The Rolling Stone Interview with President Obama...

Yeah, the link is right here. Jon Stewart, Paul Krugman and Andrew Sullivan are going to have reasons to smile a bit today.

What do you read regularly to keep you informed or provide you with perspectives beyond the inner circle of your advisers?
[Laughs] Other than Rolling Stone?

That goes without saying.
I don't watch a lot of TV news. I don't watch cable at all. I like The Daily Show, so sometimes if I'm home late at night, I'll catch snippets of that. I think Jon Stewart's brilliant. It's amazing to me the degree to which he's able to cut through a bunch of the nonsense – for young people in particular, where I think he ends up having more credibility than a lot of more conventional news programs do.

I spend a lot of time just reading reports, studies, briefing books, intelligence assessments.

Newspapers?
I'll thumb through all the major papers in the morning. I'll read the Times and Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, just to catch up.

Do you read Paul Krugman?
I read all of the New York Times columnists. Krugman's obviously one of the smartest economic reporters out there, but I also read some of the conservative columnists, just to get a sense of where those arguments are going. There are a handful of blogs, Andrew Sullivan's on the Daily Beast being an example, that combine thoughtful analysis with a sampling of lots of essays that are out there. The New Yorker and The Atlantic still do terrific work. Every once in a while, I sneak in a novel or a nonfiction book.

I thought you were going to say Playboy.
No [laughs].

Also, I thought this was important:

In working with the Republicans in this term, it seems clear that the traditional rules of give-and-take politics have changed – that the Republicans have been playing a "lose-lose" game with you. What's your relationship with the GOP leadership at this point? A little frosty?
It's not frosty. This isn't personal. When John Boehner and I sit down, I enjoy a conversation with him. I don't think he's a bad person. I think he's patriotic. I think that the Republicans up on the Hill care about this country, but they have a very ideologically rigid view of how to move this country forward, and a lot of how they approach issues is defined by "Will this help us defeat the president?" as opposed to "Will this move the country forward?"

Is there any way to break through that obstructionism by Republicans?
My hope is that if the American people send a message to them that's consistent with the fact that Congress is polling at 13 percent right now, and they suffer some losses in this next election, that there's going to be some self-reflection going on – that it might break the fever. They might say to themselves, "You know what, we've lost our way here. We need to refocus on trying to get things done for the American people."

Frankly, I know that there are good, decent Republicans on Capitol Hill who, in a different environment, would welcome the capacity to work with me. But right now, in an atmosphere in which folks like Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist are defining what it means to be a true conservative, they are lying low. My hope is that after this next election, they'll feel a little more liberated to go out and say, "Let's redirect the Republican Party back to those traditions in which a Dwight Eisenhower can build an interstate highway system."

President Obama's speech before the 2012 AIPAC Policy Conference (VIDEO)

Is Turkey or "Turkic Peoples" turning into a problem in the Middle East? (VIDEO)

And by Turkic peoples, I mean in terms of Turkic people vs. Perisan people, and the fault lines that aren't necessarily in the same place as borders:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Matt Lauer's pre-Super Bowl Interview with the President (VIDEO)

...or, what I could find of it.

The President's Super-Bowl prediction (or lack of), and Iran & Israel:

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

On Iran's Nuclear Program, the Economy and 2012:

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

Though Matt's question about meeting with Romney was ridiculous.  He is aware the President has a day job, right?  And for the record, I'm glad the President didn't answer the question (which I took to mean "what's the friggin' point, Matt"?)

And disappointment? You're on that canard, Matt??! Seriously?


Syria, the GOP Primary battles, and his time in the Spotlight:

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

Best...headline...ever. (Suck on this, Iran Edition)

Thanks to @symmetry11 on Twitter for catching this first.

Oh, and by the way, you're welcome Iran!:

U.S. Navy rescues Iranian hostages held by pirates

A member of the same U.S. aircraft carrier group that Iran has warned not to return to the Strait of Hormuz has rescued 13 Iranians held hostage by pirates in the Arabian Sea, the Pentagon said on Friday.

Vice-President Biden's Appearance on Colbert Nation!

He even got the Vice-President to hand out hot-dogs (not in this clip):

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Joe Biden
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

"The Stupidity of Liberal Apathy" (National Security Edition)

Jonathan Cohn started this meme on the Stupidity of Liberal Apathy. It was followed up by Andrew Sullivan. Now, Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director of the National Security Network, wrote the following in response to Mr. Cohn's original piece:

Granted, I didn't buy her line about Mr. Cohn "falling into the same trap as his apathetic Netroots liberals as far as national security is concerned", but the list was good and instructive. Once again: good stuff in bold, bad stuff in red.

Jonathan Cohn falls into the same trap as his apathetic Netroots liberals as far as national security is concerned. The Rodney Dangerfield of the Obama Administration, it can’t even get enough of their attention to be disrespected. (It should be said that Netroots organizers convened their first-ever broadly-themed foreign policy panel to take a look at exactly this question, and invited my organization, the National Security Network, to put it together, so give them some credit. Like many of the successes described below, it’s a work in progress.)

