AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth

Jane

2009-12-02T22:23:00.001-05:00

Ben Smith does a rather large profile of blogger Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake. Let's just say, you won't like her when she's angry :-) (Well, most of you will, but the Hill and the White House most certainly won't.)

But Hamsher's sharp elbows haven't prevented her from being a central, and effective, player on the left, with a distinct agenda: To reclaim the "narrative of discontent" from Tea Party activists and other conservatives who have seized it from a neutered progressive movement.

A particularly grave error, in her view, was steering the groups away from populist assaults on the AIG bonuses early in Obama's term.

"The natural people who would have been organizing at that point in time were the liberal groups. The bankers came to the White House and said, 'We want you to ratchet down the rhetoric and that's what happened. The word went out at those meetings, 'Don't criticize the bankers, don't criticize Geithner and Summers,’" she said, referring to gatherings of major, White House-allied groups under the rubrics Unity '09 and Common Purpose.

"All that populist anger migrated over to the teabaggers and grew over there," she said. "That was a huge mistake and we're going to pay for it in 2010."

Hamsher says she's "not as cynical and disdainful of the Veal Pen as I sometimes seem." After all, she was asked, aren't they on the same side?

"Are we on the same side?" she asked. "They're on the side of the Democratic Party. We're an independent political force."

Indie Senator Sanders blocks Bernanke nomination

2009-12-02T20:57:00.000-05:00

From Sanders' office. This is significant since it's a Democrat taking on a Democratic administration. It's fair to say that the White House's problems have moved beyond the "Internet left fringe":

Sanders Blocks Bernanke Confirmation

WASHINGTON, December 2 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today placed a hold on the nomination of Ben Bernanke for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

“The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few,” Sanders said. “What the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy.”

As head of the central bank since 2006, Bernanke could have demanded that Wall Street provide adequate credit to small and medium-sized businesses to create decent-paying jobs in a productive economy, but he did not.

He could have insisted that large bailed-out banks end the usurious practice of charging interest rates of 30 percent or more on credit cards, but he did not.

He could have broken up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that took Federal Reserve assistance, but he did not.

He could have revealed which banks took more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed secret loans, but he did not.

“The American people want a new direction on Wall Street and at the Fed. They do not want as chairman someone who has been part of the problem and who has been responsible for many of the enormous difficulties that we are now experiencing,” Sanders said. “It’s time for a change at the Fed.”

The Federal Reserve has four main responsibilities: to conduct monetary policy in a way that leads to maximum employment and stable prices; to maintain the safety and soundness of financial institutions; to contain systemic risk in financial markets; and to protect consumers against deceptive and unfair financial products.

Since Bernanke took over as Fed chairman in 2006, unemployment has more than doubled and, today, 17.5 percent of the American workforce is either unemployed or underemployed.

Not since the Great Depression has the financial system been as unsafe, unsound, and unstable as it has been during Mr. Bernanke's tenure. More than 120 banks have failed since he became chairman.

Under Bernanke's watch, the value of risky derivatives held at our nation's top commercial banks grew from $110 trillion to more than $290 trillion, 95 percent of which are concentrated in just five financial institutions.

Bernanke failed to prevent banks from issuing deceptive and unfair financial products to consumers. Under his leadership, mortgage lenders were allowed to issue predatory loans they knew consumers could not afford to repay. This risky practice was allowed to continue long after the FBI warned in 2004 of an "epidemic" in mortgage fraud.

After the financial crisis hit, Bernanke's response was to provide trillions of dollars in virtually zero-interest loans and other taxpayer assistance to some of the largest financial institutions in the world. Adding insult to injury, Bernanke refused to tell the American people the names of the institutions that received this handout or the terms involved.

“Mr. Bernanke has failed at all four core responsibilities of the Federal Reserve,” Sanders concluded. “It’s time for him to go."

Dems Durbin and Feinstein attack citizen journalists

2009-12-02T19:36:00.000-05:00

Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), who is closely allied with the White House, are offering an amendment to strip citizen journalists, including bloggers, from the proposed media shield law.

And Feinstein wonders why the blogs don't like her. As for Durbin, I'm not sure it's very wise of the Senate leadership to be taking a swipe at a core Democratic constituency. I can understand why Feinstein would do it - her MO is to undercut Democrats as often as possible - but Dick Durbin? Hopefully this is one of those instances where Harry Reid can have a little talk with his leadership team and tell them that if they want to go attacking Democrats they can start with Lieberman (yeah, whatever, he has a committee chair, he's a D), Landrieu, Nelson and Bayh, who are threatening to bring down the health care reform package.

God forbid Durbin be asked to show some real balls and take on the folks who are impeding, not assisting, the Democratic agenda. Is anyone in charge in this party?

