President Obama's Speech on Afghanistan (VIDEO)

The first half of the speech was almost boilerplate, a basic grocery list of aims, goals and troop numbers. The speech came alive in the second half. It was clear-eyed and honest. He addressed the corruption in the Afghani Government, and the President’s interest in nation-building here at home.

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

The complete text:

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.

Even Crooks and Liars...

This is from Jon Perr of Crooks and Liars, echoing the same idea that Jeffrey Goldberg did:

As President Obama stands poised to escalate the war in Afghanistan while purportedly offering an exit strategy from it, Americans can and should debate whether his is the right course for U.S. national security interests. The list of contingencies which must go right for the U.S. to succeed - curbing corruption in the Karzai government, securing Pakistani cooperation and commitment in battling insurgents in its frontier regions and buying off Pashtun tribal warlords, just to name a few - is a very long one. But to claim, as Michael Moore now does, that candidate Barack Obama never told his supporters he would dramatically ratchet up the American effort there is just fantasy.

I got the Email from MichaelMoore.com and did something I never thought I'd do, I promptly dropped his Email Newsletter.

Listen, I liked Bowling for Columbine, I loved Fahrenheit 9/11 and I loved, loved, loved Sicko. But I passed on Capitalism: A Love Story because I didn't think Moore has a good grip on Economics...

...but I didn't drop his newsletter. I just disagreed with the premise for Capitalism; that the Bailouts were unnecessary.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to burn down a Banking System or Capitalism, you damn well better have something to replace it with. Instead, Moore's solution for Capitalism was "Freedom".

Once he said that, I knew I was skipping the movie.

But this email about Afghanistan? Michael Moore was just making !@#$ up. If you're going to lie, I've got better things to do with my time.

Andrew Sullivan's Maniefesto

I've been reading more and more of Andrew Sullivan since the 2008 election, as he is a devoted Conservative who's a supporter of Barack Obama. He's found in print (and online) at both the Atlantic Monthly, where he blogs; and the Times of London where he has a column, and frequently writes about American issues for Englishmen.

I can't say it's been easy reading him all the time, but there is a core in his writing that hooks me every time. He's speaking plain and honestly from the heart, even in the moments where I disagree with him, and it's always compelling stuff. Today he wrote a long piece about his divorce from the American Right (if he was ever really a part of them in the first place), and he used a term in this piece that I liked a lot: Political Conversation.

If nothing else, Andrew is devoted to the idea of pushing forward political conversation at the needed expense of political warfare. I wish I could say that his efforts were bearing fruit, but from the tone of today's political discourse, I think you can see it hasn't. (Not that it was on Mr. Sullivan to change the tone of American Political Conversation in the first place, but it's a good thing that he's trying.)

I have seen him lavishly praise President Obama and mercilessly rip him. In the end, as there are more pluses than minuses in the President's column, he remains a supporter, and will probably be one on to 2012 and beyond. This is all I ask of people. This is what I expect from Political Conversation. Not an expectation of perfection; but pushing what you like, ripping what you don't and at the end of the day calculating the scoreboard for yourself, and voting your best interests. At the end of the day (November 12), you're going to look at what President Obama's done and say: I liked X, Y, and Z; I didn't like P, Q, and R, and I can live with A, B, and C, and go from there.

That's not what I'm seeing from the extremes of both ideologies, where life is always simple and hard choices are easy to figure out; where I'm seeing a perpetual drawing of lines in sand, constant demands of the President to do "X" (whatever "X" may be), and if he doesn't, "then I'll never vote for him again". This is in addition to others calling him a traitor, a socialist, a fascist, a Nazi, a Communist, and a Terrorist.

It's like we've morphed into a nation of spoiled teenage "mean" girls, where everything that happens is just the worst thing ever.

In any respect, Andrew is going through much the same problem with the American right as I'm having with some on the left. He went so far as to write a short manifesto, cataloging his problems with the right.

If you look at them carefully, some of these ideas make him sound downright liberal.

Of course, he's not (and he says so in the piece):

I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.

I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.

I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008.

I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.

I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.

I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.

I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.

I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.

I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.

I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.

I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.

I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.

I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.

I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.

I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.

I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.

Does this make me a "radical leftist" as Michelle Malkin would say? Emphatically not. But it sure disqualifies me from the current American right.

