though we consider he’s a trustworthy candidate. He was a successful administrator from a pitch state, and he has a good repute in a party. He’s flattering conservative, not so most on immigration, though compared to Republican presidents in a past, he’s flattering conservative, not as regressive as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul,.

But he is arrange of where a mainstream of a celebration is and we trust a celebration is entrance behind from a Tea Party phase. And it’s entrance behind to about where Jeb Bush is. And, basically, obviously, a apparent problem is he’s — final name is Bush. He has some sidestep account and some income issues he will have to understanding with, though compared to a other candidates, a Christies, maybe a Rubio, a Paul, a Cruz, he has looked flattering — he looks reduction injured than a other guys.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Whoa. That’s high praise.

MARK SHIELDS: Less flawed.


DAVID BROOKS: Even improved than a Cuba policy.


MARK SHIELDS: That’s right. That’s right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And how do we distance it up?

MARK SHIELDS: I consider that Jeb Bush had a good week.

If you’re in a conditions right now meditative about using for president, we wish to postpone that as prolonged as we can. You wish to keep your powder dry. You don’t wish to go by a two-year marathon continuation contest.

So what he did was, he forced a issue. he forced a emanate by his proclamation of an exploratory committee. Let it be remarkable that no exploratory cabinet in a story of American politics has ever come behind and pronounced anything but, there’s a groundswell out there for you, boss. Everybody wants we to run.


MARK SHIELDS: But, by doing this, he did a integrate of things.

First of all, he pronounced he was going to recover all his e-mails. That puts vigour on who?

JUDY WOODRUFF: From a time when he was governor.

MARK SHIELDS: That’s right, when he was governor.

That puts vigour on Chris Christie, a stream administrator of New Jersey, who has got some e-mails he’d usually shortly not have finished public, and on Hillary Clinton, a probable opponent. She’s been demure to make open all her e-mails. He has also changed adult a calendar for others to make a decision, smoked out people.

I do not see him as this good moderate. In fact, he was an ardently regressive administrator of Florida. On dual issues, on Common Core, a preparation standards test, that was a Republican welcome and has now been changed and deserted by probably each Republican and shoe leather, and immigration, are a dual that unequivocally make him, we guess, a aristocrat of moderates in a stream Republican Party.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we don’t consider it hurts — or do we consider it hurts that he’s a Bush, another, a father, one son and now a other son?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, it hurts.

But if he wasn’t using opposite a Clinton, it would unequivocally hurt. But if he’s using opposite a Clinton, what are we going to choose? It’s George Washington vs. Thomas Jefferson. We have some aged names here.

MARK SHIELDS: Franklin Roosevelt, 4 times trainer of a United States, leader of World War II, saved a nation in a Depression, his namesake, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr., could get inaugurated to a House of Representatives usually from New York. He couldn’t even get inaugurated profession general.

The thought that George Herbert Walker Bush, a entirely excellent and good nationalistic American, would parent dual sons in a space of 20 years who turn president, are we that skinny on talent in this nation of 315 million people  that we go behind to a same family 3 times in reduction than a generation?

JUDY WOODRUFF: We might have to contemplate that one over a holidays. We have got a few days to consider about it.

We’re not going to see a dual of we before Christmas. we wish to wish both of we a smashing holiday, a happy Christmas.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And a happy new year.

MARK SHIELDS: Same to you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And appreciate we for 2014, David Brooks, Mark Shields.

DAVID BROOKS: Thank you.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank we unequivocally much.

About admin

Scroll To Top