American Prospect: Who knew the State Department was so hip? (VIDEO)

Great stories from both the American Prospect and Foreign Policy.



Can't say we didn't try.

Oh, yeah...the Russians did just that:

Apparently, this is Moscow's idea of rolling out the "red carpet": Russian state television today launched an all-out assault on new U.S. Ambassador Mike McFaul.

"The fact is that McFaul is not an expert on Russia. He is a specialist in a particular pure democracy promotion," read a report published on Russia 1, the channel that is run by the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK).

The Russian government was evidently displeased that McFaul met with human rights activists in his first official function at the Moscow embassy, where he was joined by visiting Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns. The Russian media's public smear campaign against McFaul accused him of working on behalf of the "so-called democratic movement" in the country during the early 1990s, when he visited there on behalf of the National Democratic Institute -- an organization "known for its proximity to the U.S. intelligence services," according to the TV report.

The report then quotes from several of McFaul's writings and from The Cable's post on McFaul to accuse him of having an agenda of supporting Russian opposition groups in an attempt to destabilize the Russian government.

The hostile welcome represents a sharp rebuke to McFaul's message of openness and cooperation that he brought with him upon arriving in Moscow last week.

Rachel does a very good job of explaining the difference between Three Mile Island, Chernobyl...and what's going on now (VIDEO)

Here I am, trying to take a week off (from work), and Japan keeps pulling me in:

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

"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.

President Obama annouces the new Start Treaty (VIDEO)

Half the time, I'm posting video of speeches and/or Town Halls I don't think are going to get coverage...even on supposedly Democratic-friendly MSNBC.

This speech is one of them. (As I type this, this story is fourth on the Washington Post's headlines, behind the Iraqi Elections, Abstinence Funding, and Bart Stupak's Editorial justifying his vote for Health Care Reform).

Oops, now it's number five, changing the ways of the Senate jumped ahead of it.

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

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.

Hillary is good...

Not too long ago, in the waning days of that "other" President, things were bad with Russia...and I mean, bad. Hell, we spent pretty much all of August shaking our fist helplessly at them as they invaded the Georgian Republic.

Then, we decided that it'd be a great idea to put elements of a missile shield (radar stations, I believe) in Poland and the Czech Republic.

This of course prompted a hostile reaction from the Russians, who were...you know...kinda threatening war over the missile shield. (Okay, just a Nuclear Strike on Poland, same diff.)

I wouldn't say that our relationship with Russia was on a war footing, but it wasn't far off. (By the way, thanks Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham for all the warm thoughts!)

Well, the new guys finally moved into the White house. And almost immediately, a frosty relationship seemed turn, uhhh...frostier.

On top of that, the nation of Kyrgyzstan terminated a deal allowing us to use their airbases to resupply our forces in Afghanistan, seemingly at Russian direction.

But then Joe Biden went to Europe and gave a little speech saying that we needed to hit the reset button on U.S. Foreign Policy.

And we let the Russians know that, while we're going ahead with our plans for the shield, we don't necessarily need the dang thing.

This apparently made the Russians feel better...

And then 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."

And on top of that, get this...now the Russians are talking about letting us use their airbases as a way for us to resupply our troops in Afghanistan. But, they still want that Missle shield outta there, and won't take any steps unless we physically deploy the dang thing.

See, Previous President? This is the power of talking...