To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the conservative movement. It left me.

And increasingly, I'm not alone.

Thank you, Jeffrey Goldberg...

No, not Jonah Goldberg...he's the douchebag author of Liberal Fascists. This is Jeffrey Goldberg over at the Atlantic Monthly. Who says something in print (with proof) that bears remembering, especially in you're like my fellow Liberals, and have created this "Obama promised to withdraw from Afghanistan" meme out of thin air...

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won't have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

And in case you're wondering this is from a New York Times Op-Ed, the future President wrote on the Campaign Trail, June 14, 2008.

It's not like he didn't tell us in advance.

Biden on the attack (VIDEO)

"Who do you trust?"

Blew it

I've got two threads on this site I am not proud of. One of them, involved an attack on Rep. Bobby Rush's niece that I was worried was anti-Black/anti-Obama backlash (it wasn't), and the so-called Sparkman murder, especially now that its been revealed that he committed suicide.

I know I can easily delete these threads, but at the same time, I don't want to play games like I think the stinkin' Mainstream Media does and pretend I've never been wrong. I have been. I will be again.

The Fireside chat for November 25, 2009 (Thanksgiving Edition)

President Obama calls to our attention the men and women in uniform who are away from home sacrificing time with family to protect our safety and freedom. He also talks about the progress of health care reform, the Recovery Act, and job creation to ensure that next Thanksgiving will be a brighter day.

The Fireside chat for November 21, 2009

In an address recorded in Seoul, South Korea, the President discusses his trip to Asia. He talks about his push to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea, Iran, and around the world. He talks about promoting America's principles for an open society in China while making progress on joint efforts to combat climate change. And talks in-depth about the primary objective of his trip: engaging in new markets that hold tremendous potential to spur job creation here at home.

A Loving message to my Father's new family on Thanksgiving Eve (VIDEO)

Don't worry. They know what I'm talking about...

Watch CBS News Videos Online

TPM: A Chief of Staff says it flat out...

All About the 60
Josh Marshall | November 20, 2009, 7:18PM

A Senate Democratic Chief of Staff chimes in ...

There is a lot of misplaced anger coming from many of our fellow progressives about Senate Democrats (which often is just shortened to "The Democrats") inability to pass a robust healthcare reform bill, climate change, etc.

However, I believe it's worth reminding folks that--as long as the Republican Senators hold together--we have to hold EVERY single Democratic Senator, including folks like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, which is usually impossible unless the legislation in question gets substantially watered down.

So, what we might end up with is a Senate Democratic Caucus that holds 98% of its members but still fails to pass healthcare reform, AND a mob of angry progressives who are screaming for the heads of "the Democrats." This isn't fair, but more importantly, it's self-defeating. If progressives REALLY want to transform America, they'll make an issue of the anti-democratic rules of the Senate which make real change virtually impossible. Blasting their elected Democratic officials, the vast majority of whom will vote for the Senate bill (and would also support a more robust public option if we didn't need 60 votes to achieve cloture), may make folks feel good, but is both short-sighted and stupid.

Couldn't resist (VIDEO)

You're going to be seeing these spots during the three Thanksgiving Day Football games. They star the President, Drew Brees, Troy Polamalu, and DeMarcus Ware.

Uh, Secret Service...you may not be aware of this, but there's a Cowboy on the White House grounds.

BREAKING: Racist Congresswoman passed Civil Rights Legislation in 60s...ALL BY HERSELF (VIDEO)

This from the woman who thinks "Tarbaby" is a proper noun, and not an racial epithet.

Lou Dobbs...the male Sarah Palin (VIDEO)

Lou Dobbs, late of CNN, was on the Daily Show last night. Jon greeted him, in fine style, with a Mariachi Band.

Ultimately, these long form interviews are always more informative than what they show on the TV. (Hey, TV is all about the clock, and the clock's word is law). Usually, you get to the heart of the matter in these extended interviews, and Jon's (actually considerable) interviewing skills usually bob to the surface.

That being said, Lou Dobbs is even more of a doucebag than I previously thought.

All the man does for the fifteen or so minutes he's on the air, is gripe and bitch. "Everyone" is getting it wrong. "Both sides" are to blame. "People" are frustrated.

And of course, he out and out lied about Health Care Polling.