And yet. In 2008, Americans said they were anxious about terrorism, about Iraq, about US global standing. Liberals felt we were trapped on a path toward expanding, endless wars and shrinking interaction with global partners on global problems. President Obama will have us down to 50,000 troops in Iraq (from 145,000 in February 2009) and an end to combat missions next month. His Administration revived the international consensus on reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, and safeguarding nuclear materials. Next month will likely get the new START Treaty through the Senate (albeit with an ugly, healthcare-like orgy of side deals).

The economy looks bad now, but with full global recession it might have been much worse–Administration leadership prevented global meltdown and created a more representative and inclusive forum, the G20, to manage global recovery.

The first 18 months of the Administration saw more terrorism convictions in civilian courts than did five years of Bush Administration military tribunals–and the killing or capturing of half the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, according to CIA Director Leon Panetta. Counter-terrorism experts like Stephen Flynn of the Center for National Policy argue that the smaller-scale terrorism attempts we’re now seeing (and thwarting) reflect an important success–Al Qaeda no longer enjoys the safety in its AfPak border hideaways to plot complex, multi-part attacks such as September 11.

The Administration successfully reset relations with Russia to get things we want in other fora (Afghanistan, Iran). Iran itself is weaker, more isolated externally and divided internally, than at any time in recent memory. Last year, the Administration and Congress passed through a significant increase in aid to fight poverty and disease around the world. Global public opinion of the US moved up nearly everywhere, soaring in Western Europe, Russia and China. Americans who work at the UN and other international bodies tell stories of foreign nationals sidling up to them in the halls with a message: “We’re so glad you’re back.”

Hey, I can be critical, too. The opportunity to close Guantanamo promptly, send most of its inmates to humane destinations and try those deserving in our civilian courts fell victim to ugly politics and inattention. Nobody, not even General Petraeus, thinks Afghanistan is going well enough as the Administration tries to hold steady on its plan for an “inflection point” next summer. (Speaking of Afghanistan, just 8% of Netroots attendees told pollsters that “finishing Afghanistan” should be the Administration’s top priority, vs. 74% favoring “improve the jobs situation.” I’d say the White House hears them loud and clear.) Middle East results have disappointed. The effort to find a post-Bush language for the promotion of democracy and human rights remains a work in progress. Some vital longer-term structural questions, about how we organize our nation’s conduct of international affairs and redress the funding and capability imbalance between civilians and the military, have slipped down the priority list in the welter of short-term challenges–as does the effort to explain again and again to Americans what kind of a world it is we are building toward.

Substantively, though, those shortcomings and delays are fixable–if the Administration has the political capital and the time. Where on the domestic side, liberals got the big change and need the enthusiasm to use and keep them, in foreign policy the Administration has fought to clear the path. A changed paradigm is now possible–if liberals can rouse themselves from apathy enough to work for it and embrace politicians when they are supportive, in addition to pummeling them when they are not.

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.

President Obama’s Nowruz Message

In your choice of languages:

Persian:



Or Arabic:

MSNBC: Obama's (short) Speech re: Flight 253 and Iran Protests (VIDEO)

Even though I'm in Texas, the chief business of this blog continues. Providing easy access for my Dad (and occasionally Heidi) to get at the Speeches and Pressers than the President gives:

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

UPDATE: 12:54pm Pacific: MSNBC cut off the part of the speech that dealt with Iran. He had some choice words for the regime, and I'll try to put them up should I find them online.

UPDATE: 5:45pm Pacific: Okay, here we go.



Transcript:

The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens, which has apparently resulted in detentions, injuries, and even death.

For months, the Iranian people have sought nothing more than to exercise their universal rights. Each time they have done so, they have been met with the iron fist of brutality, even on solemn occasions and holy days. And each time that has happened, the world has watched with deep admiration for the courage and the conviction of the Iranian people who are part of Iran’s great and enduring civilization.

What’s taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It’s about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves. And the decision of Iran’s leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed in making those aspirations go away.

As I said in Oslo, it’s telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. Along with all free nations, the United States stands with those who seek their universal rights. We call upon the Iranian government to abide by the international obligations that it has to respect the rights of its own people.

We call for the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained within Iran. We will continue to bear witness to the extraordinary events that are taking place there. And I’m confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice.

The Fireside chat for September 26, 2009

NPR: Predator Drone kills a son of Usama Bin Laden

According to NPR:

U.S. officials believe Saad bin Laden — a son of Osama bin Laden — has been killed by an American missile in Pakistan.

Saad bin Laden reportedly spent years under house arrest in Iran before traveling last year to Pakistan, according to former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.

It's believed he was killed by Hellfire missiles fired from a U.S. Predator drone sometime this year.

A senior U.S. counterterrorism official tells NPR that without a body to conduct DNA tests on, it's hard to be completely sure. But he characterized U.S. spy agencies as being "80 to 85 percent" certain that Saad bin Laden is dead.