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with customer location data more than 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009

2009-12-02T18:29:00.000-05:00

WIRED:

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with customer location data more than 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009, according to a company manager who disclosed the statistic at a non-public interception and wiretapping conference in October.

The manager also revealed the existence of a previously undisclosed web portal that Sprint provides law enforcement to conduct automated “pings” to track users. Through the website, authorized agents can type in a mobile phone number and obtain global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of the phone.

The revelations, uncovered by blogger and privacy activist Christopher Soghoian, have spawned questions about the number of Sprint customers who have been under surveillance, as well as the legal process agents followed to obtain such data.

Leaked GOP memo details how to impede a health care vote using arcane Senate procedures

2009-12-02T17:36:00.000-05:00

They're afraid of a vote because they know that more than 50 Senators would vote for the reform. Even though President Obama was elected on a platform of reforming health care, and even though a solid majority of Americans favor the public option. Party of NO strikes again.

British sailors released in Iran

2009-12-02T16:16:00.000-05:00

Holding a team of yacht racers for nearly one week simply because they strayed into local waters is downright bizarre. But that's what you have running the show for the time being. The Guardian:

Iran's ministry of foreign affairs has confirmed that the five British sailors arrested by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have been freed, the Foreign Office said.

Earlier, Iran's official IRNA news agency said the yachtsmen were freed after an interrogation by authorities found they had entered Iranian waters by mistake.

David Young, father of Oliver, one of the men being held, said he was "very relieved" at the news. He told PA he heard the news from the FCO and the sailors' team manager.

"We thought it would be over quickly," Young said. "This is what we were hoping for." Some of the mens' families are yet to be officially told of their release.

Marriage bill defeated in New York State Senate

2009-12-02T14:57:00.000-05:00

We lost: 24 - 38.

CNBC tells Dobbs "no gracias" on new job

2009-12-02T14:08:00.000-05:00

It seems former CNN host Lou Dobbs is no longer welcome at CNBC. Hey there's always FOX.

Marriage Equality legislation being debated now on floor of New York State Senate

2009-12-02T12:48:00.001-05:00

The debate on marriage equality in the New York State Senate is underway. I posted the live feed of the debate at AMERICAblog Gay.

The New York Assembly passed this legislation in May. The Governor, David Paterson, strongly supports it.

(And, yes, I'm back from South Africa -- an amazing country, but more on that later.)

Is 9/11 so ten minutes ago?

2009-12-02T11:30:00.001-05:00

ABC's Jake Tapper makes the interesting point that most of the West Point cadets, in the audience for President Obama's Afghanistan speech last night, were ten years old when 9/11 happened (and, a reader notes that it's probably not "most, but rather, the first year cadets):

Our Jake Tapper made the interesting point this morning that many of the cadets in President Obama’s audience last night were 10 years old at the time of the 9/11 attacks that launched this country into war in Afghanistan. Have the echoes faded, making the war a harder sell?

It might make 9/11 resonate less for them, but I'm not so convinced. I'll bet ten years old were scared to death on that day - they knew something was up, they saw mom and dad freaking out, they talked to their friends, they had the Internet and saw the video. If anything, children may have been even more scarred by the day than we adults were. ABC continues:

It’s debatable; only 7 percent in a CNN poll last August said “the country is completely back to normal,” indicating that 9/11 still does resonate. So do concerns about terrorism more broadly: In an AP poll last month 77 percent of Americans called terrorism an extremely or very important issue, about the same as when it asked in 2006; and in a CNN poll in October, 36 percent expressed concern they or a family member could be a victim, as many as said so in November 2001.

I think we're finally getting over the political (and real) PTSD we all had, understandably, after the attack (I remember inexplicably breaking into tears when a waiter suddenly dropped a tray of plates behind me in a Paris restaurant a few years after September 11). A PTSD that the Bush administration was all too happy to exploit. We're not 100% there yet, but the day we are over September 11, I think it will be a good thing. You can remember the past, and learn from it, without having it so overwhelm your senses that its lessons are lost to passion.

More on the Salvation Army's anti-gay jihad

2009-12-02T10:12:00.002-05:00

I'd written earlier about the Salvation Army being a nasty anti-gay evangelical church that goes out of its way to try to hurt gays in the legislative sphere. Some folks asked why I wrote that. I'd forgotten that many may not be familiar with the Salvation Army's anti-gay activism around the world. So I gathered a few articles. You can read them here. Give to another charity, don't give to the Salvation Army. You are funding an evangelical church that lobbies against the civil rights of gays and lesbians worldwide.

Krugman sees increased chance of lapsing into a second recession next year

2009-12-02T09:15:00.000-05:00

He's still not sold on it, but sees the chances increasing.

Salvation Army accused of checking immigration status of kids before giving them toys

2009-12-02T08:09:00.002-05:00

Let's not forget - the Salvation Army is a far-right evangelical Christian right church. They're rabidly anti-gay, and they work in Washington, and around the world, against the civil rights of gays and lesbians. So if you've got a dime to spare this Christmas, do not give it to the guys with the red buckets. Fund a real charity, not an evangelical activist.