All I saw, out of this toad of a human being is someone willing to exploit the fears, sorrows and anger of the moment, to drive a wedge between people, to say whatever he has to say, depending of course on stage he's on. All that matters to him is being in the spotlight. All that matters to him is being an alternative...but he doesn't say to what.

Part 1:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Part 3:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

"It's Baltimore, gentlemen. The Gods will not save you..." (VIDEO)

Ta-Nehisi had reservations. I don't. Love it. Miss it to this day.

"It means something more threatening..." (VIDEO)

From Rachel's show last night:

I think that the situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement for instance, death panels and this sort of thing, and what it's coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler, as they have already called him. And something foreign to our shores, we're reminded of that, he's born in Kenya. As brown, as black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin's "not a real American." But now, it turns out, he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. So there's a parallel here with Timothy McVeigh's t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing. He said the tree of liberty had to be watered by the blood of tyrants. That quote, we saw at a meeting where Obama was present carried on a placard by someone with a loaded weapon.

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

To correct one thing Mr. Schaffer said, the Secret Service recently stated that after the initial spike of threats, things seem to be cooling off.

They better be right.

President Obama's Town Hall with Chinese University Students (VIDEO)

The Fireside chat for November 14, 2009

The President looks back at a week where we honored those who serve on Veterans Day, and mourned those we lost at Fort Hood. He discusses the review he has ordered into the Fort Hood incident, and pledges to stand by our servicemen and women, as well as our veterans, as his most profound responsibility.

MSNBC: Obama's Speech in Alaska on Afghanistan and the Veterans (VIDEO)

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

Michelle does Sesame Street's 40th Season Premiere (VIDEO)

Joseph Cao actually comes through...

I reported in this space (back in August), Joseph Cao, the Republican Congressman from Louisiana who replaced the ultra-corrupt William Jefferson, was considering voting for the House Bill.

Turns out, he did the right thing. He voted for the House Bill, the only Republican to do so.

As much as I want many, many, GOP Pelts nailed to my wall come November, 2010, I'll admit that I'm considering giving him money for his re-election campaign. Cao may just be the only non-white face left in the GOP House. He represents an overwhelmingly black and liberal district, and actually represented the wishes of his constituents, which is what a Congressman is supposed to do. His reward for doing the right thing shouldn't be losing his job.

Touchdown!

The House passes the damn bill.

The Fireside chat for November 7, 2009

The President condemns the "despicable" attacks at Fort Hood, honoring those who were killed and injured. He also commends those who stood up to help and console those affected: "even as we saw the worst of human nature on full display, we also saw the best of America."

Please help the Spokesjerks (VIDEO)

From Think Progress:

Actor and comedian Andy Cobb, who used to be the spokesman for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, has teamed up with Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films project “Sick for Profit” to produce a new ad in favor of health care reform. In the ad, Cobb calls himself a former “spokesjerk” for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and says that his job was to “sell you the worst product in American history: private health insurance.” Cobb calls attention to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) for his significant contributions from the health care industry, and asks him to vote in favor of health care legislation with a public option. Watch it:

BREAKING: Again?!?!?

Shooting in Orlando leaves eight dead.

Epic (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Disadvantages of being the President's Daughter... (VIDEO)

In that, the President will discuss your grades in public:

Taking the time to read Audacity of Hope past page 10...

My main standard, in dealing with fervent opposition to the President, particularly as it comes to define itself from the left, is a simple one: Did any of y'all actually read Audacity of Hope?

Now, this is not an effort to boost Books Sales. I just figured that anyone who actually took the time to read Audacity of Hope (first published in 2006) wouldn't at all be surprised by the Barack Obama that is now the President of the United States.

Yet, we're suffering through a week long Woodstock of Misery, fearturing (frankly) whiny Liberals bitching and moaning about all that could have been with the Obama Administration.

And again, stop with the "One Year in..." crap. He was elected one year ago today. He didn't actually gain Executive authority until January 20th. Last I checked, we Liberals actually liked the Constitution. Skipping the fact of it now, for the sake of a week of bullshit stories seems a bit hypocritical.

In thinking about all this, I am reminded of two things. One is from a speech the future-President gave in Powder Springs, GA:

"You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

And of course, the statement he made on Page 11 of Audacity of Hope (apparently, Arianna and most of the Huffington inteligentsia stopped reading on Page 10).