The U.S. counterterrorism official says Saad bin Laden wasn't important enough to target personally — that he was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

He was active in al-Qaida, but was not a major player, the official said. He was believed to be in his late 20s.

"We make a big deal out of him because of his last name," the official added.

It's not known whether Saad bin Laden was anywhere near his father when he died.

Boy, all kinds of amazing questions come up because of this story.

What was Iran's involvement in this, exactly? Holding him until last year, and letting go into Pakistan?

Why exactly was he being held for all those years in Iran? My understanding is there isn't a lot of love lost been the Iranian Shiites and Al Qaeda.

Was this guy meant to make a beeline for his Father? If that was the plan (and that's wild, wild speculation at this point), who's idea was that??

Does this mean we're inching closer to UBL, or not? Going by what the Officials told NPR, the answer is a clear no. Then again, would you want to admit we're getting closer to one of the world's most dangerous fugitives?

BTW, Saad's bio on Wikipedia (and judge Wikipedia for what it's worth) disagrees somewhat with the "Saad bin Laden wasn't important enough to target personally" line, in that he "occupies a position of preeminence in Al Qaeda," and:

Saad was believed to have been heavily responsible for the bombing of a Tunisian synagogue on April 11, 2002, which killed 19.^[1]

The following year, there were disputed claims of his capture by Pakistan in March,^[2] though these proved false, and he was implicated in the May 12th suicide bombing in Riyadh, and the Morocco bombing four days later.

Saad accompanied his father on his exile to Sudan from 1991-96, and followed him to Afghanistan after that. He is believed to be married to a woman from Yemen. Iran has stated that a number of al-Qaeda leaders and members are in their custody, possibly including the son of Osama bin Laden, Saad bin Laden.^[3][4]

All rampant speculation at this point. This could be something. This could be nothing at all.

President Obama's and President Medvedev's Press C onference in Moscow (VIDEO)

Admittedly, of a lower priority than any other video item I've posted. The real news was made before Medvedev and Obama took the stage. But since it's been made available...

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

Reza Aslan's Appearance on the Daily Show (VIDEO)

The author of "No Got But God", and "How To Win A Cosmic War" gives some interesting (and long-view) perspective on the new Iranian Revolution:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Reza Aslan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The President's Press Conference of June 23, 2009 (VIDEO)

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

Too funny...

I saw this on Andrew Sullivan's site...the mouse that roared...

Obama's Interview on the BBC (VIDEO)

Boy this bleeds off the page.

The President's Address to Iran (VIDEO)

From Russia with Nyet...

I guess a Missile Shield is going into Poland after all...

Russia would be willing to discuss a new missile defense structure with the United States but sees Iran's nuclear program as a separate issue, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday.

Asked about a report in the New York Times that U.S. President Barack Obama had written to him offering to back off deploying a new missile system in Eastern Europe in return for help with the Iranians, Medvedev said signals from Washington were positive but the two issues were separate.

"If we are talking about any "swaps" (Iran for missile defense), this is not how the question is being put. This would not be productive," Medvedev told a news conference in Madrid, where he was on a state visit.

But he added: "If the new (U.S.) administration shows common sense and offers a new (missile defense) structure which would satisfy European (needs) ... and would be acceptable for us, we are ready to discuss it."

"I count on positive signals we are now receiving from Washington translating into agreements," Medvedev said.

I didn't appreciate the common sense crack.

The New York Times put it a little less harshly:

On Tuesday, President Dmitri A. Medvedev offered a measured response, saying that the Kremlin was “working very closely with our U.S. colleagues on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program,” but not in the context of the American missile defense plan.

“No one links these issues to any exchange, especially on the Iran issue,” Interfax reported that Mr. Medvedev said at a news conference in Madrid, where he was visiting to boost economic and political ties.

Uhh...we just did.

Listen, we've put it as plainly as we can put it. I am no fan of the Missile Shield, because in the end any WMD that's sent our way is going to be an Al-Queda suitcase bomb, something a missile shield can't stop. At the same time, I would like to remind our Russian (cough) friends, that the Missile Shield isn't targeting them, it's for Iran, more than likely in the event they try to strike Israel. We're just saying help us make sure Iran doesn't get the bomb, and we don't need a dang missile shield.

But at the same time, the article says that the letter hasn't been recieved yet, and thus...it hasn't been answered yet. You could assume this is posturing on the part of Putin---errrr, sorry, I meant Medvedev, Medvedev!

The power of talking?

Last month, I wrote:

Our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added an interesting litle kicker. "Gee, of course, if we had help with the Iran-going-nuclear-problem, it'd make this whole missile shield thing go away even faster."

I figured this was a big Valentine's Day card to the Russians.

Looks like I may have been right.

Well, according to the New York Times, it went a little further than a hint in Reuters:

President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

Moscow has not responded to the letter that was hand-delivered to President Dmitri A. Medvedev, above, three weeks ago.

The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

This officially falls into the let's take what we can get category.  I'm far more worried about Iran's potential nukes than Russia's current ones.  If we can get them to help us apply pressure, even a bilateral demand for IAEA inspection, good things can start happening.