Can someone explain Haqqani network logic to me?

Some stuff in this world just blows my mind.

Okay, so let me get this straight:

"Hey, we're holding one of your Soldiers hostage, but if you designate us as Terrorists, then we'll kill him"??

And that's supposed to make you somehow...what?  Less Terroristy?

Seriously??

Senior members of the Haqqani network said that the United States' designation of the militant group as terrorists could endanger the life of an American soldier thought to be in their custody and jeopardize peace talks.

"The Obama administration and U.S. military commanders know that their soldier Bowe Bergdahl is in our possession," a Haqqani commander told NBC News in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location on Friday. "He is in our custody, but his government failed to make any sincere effort for his release, and now this new development could add to his woes."

The Haqqanis, a Pashtun tribe with strongholds in southeastern Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan, have been blamed for an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and other high-profile assaults in Afghanistan. The group is also believed to be holding U.S. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured in 2009 in Afghanistan’s Paktika province, bordering Pakistan’s South Waziristan.

Stronger Together: Don't Ask Don't Tell - 2012 Democratic National Convention Video

President Obama Speaks to Troops at Fort Bliss, Texas (VIDEO)

President Obama's really gotten into Unit Pride. Just listen to the responses he gets when he names individual units.

Rock Center: Inside The Situation Room Special on the killing of Bin Laden (VIDEO)

In case, like my Dad, you missed it we have the whole special here:

Part 1:

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

Part 2:

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

Part 3:

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

Part 4:

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

Part 5:

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

What Ric Grenell's departure from the Romney campaign tells us about Romney as a leader...

It tells us that he isn't much of one, and that his first instinct is always to make the problem go away, not to solve it.

From Andrew Sullivan:

Some actual reporting from yours truly. It seems clear from sources close to Grenell and reporters on the foreign policy beat that his turning point came last week. He'd been part of organizing a conference call to respond to Vice President Biden's foreign policy speech, now known best for the "big stick" remark. So some reporters were puzzled as to why Grenell, a week into his job as Romney's national security spokesman, was not introduced by name as part of the Romney team at the beginning of the call, and his voice completely absent from the conversation. Some even called and questioned him afterwards as to why he was absent. He wasn't absent. He was simply muzzled. For a job where you are supposed to maintain good relations with reporters, being silenced on a key conference call on your area of expertise is pretty damaging. Especially when you helped set it up.

Sources close to Grenell say that he was specifically told by those high up in the Romney campaign to stay silent on the call, even while he was on it. And this was not the only time he had been instructed to shut up. Their response to the far right fooferaw was simply to go silent, to keep Grenell off-stage and mute, and to wait till the storm passed. But the storm was not likely to pass if no one in the Romney camp was prepared to back Grenell up. Hence his dilemma. The obvious solution was simply to get Grenell out there doling out the neocon red meat - which would have immediately changed the subject and helped dispel base skepticism. Instead the terrified Romneyites shut him up without any actual plan for when he might subsequently be able to do his job. To my mind, it's a mark of his integrity that he decided to quit rather than be put in this absurd situation. And it's a mark of Romney's fundamental weakness within his own party that he could not back his spokesman against the Bryan Fischers and Matthew Francks.

Remembering the hurt one man caused... (VIDEO)

will (director's cut) from Eusong Lee on Vimeo.

Ending Afghanistan, an a decade of War (VIDEO)

The Speech:




Signing the Agreement:




And talking to the Troops:

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."

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

"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!

"Governor, good luck...you're gonna need it..." (VIDEO)

First caught by Andrew Sullivan. As he said: "You see a man meet a machine"



Study this well, fellow Democrats. This is why Romney is going to lose the 2012 Election.

It's not even this particular position. It's his total inability to listen, to engage in a...well, human way with this man, or anyone.

All he had to say was: "Listen, my own moral/religious convictions preclude me from supporting the idea of anything but a man and a woman getting married, but...you're right, the spouses of Gay Soldiers deserve all the familial and visitation and health care rights provided to straight couples, and I think Federal Law can fix that."

It would still be bullshit, because if Mittens hasn't noticed, the rest of the country has moved on. The guy still might not vote for him in the fall, but at least Mitt would keep the guy in the undecided column.

That's one thing Mitt is ultimately good at...you can't stay "undecided" around him for long, particularly when you look him in the eye.

The post where I introduce you to Imran Khan, and tell Pakistan to bite me.

There's a Politican named Imran Khan. He's attracting big crowds, getting a lot of attention, and he may be bad news.

