"Score another one for U.S. Special Operations..." (VIDEO)

Once again, Navy SEALS...absolutely BADASS!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You're welcome, Denmark!

Best Sacha Baron Cohen character...ever (VIDEO)

Jon Oliver gives America a Hug (VIDEO)

The Daily Show - Have No Fear, England's Here
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

President Obama's speech before Parliament in Westminster Hall, London (VIDEO)

Apologies. I was waiting for the White House to put the Dublin Speech from College Green up, but at this point all I can think is, it must've been considered a Political Speech (even though I remember seeing the Presidential Seal as he spoke). The speech is available on YouTube, but for some reason the poster has declined to be it be embedded. You can see that speech here.

Today's speech before Parliament, has been uploaded by the White House:

Hardall: Why the International Monetary Fund's Chief getting arrested matters (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"To prepare the full range of options..." or not.

This blog maintains a sensibility roughly akin to one of my favorite TV Shows: Anthony Bourdain's No Resevations (only with Politics, instead of Food).

Like the Travel Channel star, I try to put our mistakes up there for all to see.

So you might recall me getting all beligerent and saying this:

What...did I say?

The United States is moving naval and air forces, including an aircraft carrier, into the Mediterranean Sea near Libya, U.S. officials said Monday, as the Obama administration and its allies consider how to respond to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's brutal efforts to suppress a widespread rebellion among civilians and army troops.

Yeah. About that...

I picked up a copy of the Guardian (ahem...scrolled through my RSS feed) and saw this:

Cameron backtracks on Libya no-fly zone plan as US distances itself 

David Cameron's suggestion of establishing no-fly zone over Libya and arming rebels shot down by US and France

Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed.

As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage.

Mea freakin' culpa on that one.

Also, last night's Haiti season premiere was pretty damn good. Depressing as all get out, but good and informative.

"To prepare the full range of options..." II

What...did I say?

The United States is moving naval and air forces, including an aircraft carrier, into the Mediterranean Sea near Libya, U.S. officials said Monday, as the Obama administration and its allies consider how to respond to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's brutal efforts to suppress a widespread rebellion among civilians and army troops.

The U.S. decision comes as Gadhafi appeared to be making a concerted effort to retake control of Zawiyah, a town about 30 miles west of Tripoli that has been in rebel hands since last week. Two people reached separately by phone said heavy fighting had broken out in the early evening as militias loyal to Gadhafi attacked from both the east and the west.

U.S. officials said no decision had been made about how the U.S. forces would be used, but that one option under consideration is the imposition of a no-fly zone designed to prevent Gadhafi from using aircraft as he fought the rebels.

That was from McClatchy.

And according to the BBC, it looks like we're going from thinking about it, to planning it:

Britain is working with its allies on a plan to establish a military no-fly zone over Libya, says David Cameron.

The prime minister said the threat of "further appalling steps" being taken by Col Muammar Gaddafi to oppress his own people was behind the talks.

He said he did not rule out "the use of military assets" in Libya and said the "murderous regime" must end.

Rare is the step we take without the Brits. There's a reason its the "Special Relationship".

By the way. Belgium is about to split into two countries and no U.S. Media (outside of PBS' NewsHour) is covering it!

Uhhh...there's a chance Belgium could split into two countries.

Yeah. No joke.

On Sunday, the public television network in Flanders will broadcast a 45-minute special program during which 12 professors (followed by a panel of local politicians) will outline how Belgium could be divided into two separate Dutch and French speaking countries. They will take on such issues as control of the army, the future of the monarchy, social security payments, a massive national debt and the most contentious issue of all -- control of the capital Brussels, which also serves as the headquarters of the European Union.

For many Belgians, the timing of the broadcast could not be worse. The country has been without a government since June elections led to the victory of a Flemish nationalist party committed to gradual dissolution. And the mix of television broadcasts and Belgian unity have been a sore point since the French network four years aired a spoof of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" --called "Bye Bye Belgium" --dramatically portraying the end of the nation. As with that famous radio broadcast, many viewers in Belgium thought they were viewing the real thing, until 50 minutes in when the fiction was revealed.

That's right. Read that again...without a functioning Government since June.

Here's my question...why, outside of PBS's NewsHour (where I got the link) isn't anyone covering this in the States?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that your News Media sucks.

Remember this @#$% when the Republicans threaten to cut the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The United Kingdom goes full Anti-Keynes. And the British people freak out in 5-4-3-2...

Paul Krugman:

In the spring of 2010, fiscal austerity became fashionable. I use the term advisedly: the sudden consensus among Very Serious People that everyone must balance budgets now now now wasn’t based on any kind of careful analysis. It was more like a fad, something everyone professed to believe because that was what the in-crowd was saying.

And it’s a fad that has been fading lately, as evidence has accumulated that the lessons of the past remain relevant, that trying to balance budgets in the face of high unemployment and falling inflation is still a really bad idea. Most notably, the confidence fairy has been exposed as a myth. There have been widespread claims that deficit-cutting actually reduces unemployment because it reassures consumers and businesses; but multiple studies of historical record, including one by the International Monetary Fund, have shown that this claim has no basis in reality.