To wit. A story is running around that the Salvation Army has been checking the immigration status of kids before giving them toys. The Salvation Army denies it, saying they're only checking for 'residency', to make sure the kids getting the toys live in the area (apparently because children in other areas don't deserve a visit from Santa). Then I noticed this little gem at the end of the article:

The Salvation Army also verifies the immigration status of anyone who comes to their shelter.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

2009-12-02T07:02:00.002-05:00

Joe has landed. He should have arrived at Dulles airport around 6am or so, and should be getting home any minute. We'll see how he feels about blogging today. I posted a poll about Obama's Afghanistan speech last night, you can find the poll in the next column, top of the column - vote if you haven't.

Otherwise, I'm back in DC. Had an interesting, and somewhat sad, discussion with a young guy while in line at airport security at O'Hare. He said he was heading to basic training. Looked all of 18. Said he applied last year, but had to wait to finish high school. I asked him why he was joining the military, now of all times (meaning, with two wars on). He said, in America, you need an education to get anywhere - he was joining so they'd pay for his college.

I know the GI Bill is a good thing, and it's helped countless men and women go to school who couldn't otherwise. But this kid has to risk his life to go to college. Noble, to be sure. But I'm having a hard time feeling that this is the way things should be.

Australia rejects climate change bill

2009-12-02T05:27:00.000-05:00

Ugh. The age of ignorance is spreading. Then again, Murdoch's Newscorp dominates in that market.

Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.

The Senate, where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government does not hold a majority, rejected his administration's proposal for Australia to become one of the first countries to install a so-called cap-and-trade system to slash the amount of heat-trapping pollution that industries pump into the air.

New South African government focusing on science to fight AIDS

2009-12-02T04:05:00.000-05:00

It's about time. As beneficial as a good diet can be for general health and especially those who are sick, it still doesn't replace proven medicine. The problem has been much too serious for too long so it's a positive sign for a very hard hit country.

The United States is giving South Africa $120 million for AIDS treatment drugs in response to a plea from President Jacob Zuma that underlines his new approach to fighting the epidemic in the country with the world's heaviest AIDS burden.

His predecessor's health minister distrusted drugs developed to keep AIDS patients alive, instead promoting beets and garlic treatments. Zuma, who took over after April elections, and his health minister have said former President Thabo Mbeki's AIDS policies were wrong. Zuma's government has set a target of getting 80 percent of those who need AIDS drugs on them by 2011.

Birthers run ad in cult-run GOP paper, attacking Obama, using monkey

2009-12-02T00:44:00.000-05:00

What an innovative idea. Using a monkey to poke fun at a black man.

Somali pirates create local Wall Street

2009-12-01T23:15:00.000-05:00

Oh the irony. Too bad there are so few differences between those pirates and our own. The suits and cars may be better but they're all pirates. Reuters:

One wealthy former pirate named Mohammed took Reuters around the small facility and said it had proved to be an important way for the pirates to win support from the local community for their operations, despite the dangers involved.

"Four months ago, during the monsoon rains, we decided to set up this stock exchange. We started with 15 'maritime companies' and now we are hosting 72. Ten of them have so far been successful at hijacking," Mohammed said.

"The shares are open to all and everybody can take part, whether personally at sea or on land by providing cash, weapons or useful materials ... we've made piracy a community activity."

Obama's speech per Twitter

2009-12-01T21:50:00.000-05:00

I was just reading some of the Tweets from various bloggers and pundits responding to President Obama's Afghanistan speech. Here are a few:

@PatrickRuffini: The volunteers who signed on to what they thought was an antiwar campaign must be so, so disappointed

@SenArlenSpecter: This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit.

@benpolitico: "right makes might" conclusion a bit jarring after very pragmatic argument, no?

@openleft: Sound as technocratic as you like Mr. President, but this decision will kill far more people than it will save.

@waltisfrozen: If Obama was keeping all of his campaign promises, some of the 30,000 additional troops sent to Afghanistan would be gay.

@pourmecoffee: Merits aside, speech has unconvincing tone similar to "why Jurrasic Park will be just fine" at beginning of the movie.

Reaction to Obama speech on Afghanistan

2009-12-01T20:37:00.003-05:00

I think Obama did a good job, especially for a Democrat, on a major military speech. Democrats enter this territory with certain disadvantages. That's why, I think, that Obama did a great job of using the pomp and circumstance of office, as Bush and other Republicans always do, to lend an air of dignity to the evening. Having it at West Point, in front of cadets, and all. As for substance, the speech was long, and probably intentionally so. Democrats are often seen as weak on defense, and a short speech would have been criticized as "thin," and an indication that Obama didn't know what he was doing (playing into the Republicans' "dithering" argument). I think Obama wanted a long speech, around 35 minutes total, so show that he's in command of the details, and thus the situation.