First off, it seems he may be getting financial support from the ISI, but more importantly:

The real key to Khan's popularity lies in his public stance against U.S. foreign policy, and what he describes as Washington's interference in Pakistan's internal affairs. He has consistently condemned drone strikes against militants in Pakistan's tribal belt, and argued that Pakistan's alliance with the United States is the main reason why the country is now facing a Taliban insurgency. Khan was careful on Sunday to indicate that he would be open to continued ties with the United States if he came to office, but only on Pakistan's terms. This is a heartening message for millions of Pakistanis who are still reeling from the audacity of the unilateral U.S. raid against Osama bin Laden's compound in May, which many saw as a brash violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty and an act of betrayal by a so-called ally. If this tactic succeeds, Khan will not be the first Pakistani politician to convert anti-Americanism into votes.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Also, reeling from the audacity of the unilateral U.S. raid against Osama bin Laden's compound in May, which many saw as a brash violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty and an act of betrayal by a so-called ally? Bite me, Pakistan.  Your Military and Intelligence command hid target number one and refused to cooperate in his capture, so we went in and got him.  @#$% you.

One would think Mr. Khan also knows how to add, and will get into office, look at the amount of funding we're giving him and make his actual decision from there.

It's very possible that he'll still dial back the Pakistani-American relationship. Then again, we seem to be anxious to dial it back ourselves.

I hope Mr. Khan understands that should there be another High Value Target in his country, alliance or no, we're still taking him out, and there's incredibly little Pakistan can do about it, except maybe get off a lucky shot.  (Remember Pakistan scrambled fighters to intercept our Raid Team's Choppers, but by the time we got there, they were already outta there, and UBL was dead.

Yes, Pakistan has nukes...but so does another country that's veeeery close to them...and we like them better.

The President's Address before the U.N. for Sept. 21, 2011 (VIDEO)

President Obama's salute to the people of Libya (VIDEO)

"When you tell Dakota he can't do something, he's is going to do it."

There's a damn good reason Sgt. Dakota L. Meyer got himself a Congressional Medal of Honor.  The text  comes from (of all places) Gizmodo. And in case you're wondering (courtesy of the above video), Meyer did get that beer with the President.

I want you to imagine it's September 8, 2009, just before dawn. A patrol of Afghan forces and their American trainers is on foot, making their way up a narrow valley, heading into a village to meet with elders. And suddenly, all over the village, the lights go out. And that's when it happens. About a mile away, Dakota, who was then a corporal, and Staff Sergeant Juan Rodriguez-Chavez, could hear the ambush over the radio. It was as if the whole valley was exploding. Taliban fighters were unleashing a firestorm from the hills, from the stone houses, even from the local school.

And soon, the patrol was pinned down, taking ferocious fire from three sides. Men were being wounded and killed, and four Americans — Dakota's friends — were surrounded. Four times, Dakota and Juan asked permission to go in; four times they were denied. It was, they were told, too dangerous. But one of the teachers in his high school once said, "When you tell Dakota he can't do something, he's is going to do it." And as Dakota said of his trapped teammates, "Those were my brothers, and I couldn't just sit back and watch."

The story of what Dakota did next will be told for generations. He told Juan they were going in. Juan jumped into a Humvee and took the wheel; Dakota climbed into the turret and manned the gun. They were defying orders, but they were doing what they thought was right. So they drove straight into a killing zone, Dakota's upper body and head exposed to a blizzard of fire from AK-47s and machine guns, from mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

Coming upon wounded Afghan soldiers, Dakota jumped out and loaded each of the wounded into the Humvee, each time exposing himself to all that enemy fire. They turned around and drove those wounded back to safety. Those who were there called it the most intense combat they'd ever seen. Dakota and Juan would have been forgiven for not going back in. But as Dakota says, you don't leave anyone behind.

For a second time, they went back — back into the inferno; Juan at the wheel, swerving to avoid the explosions all around them; Dakota up in the turret — when one gun jammed, grabbing another, going through gun after gun. Again they came across wounded Afghans. Again Dakota jumped out, loaded them up and brought them back to safety.

For a third time, they went back — insurgents running right up to the Humvee, Dakota fighting them off. Up ahead, a group of Americans, some wounded, were desperately trying to escape the bullets raining down. Juan wedged the Humvee right into the line of fire, using the vehicle as a shield. With Dakota on the guns, they helped those Americans back to safety as well.

For a fourth time, they went back. Dakota was now wounded in the arm. Their vehicle was riddled with bullets and shrapnel. Dakota later confessed, "I didn't think I was going to die. I knew I was." But still they pushed on, finding the wounded, delivering them to safety.

And then, for a fifth time, they went back — into the fury of that village, under fire that seemed to come from every window, every doorway, every alley. And when they finally got to those trapped Americans, Dakota jumped out. And he ran toward them. Drawing all those enemy guns on himself. Bullets kicking up the dirt all around him. He kept going until he came upon those four Americans, laying where they fell, together as one team.

Dakota and the others who had joined him knelt down, picked up their comrades and — through all those bullets, all the smoke, all the chaos — carried them out, one by one. Because, as Dakota says, "That's what you do for a brother."

Dakota says he'll accept this medal in their name. So today, we remember the husband who loved the outdoors —Lieutenant Michael Johnson. The husband and father they called "Gunny J" — Gunnery Sergeant Edwin Johnson. The determined Marine who fought to get on that team — Staff Sergeant Aaron Kenefick. The medic who gave his life tending to his teammates — Hospitalman Third Class James Layton. And a soldier wounded in that battle who never recovered — Sergeant First Class Kenneth Westbrook.