I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not ail, of them. Which perhaps indicates a second, more intimate theme to this book-namely, how I, or anybody in public office, can avoid the pitfalls of fame, the hunger to please, the fear of loss, and thereby retain that kernel of truth, that singular voice within each of us that reminds us of our deepest commitments.

I write all this because, I read a piece by John McQuaid in the Huffington Post today (as well as Bob Cesca, who's a reliable contributor).

Mr. McQuaid (and Mr. Cesca, too, I'd bet), actually read Audacity of Hope past page 10:

As Jon Stewart put it, "so when does 'hope' turn into 'change'?" As Arianna points out, we still don't know. To any outside observer it sure looks like Obama has lost his campaign mojo and gotten crushed in the whinging gears of Washington's political apparatus. But I'm not so sure.

I've been in Washington since the early 1990s. During that time, let's face it: very little happened. Well, that's not quite right: a lot of things happened, many of them consequential. There was a presidential impeachment, a government shutdown, and several military campaigns and wars. But when you get right down to it, what did all that mean in terms of the way the government ran and its basic priorities? Very little.

The basic structure of American politics -- the array of interest groups and party structures, the government's basic assumptions about what was politically possible and desirable -- didn't change much at all. Mainly, well, it got stupider. Media coverage got stupider. Electoral politics got stupider. And, especially during the Bush administration, government itself got stupider, or at least prone to spectacular breakdowns. With the assent and encouragement of the White House, large swaths of the federal government became hostage to narrow-minded interest groups of one kind or another that simply didn't have a stake in making it work.

Meanwhile, the world was changing. Fast. Big problems such as global warming and collateralized debt obligations emerged. They were catastrophic and just plain weird, and they didn't fit any of our usual political paradigms. When the government can't respond effectively to the real world, it's going to pile one disaster on another.

Obama clearly recognized this problem -- a government adrift in a revolutionary age, with all its constituent parts hardwired to stay that way -- and set out to change it.

But there was never going to be a revolution. Obama ran on change, but he also made clear that he is a centrist and an institutionalist. He believes in making things work, in practical results -- not in blowing things up and starting from scratch.

As a result, the poetry of the Obama campaign has been transformed into the software users manual of the Obama White House.

This is not to deride the software manual approach. Most of the work of actually reforming government is a) politically very, very hard and b) not especially inspiring or even interesting to the media or the public. That includes big stuff like guiding health care reform through Congress. Or lower-profile stuff like staffing scientific agencies with scientists rather than hacks. At every turn, there are obstacles large and small that have been in place for decades and can't easily be dislodged.

So I'm willing to cut Obama some slack. I think his approach is substantive where those of some of his immediate predecessors were variously incremental, empty or dangerous.

But Obama's problems are more than merely rhetorical. (Tom Friedman's suggestion for a lofty thematic fix, "Nation Building at Home," even if basically correct, was politically suicidal as slogans go.) I'm still wondering: Can someone who is temperamentally conservative and pragmatic, and who clearly doesn't relish political combat, ever make truly revolutionary changes? Or in our system, is this the only kind of president who can? That's the riddle we're all facing right now.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mcquaid/obama-was-never-a-revolut_b_345714.html

UPDATE: 1:24pm. Read Cesca's piece, and it's all right. I'm not a fan of "blame Rahm" ideology, and I wasn't comfortable with him even coming close to agreeing with Arianna (which he did), but hell...it's his piece.

Never let a good ego get in the way of the facts...

It's hard not to respect Daily Kos for starting a Liberal Revolution on the Internet, and for that, he has my thanks and respect.

But it's also hard to ignore when he lets his ego get in the way of the facts, which in my mind, he has a tendency to do:

Thus, I offer Kos's take on last night's elections:

This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Wow. While there's something to that in general, in reality, for this particular election...ehhhh, not so much.

1. Despite the "Republican Wave", and Democrats "abandoning their principles", the night wasn't a total disaster for Democrats. Besides the House victories (see below), we held onto Mayorships in the South that were supposed to go to Republicans in Charlotte and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Washington State passed Marriage Equality for Gay-Americans. Washington State and Maine both THUMPED Tea-Bagger favored Tax Resolutions, and the New Jersey Legislature managed to stay Democratic despite the Christie win.