No widespread fad ever passes, however, without leaving some fashion victims in its wake. In this case, the victims are the people of Britain, who have the misfortune to be ruled by a government that took office at the height of the austerity fad and won’t admit that it was wrong.

Remember, I never argue with the Nobel Prize winner's numbers.

Unless of course, you're Andrew Sullivan, who's celebrating this as the rebirth of a geninue Thatcher-esque Conservatism:

Remember: Thatcher preceded Reagan. And Toryism can be radical if the circumstances are dire enough. So much for all that talk of Cameron's wetness. And remember also that this is a Coalition government, in which the Liberal Democrats have also placed their bets on fiscal retrenchment - and the Labour opposition is in great disarray.

Erza Klein:

Like Paul Krugman, I think Britain's decision to pair a sharp economic contraction that's outside its control with a sharp contraction in the part of the economy that's in its control (the public sector) will be a disaster. But it'll at least be an interesting experiment.

For one thing, it's a good test of whether austerity economics works amid a weak economy and low interest rates. Seems unlikely, and I think a lot of British people will suffer while the government tries to figure it out, but we'll know soon enough. But it'll also be interesting to see whether the fact that the government has a decisive plan creates some of the "confidence" that people are always saying we need.

What's gonna happen? We go back to Krugman for an overview:

Both the new British budget announced on Wednesday and the rhetoric that accompanied the announcement might have come straight from the desk of Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary who told President Herbert Hoover to fight the Depression by liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages. Or if you prefer more British precedents, it echoes the Snowden budget of 1931, which tried to restore confidence but ended up deepening the economic crisis.

The British government’s plan is bold, say the pundits — and so it is. But it boldly goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would cut government employment by 490,000 workers — the equivalent of almost three million layoffs in the United States — at a time when the private sector is in no position to provide alternative employment. It would slash spending at a time when private demand isn’t at all ready to take up the slack.

Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.

Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.

David Cameron is no Tea-Bagger, by any stretch. He would be considered a liberal by that set. At the same time, he's doing a watered down version of what the Tea Party says it wants, and what its been Jedi-mind tricked into believing will spur the economy.

Islamophobia Around the World.

It's not just New York, or Tenneessee. There's also Germany, France, Spain, Germany (again), France (again), and even Canada.

Eyjafjallajökull the Video...

Nothing to do with Politics, just...well, just look...

Iceland, Eyjafjallajökull - May 1st and 2nd, 2010 from Sean Stiegemeier on Vimeo.

Bigoted Woman? (VIDEO)

A first for Fort McHenry. Covering Politics not of these shores.

I got this from Andrew Sullivan's site, who's been covering this non-stop.

Long and short of it is this: this...isn't going to go well for (let's just say it) former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.



I asked the question (via Email) of Andrew Sullivan: "Is this woman bigoted"? Because it all sounds innocuous, lovely and British over the YouTube. So you may not think so.

But shift the background from Rochester, UK to say...I don't know, Tempe, Arizona, and replace the words Eastern European with Mexican. Now how does she sound?!?

The President's Joint Appearance with French President Nicholas Sarkozy (VIDEO)

France and the Rest of Europe love the way Obama does business.

Obama expects Iran Sanctions "in weeks"...

Sarkozy went to Ben's Chili Bowl. He can do no wrong by me.

I love the French...

Yes, that was French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni going to Ben's Chili Bowl today.

Word up.

Punditry...

I love these sorts of columns. By which I mean, I'd rather go skinny dipping in a bath of scalding hot razor blades than read these columns. In the end, they all boil down to the same the thing. The President is failing! And if he wants to stop failing, he'll do exactly what I want!

First off, I'd tell Nick Cohen, the article's author, to bite me. Maybe we'll back the U.K. in this new Falkland's mess (which I am keeping an eye on), and maybe we won't. I hate to sound all Republican here, but the U.S. will do what's in the U.S.'s interests. Last time I checked, y'all didn't need our help the last time this island of sheep herders cropped up as a foreign policy dilemma...

Depressingly accurate (VIDEO)

Charlie Booker of the BBC rips apart TV Journalism.

MSNBC: President Obama (somewhat angry) Speech at Copenhagen (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Telegraph of London is !@#$!%@

On October 14th, 2009, the Telegraph of London published the following:

United States to send 'up to 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan'

The US is expected to announce a significant surge of up to 45,000 extra troops for Afghanistan after Gordon Brown said that 500 more British troops would be sent to the country.

You might have noticed that didn't happen.

Now, the Telegraph follows up with this headline:

Barack Obama's Afghan troop decision delay provokes anger at Pentagon

President Barack Obama's decision to postpone responding to the military request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan the after next month's run-off election is heightening tensions between the White House and Pentagon.

Who's upset, exactly? Could it be the Telegraph's source who seems hell bent to leather to push a President who won't be pushed???

Seems to me its a Conservative Newspaper with an axe to grind, who might be made that their earlier bullshit prediction didn't come up aces.

MSNBC: Obama Nobel Acceptance Speech (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Fireside chat for September 26, 2009