Happiest words of the day: Scott Walker has lawyered up...

This is from another Steve Benen story, and it brings joy to my heart:

About a dozen law enforcement officers, including FBI agents, raided the home of a former top aide to Gov. Scott Walker on Wednesday as part of a growing investigation into whether county employees did political work while at their jobs.

...

There’s also this tidbit of news.

There was no comment Wednesday from Governor Walker, who has retained legal counsel, although he claims not to have been personally contacted by federal agents.

Now, there may be nothing to this, but when a sitting governor retains outside counsel as part of a growing corruption investigation, and FBI agents are paying visits to his former top aides, it would appear Scott Walker has a bit of a problem.

It’s worth emphasizing that the allegations, according to local media accounts, are focused on potential misdeeds committed before Walker became governor — the accusations focus on whether county staffers did political work for Walker when they were supposed to be doing official work for the public — but the controversy can still do some real damage.

Walker, best known for picking a huge fight over stripping state workers of their collective bargaining rights, is already unpopular in his home state, and the threat of a recall election still looms on the horizon. It makes this story something to keep an eye on.

How President Obama helped to save six Israelis with a phone call...

First caught by Andrew Sullivan.  This was an interesting read, but as an Obama fan I'm glad the President did what he did, I'm just not sure why this was "historic" as the author keeps suggesting.  For the record, the guy doing the speaking I don't believe is a native english speaker. He's also the former head of the Mossad, Efraim Halevy. That might explain some of the blocky usage you're about to read.

During [last Friday night], as you know, [the Israeli] embassy [in Cairo] was surrounded and was on the verge of being stormed. And [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] went to the special command center in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and from there he actually ran and commanded this operation of trying to extricate our staff from the embassy. And, at the end, there were six people left, six people of the security detail of the embassy. They were there inside the last room, which had been the ultimate room in the embassy. And, they had one steel door, which was between them and the mob.

And the Prime Minister took many very, very important decisions that night. Successful decisions, very responsible decisions. And for that he has been lauded, and rightly so I think by the public in Israel and by the population at large for his cool and his measured way of handling this crisis.

But one of the decisions he had to take in the end, he wanted to take, was to find ways of extricating his people, our people, out of that embassy. And he turned to one man, to the President of the United States, and he spoke to him. And the president of the United States, without having much time to consult with Congress, and with the media, and with the analysts and with all of the other people who have to be consulted on major and grave decisions. He took a decision to take up the telephone and get on the line with the powers that be in Egypt, and get them to order the release of these six people, and the detail of the Egyptian commando forces entered and saved them.

I think that this decision by President Obama was a unique decision in many ways. Because I don’t have to tell you, and this was just said time and time and over again this afternoon/this evening, that the United States is not in a position the way it was many years ago in the Middle East, it has its problems, it has its considerations, and rightly so. But I believe the leadership that the President of the United States showed on that night was a leadership of historic dimensions. It was he who took the ultimate decision that night which prevented what could have been a sad outcome—instead of six men coming home, the arrival in Israel of six body bags.

The rest can be found here. Like I said, I don't know about "historic". The United States and Israel are allies, and this is what allies do for one another.

And let's keep in mind that our non-interference in the Egyptian Uprisings also helped out a lot.  Because we don't go in as strong (as McCain and Graham always suggest), we don't screw up relations with the new Egyptian Government, so there is someone willing to take our call and listen.  And I also doubt Obama ordered the Egyptians to do anything.  It's not his style, and he wasn't in much of a position to order anything.  He picks up the phone, and makes a simple request, laying out how a non-violent resolution helps everybody.  The Egyptians listened, said sure, and sent their own Commandos in to save the Israeli Security personnel.  Done.  All in a night's work.

I appreciate the story, and this is pretty much what I voted for in 2008.

The Lioness Program...

First caught this video on the Daily Beast this morning.  I'm sorry not to have seen it earlier.

Gee, maybe Mitt Romney hasn't changed that much. Maybe he's always been a brain dead-- (VIDEO)

Great catch by Steve Benen:

In February 2008, Romney delivered a speech announcing his withdrawal from the presidential race. He explained his rationale for quitting this way:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

For those who may have forgotten it, Jon Stewart had a compelling reaction to the remarks at the time.

But more than three years later, I’m curious: does Romney think he was right? Barack Obama became president, and has proven far more successful in combating terrorism than his Republican predecessor. Does Romney stand by his belief that electing Obama president was part of “a surrender to terror”?

Or does Romney regret making the charge in 2008, and realize now he was wrong?

Since Steve didn't post it in his blog, and since Jon Stewart's still on Vacation, I figured I'd put up the whole video.

The Daily Show - Mitt Drops Out
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

And for the record, Jon's response is just (ahem) two words, and it's still deserved.

The Fireside Chat for August 26th, 2011 (VIDEO)

President Obama pays tribute to the first responders, those who have served, and those who lost their lives ten years ago in the September 11th attacks. Visit Serve.gov for ways to commemorate the solemn anniversary in your community.