A sense of unreality overshadows our debate on Afghan war policy across the spectrum of opinions. The unreality derives from the simple fact that we do not have enough troops to rationally implement an adequate defense of our national interests. So every argument for Afghanistan policy tends to seem unserious, perhaps pointless.
The United States used to be the can-do country. A respect for science married to the entrepreneurial spirit propelled America to the forefront of global progress and made it rich. But a late-20th century malaise had crept in, fueled by a conservative hostility to modern science and public investment.
Every time I visit the White House, I am struck by its military environment.
As soon as President Obama had finished his West Point speech in which he pledged to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, conservative pundits started poking at the president's demeanor and message. Big mistake. If Obama's delivery seemed, well, unenthusiastic, so be it. What is important is that Obama delivered a policy that will keep Afghanistan from devolving into a terror pit. He offered the best plan that conservatives possibly could expect.
People keep asking me whether I agree with the president's troop surge in Afghanistan. I am a lawyer. I know what to do with a hard question: Answer another one that is so similar that even the person asking may not notice you've changed it. So I answer that I absolutely support the president on this one, that I absolutely approve of the process and the decision and the way he's handling his responsibility as commander in chief.
As the most recent Crystal Ball ratings showed, Democrats are benefiting from the equal split of Senate seats up in 2010. Even though Democrats have a large majority of senators, it just so happens that both Democrats and Republicans are defending 19 seats each in the upcoming midterm election, which makes it exceedingly difficult for the GOP to gain enough seats to capture the Senate.
From now on, the headlines about Afghanistan will be slugged "Obama's War," and perhaps that is fair enough given the president's many endorsements of what he has called a war of necessity. It would be much less fair, however, to ignore the events that led us to this moment, when whatever choice he makes will offer no great guarantee of progress and no small prospect of trouble.
"What have you done for me lately?" It's a question that voters implicitly ask politicians, especially ones they have supported and who are seeking their votes again. And it's a question that young voters in particular may be asking Barack Obama, whom they supported by a 66 percent to 32 percent margin 13 months ago.
Fed head Ben Bernanke got hammered today during his reconfirmation hearing in front of the Senate Banking Committee. Jim Bunning was Bernanke’s toughest critic, followed by Richard Shelby, Jim DeMint, and yes, Chris Dodd, the beleaguered committee chair who in all likelihood will be defeated in Connecticut next year.
There is no need to tiptoe gingerly around this topic: Maurice Clemmons, who was shot and killed as authorities tried to apprehend him for the shooting deaths of four Washington police officers -- is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's Willie Horton.
Fess up, Tiger. If you don't, the tabloids are gonna kill ya.
Hey, Cherie!
I am writing this after the world's worst Thanksgiving. By the way, I am a 15-year-old girl who now lives in what I call a blended family. I have two little brothers, and my mom and dad divorced a few years ago. They are both married to other people who each had kids our age, too. To make things worse, everyone now lives in the same town. You would think this would make things better. It doesn't.
Speaking as a big skeptic of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, and as a major critic of nation-building, I basically liked President Obama’s surge speech last night. I think he did himself some good with it. I notice today that General McChrystal spoke positively about both the speech and the policy.
Regularly reading the Financial Times (Britain's leading financial daily) can put an American in a fighting spirit. At least, it puts this American (transplanted former Englishman and naturalized American citizen that I am) in such a disposition.
The last Thanksgiving of my childhood started out promisingly enough. It was 1969, and we were going to my parents' best friends' house. I had a crush on their second oldest son, and with luck (a lot of it), we'd end up in his room listening to Led Zeppelin. He was much cooler than I was, but I was who would be there on Thanksgiving.
This just in from the Times of London: After the leak of highly embarrassing e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" -- read: massaged -- data.
This is a nation of goose-necked children hunched over their electronics in front of a TV. They will turn into goose-necked adults with vitamin D deficiencies, the result of spending their sunny hours downloading songs in darkened rooms. Obesity will plague many of them.
As Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England. But perhaps it should.
"Going Rogue: An American Life" acquaints the reader with author Sarah Palin's life and work before she was plucked from her Little House on the Tundra to serve as John McCain's running mate and turned into a national caricature.
When President Obama attends the United Nations meeting on climate in Copenhagen, you can be sure that the deniers of global warming will go on a romp.