Granted, these are small wins, but considering how animated the Glenn Beck crowd was, particularly in the "Obama-ain't-from-here" South, these wins shouldn't be discounted.

And you'll note the source for No. 1. Yeah, it was the Daily Kos.

2. And somehow in this "Republican Wave", the House Democrats snared themselves two more votes for Health Care, as both new Congressmen favor the House Legislation.

3. And sorry, Kos...I know you got a line to push, but exit polls are showing that Obama (of whom you were clearly speaking) was not a factor in either of the Virginia or New Jersey races.

"On Obama's First Year in Office..."

I was listening to the radio today, coming back from Costco. The Ron Reagan Show was on, and he was asking his callers to give Obama a letter grade for, and I quote, "his first year in office."

Okay, um...Math geniuses? The President was sworn in on January 20th (remember the Chief Justice flubbed the oath? A bunch of people with purple tickets -- sorry, Lonnee -- were stuck in the tunnel of doom? Me and Heidi were watching the parade from the comfort -- and warmth -- of my living room?)

Today is November 3rd.

(Sigh.)

Nevertheless, we are starting a process that is sure to be repeated three months from now...grading the President's first year in office.

Well, I'm going to ignore Arianna's bull@#$% column. It is the firm position of this blog that people who run for Office (as Arianna has), and wind up with .55% of the vote (as Arianna did) don't get to give Political advice to anybody, much less someone who figured out how to elect the first African-American guy President of the United States.

It is the stated mission of this blog to explain to people the "whys" of President Obama's decisions. I knew going in that he was going to take fire from the Right, but I also kinda knew it was going to come from the Left as well...and boy has it ever.

Thus, I leave you with two articles that are must-read, perspective-builders. The first is from Obama '08 Campaign Manager David Plouffe, who (as politely as possible) tells Arianna to stick it:

Frustration about the pace of change, even disagreement on select issues, of course is understandable. But stepping back a bit, as those of us in the Obama orbit have learned to do, reveals an administration that already has made a significant down payment on the change so many fought for last year. I remain confident in the president's unique ability not just to lead us through the many challenges and crises of the moment, but also to accomplish the tough, smart, long-term projects of energy and health care reform -- problems that Washington has long ignored but that will secure a more equitable and prosperous future for all Americans.

...

Arianna Huffington has written much that I agree with. But when it comes to her opinion on the president and his record so far, or her suggestion that there is some great difference between the president and the candidate, I have to register the strongest possible dissent. A year after our historic victory, I have never been more certain that Barack Obama is uniquely suited to lead the country at this unparalleled moment. His values; his ability and desire to think long term; his determination to avoid the easy road of political expedience and to rebuild trust between the American people and their government -- these are exactly what American needs right now. As on any journey, there will be twists and turns, ups and downs. But the change so many of us fought for so passionately last year is becoming a reality in front of our eyes, if we focus squarely enough to see it. And when the decisions he is making today finally resolve into a complete picture years down the road, we will find ourselves living in a stronger, fairer, and more prosperous America. And we will cherish the small part all of us played in electing this unique leader, a man befitting this critical moment in our history.

But there's another one from a guy named Dylan Loewe, who's a contributor to the Guardian Newspaper in London. He too had a very effective piece in today's Huffington Post, this time all-too-politely telling my fellow Liberals (and Arianna by default) to stick it:

What Arianna calls timidity, I call patience.

Campaigning is not the same as governing. In 2007 and 2008, Obama never needed Congressional approval for the executive decisions his campaign made. He never had to worry about securing Joe Lieberman's vote. Governing is more complex, certainly less pure, and noticeably more incremental than most of us would hope. But in American government, even in the midst of revolutionary progressive change, things take time.

It was the same way, by the way, with the Obama campaign. Judging Obama's presidency based on his first 9 months in office is like judging his campaign based on its first five. During that time, as Arianna notes in her column, Obama had difficulty connecting with voters and often felt that the campaign lacked the mojo he had hoped for. He was choppy in debates, often disappointing supporters and worrying campaign aides. And for months and months he trailed Hillary Clinton by double digits, causing such turmoil among his fans that he found himself surrounded by donors and top-tier supporters begging that he change course.

But he didn't change course, despite those who demanded it. He took the long view, saw the road to victory, and never took his eye off that ball.