As for the details, again, I hate long speeches. But I thought the president did a good job of reaching out to Democrats who might be worried about his plans, and to Americans in general who simply aren't sure it's any longer worth it. He acknowledged the financial costs. He acknowledged that Bush's intervention in Iraq took America's eyes, and resources, away from the ball in Afghanistan.

In the end, I don't think the speech really changes anything, as Chris Matthews just said on TV, the right is still going to hate him, and the left is still going to be ticked that we're sending more troops. And the proof, in the end, will be whether things turn around in Afghanistan, or whether the next three years are a continuation of the bad news from a country that's costing us good soldiers and good money.

Did anybody watch it, what did you think? Did it change your mind? Do you think it was a good speech, did he do what he needed to do?

Obama speaks about Afghanistan open thread

2009-12-01T20:00:00.003-05:00

Weigh in about the speech, if you like, in the comments. The White House sent a copy of the President's remarks:

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
United States Military Academy at West Point
December 1, 2009

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban – a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them – an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 – the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy – and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and – although it was marred by fraud – that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan – General McChrystal – has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people – and our troops – no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you – a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no – I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas – such as agriculture – that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation – by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold – whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere – they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons – true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World – one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values – for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home – which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young – and perhaps not as innocent – as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people – from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue – nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united – bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we – as Americans – can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment – they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America – we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Socialist France delivers another health care advance

2009-12-01T19:26:00.000-05:00

Ooohhhh, scary! It's once again clear that we would never want anything that comes from a socialist health care system. Obviously the system does not promote innovation as the teabaggers tell us. Whatever we do, we do not want this kind of system.

French scientists have found a way to create human skin rapidly from stem cells, a discovery that could save the lives of many burns victims who are vulnerable to infection and now wait weeks for a skin graft.

The scientists made the breakthrough by creating a patch of human skin on a mouse's back using stem cells -- cells which have the ability to develop into any human cell.

Skin grafts have traditionally been created from cell cultures taken from the patient -- a process that takes three weeks, too long for some patients suffering extensive burns.

War-time presidents and lost popularity

2009-12-01T18:07:00.000-05:00

From ABC:

If there’s a shadow over the proceedings as Barack Obama addresses the nation on his plans for Afghanistan tonight, it may be the ghosts of wartime presidents past.

Consider the chart below. The data track the average annual approval ratings of the last three presidents to find themselves enmeshed in unpopular wars. The picture is not a pretty one: Harry S. Truman lost 25 points in public approval as the Korean war progressed; Lyndon Johnson, 32 points during the Vietnam war; George W. Bush, 43 points during the war in Iraq.

to be fair, George W. Bush was terrible at domestic policy, and often seemed to simply ignore it. You can't do that as president. But clearly, involvement in an unpopular war brings down the "heading in the right direction" index, which eventually hurts the party in power, even when the other party started it and ruined it.

Iran detains British yachting crew

2009-12-01T16:43:00.000-05:00

So now Iran is afraid of what? A regatta at dawn? Knot tying classes on the foredeck with high tea? This regime is in dire need of medication because they are paranoid and completely insane. The Guardian:

The men were detained six days ago when their racing yacht was intercepted by Iran's navy while on its way from Bahrain to an event in Dubai but the incident was kept secret as the Foreign Office sought to establish what had happened and tried to avoid raising the political temperature.

It is thought the yacht, the Kingdom of Bahrain, may have strayed inadvertently into Iranian waters, the Foreign Office said. The vessel was being delivered by the crew to the annual Dubai to Muscat race, which was due to begin the following day. All the Britons were said to be safe and well and their families have been informed.

Major conservative blog, Little Green Footballs, takes on the hate in the Republican party

2009-12-01T15:21:00.000-05:00

I honestly didn't believe this when I saw it. I thought it was a joke. Or perhaps just one writer on a larger group blog. But in fact, the blog, Little Green Footballs, is written by one guy, Charles Johnson. And he has a history of writing a pretty seriously conservative blog, to put it lightly. His post yesterday is spot on.

Now, I know, some of the naysayers are going to say "don't believe it." But I do believe it. What he wrote is too spot on to be faked or insincere. And as I've written before, we have to foster attempts by sane Republicans to take back their party. At some point in the future, voters will get fed up with Democrats and switch the White House and the Congress back to Republican rule. We don't need Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck running the party when that day comes, or the country will be in serious trouble. Yes, having the crazies in charge help us keep the GOP out of power. But having the crazies in charge if and when the GOP comes back into power is far too dangerous a thing to wish on our enemies, and ourselves.

You can read his entire post here. Keep in mind, the blog hasn't gone Democratic. It's simply gone sane.