In that sense, Obama has governed just as he campaigned. Despite calls for him to change strategy by those on the left, including many on this site, Obama has held steady to the strategy he and his team first envisioned.

Dylan also has this interesting bit about Triggers. Now, I still think they're worthless, but:

And of course, there is health care reform, which should pass by the end of this year, and will likely cover 95% of Americans. Any objective observer should consider such a feat to be the biggest domestic legislative accomplishment since Medicare in 1965.

There are those who will complain, as Arianna has, that Obama is more concerned with courting Olympia Snowe's vote than with providing the most progressive policy possible to the American people. But at this point, it's not clear that is what he's doing. We do hear that privately, the White House is pushing for a triggered public option, which would most likely earn Snowe's vote. But I have a hard time believing that winning Snowe's vote is the only reason the White House is pushing for a trigger.

The robust public option that Nancy Pelosi promised would be in the House bill just a week ago is so horribly watered down now that it will actually have higher premiums than private insurance. With higher premiums, there is no way that the public option will actually do anything to control costs. But many on the left would rather the symbolic victory than the policy victory. They would prefer a public option of no real value then a trigger that might have some teeth.

The White House surely must recognize that they are more likely to get a robust public option in the bill, one which will have the intended effect of reducing costs, if they tie it to a trigger. And if the left would stop criticizing the trigger and instead start pushing to define it as a progressive one, the best of both worlds could come to fruition. After all, a trigger that would require insurance companies to reduce costs over the next five years, or else risk a public option tied to Medicare rates, is more likely to actually reduce costs than the one in the current House bill. Does the White House want Olympia Snowe's support? Of course they do. (Let's not forget that that same campaign Arianna is such a fan of was big on bipartisanship.) But in this instance, it may well be that the best policy is aligned with bipartisanship - a true rarity in Washington.

The Fireside chat for October 31, 2009

While there is nothing to celebrate until job numbers turn around, the President cites the recent dramatic turnaround in gross domestic product as a sign of better things to come. He also applauds the fact that the Recovery Act has now created or saved more than a million jobs.

The Jon Stewart Fox News Takedown (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Ezra Klein explains Health Care on NewsHour (VIDEO)

Who ya gonna trust?

On Health Care Reform, we have to look at reality.

The current draft of the House Health Care Reform Bill is over 1900 pages long.

The Senate HELP Committee Bill was shorter (600 pages), but about as complicated.

There are going to be Lawyers (and Lawyers who I know personally) who are going to have a hard time slogging through this sucker, much less understanding all the bells and whistles associated with it.

I would put your chances of understanding the bill on your own, without aid of a summary or breakdown, as not very good.

I'm not saying you're stoopid, but hell...there are Senators who are going to be voting on the actual bill who don't have a clue as to what's its all about.

Yes, I'm talking to you Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut...

These people I would call stoopid, and do it to their face.

If you are a Single Payer advocate (like I am), and are generally in favor of Liberal Health Care Reform (like I am), and of course, a Public Option (which is a big HELL YES), watch three people:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Sen. Tom Harkin (IA)
Rep. John Dingle (MI)

If these three guys say the bill is okay, then the bill is okay. Period.

John Dingle was interviewed by Ezra Klein this afternoon. When asked about the House bill's shortcomings, he put it like this:

Look my friend, I'm too smart to criticize a bill that has taken this much time, effort, and suffering to get to where it is. I will only say this: You know me, and you know I have always stood for a single-payer plan. In the process of compromise and legislating, I believe this is as good as can be done now. This is a plan that gives choice to our people and is peculiarly suited to the United States and the system of medicine we now have.

That's about how it breaks down.

Harry? Harry Reid?? The one in the Senate? (VIDEO)

Harry Reid...that Harry Reid...asking for the people to push the Senate.

Okay. Push!!

TPM: Pawlenty no longer a "serious" candidate for President

If you're turning your back on your own party (in this case, what's left of the GOP), and supporting a "Conservative Party" whackadoodle for Congress, if you're going to align yourself with the Palins, the Birthers, the Tenthers and the like, I can safely assume should you be the nominee, Obama can start measuring the curtains for Years 4 through 8.

If the GOP is even halfway serious about unseating President Obama in 2012, the only person left on the radar is Mitt Romney (and even he's a stretch).