Recently in Obama Diplomacy Category

"All Guinness sold in Ireland, the U.K., and North America is made in Dublin -- so the time it takes for a keg to cross the Atlantic puts it at an immediate disadvantage. What's more, since your average Irish watering hole probably sells more Guinness than its American counterpart, the chances are much higher that a patron there will get a pour from a fresh keg."

In honor of President Obama reconnecting with his Irish ancestry in Moneygall, Slate's Maura Kelly explains why Guinness tastes better in Eire. Hey, it tastes pretty good here too.

"An executive at a small defense contractor recently joked to me, 'Afghanistan is our business plan.' I asked him what he would do if the war ended. He stared at me for a moment and said, 'Well, then I hope we invade Libya.'"

Proving Chalmers Johnson's maxim in Why We Fight that "when war becomes that profitable, you're going to see more of it," PBS's Joshua Foust looks at the economic implications of withdrawal in Afghanistan for our standing army of Hessians defense sub-contractors. "Ten years of war have established a discrete class of entrepreneurs, mid-level workers and administrators who are completely reliant upon the U.S. being at war to stay employed." I somehow doubt we'll be freezing their pay anytime soon.

"For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda's leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda. Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must -- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad."

So, yes, as you may have heard, we finally found Osama Bin Laden, fulfilling a key promise President Obama made during the 2008 campaign. While I would have preferred to see the perpetrator of 9/11 captured alive and brought to trial -- cause that's how we do justice here in the US of A -- congrats to the president's team, the analysts who did the hard work, and the men and women who executed the operation, on finally getting their man.

All that being said, the second half of the president's statement above is troubling. The death of Bin Laden should mark the beginning of the end of the 9/11 decade. With the splinter finally removed, it is time to take a long hard look not just at our continuing war in Afghanistan -- after all, Osama was eventually found in Pakistan, mainly through what the Bunk would call good po-lice work -- but at all the questionable and/or extra-constitutional actions we have taken in the name of fighting the terr'ists since September 11th. (Newsflash: Torture had nothing to do with capturing OBL.) If the death of Bin Laden doesn't move us to this reconsideration, what then ever will?

Unfortunately (and of course), that doesn't seem to be what's happening. Instead, Congress is laying the foundation for a wider war: "Contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 is a new authorization to use military force that would grant the executive branch the power to 'address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups.' In practice, that means the president could use military force against any suspected terrorist across the globe -- indefinitely."

Indefinite war? No thanks. There's been an eerie touch of Emmanuel Goldstein in the way Bin Laden was used to justify all manner of extraconstitutional actions and civil liberties violations under Dubya -- actions that have been ratified and continued under Obama. Now that the Bogeyman is dead, it's time to stand down. It's time to start acting like America again.

"Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn't going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn't about justice, it's about power." With an eye toward the crackdowns in Yemen and Bahrain, the WP's Eugene Robinson wonders, why, exactly, we're getting involved in Libya. (Pic via Boston's Big Picture.)

For a counterpoint, Juan Cole argues why the Left should back the current military action: "If we just don't care if the people of Benghazi are subjected to murder and repression on a vast scale, we aren't people of the Left. We should avoid making 'foreign intervention' an absolute taboo the way the Right makes abortion an absolute taboo if doing so makes us heartless (inflexible a priori positions often lead to heartlessness)."

And, to complete the trifecta, here's the president explaining his reasoning for intervention: "Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow."

I get the arguments in favor of military action (and, in terms of diplomacy, I get that we also seem to be following the lead of France and England this time -- After all, they've backed our sketchy plays in the past.) But, since we're already well-engaged at this point, I'll just say that (1) my own view of this Libya action leans toward Robinson's, (2) the Congress-skipping precedent here is yet another extremely dubious call by our purported constitutional-scholar-in-chief, (3) I'm not seeing how getting involved in yet another war in the Middle East/North Africa, while rather obviously ignoring other festering situations in the region, wins Arab hearts and minds, and (4) it's funny how 99.44% of the Deficit Peacocks in this town completely clam up when it's time to rain down some million-dollar-a-head Freedom Bombs.

But the die is cast now, so let's hope we get in and out of this as quickly as the president intimated we would. Oh, hey, look...mission creep. Now, who could've expected that?

"'There can be no conceivable justification for requiring a soldier to surrender all his clothing, remain naked in his cell for seven hours, and then stand at attention the subsequent morning,' he wrote. 'This treatment is even more degrading considering that Pfc. Manning is being monitored -- both by direct observation and by video -- at all times.'"

Sometimes I don't post here because I'm really busy. Sometimes I don't post here because the news is too damned depressing: The United States takes another big step towards Miniluv by applying Dubya-era torture and intimidation techniques to an American citizen in custody for leaking, Bradley Manning. (Y'see, it's a four lights = five lights kinda thing. Manning has to break -- and then, like Zubadayah and KSM, voice untruths -- for there to be any sort of possible criminal conspiracy case against Wikileaks.)

What is there to say, really? State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley already correctly stated that this abusive treatment of Manning was "ridiculous, counterproductive, and stupid," and, within days, he was fired for stating the obvious.

The president, meanwhile, assures us everything is ok because the Pentagon said so: "I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are." This, as Glenn Greenwald (who's been on top of this all the way) points out, is exactly the same rationale Dubya used to use: "'When [Bush] asked 'the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government' to review interrogation methods, 'they assured me they did not constitute torture.'" Well, ok then.

So let's review. Dubya's administration constructs an illegal and unconstitutional torture regime -- Nobody goes to jail, and nothing changes. (Look forward, not backward!) The Dubya administration lies to the American people in order to prosecute a war of choice in Iraq. Nobody goes to jail, and nothing changes. Through greed and outright fraud, Wall Street traders implode the global economy to the tune of trillions of dollars, and, with the convenient exception of Bernie Madoff, nobody goes to jail, and nothing changes. (Synthetic junk, anyone?) Big banks continue their crime spree by engaging in a massive epidemic of foreclosure fraud, and nobody goes to jail (but we'll make them promise not to do it again!)

Oh, and an Army private leaks "secret" documents (so secret they were available to millions of people) because "[h]e wanted people held accountable and wanted to see this didn't happen again" -- the very definition of whistleblowing -- and now we're treating him like Winston Smith. (Then again, our president does despise whistleblowers.)

Should Manning be in U.S. custody right now? Yes. He took an oath to the United States military and, knowing full well the consequences, broke it in an act of civil disobedience. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime -- I get that. But should Manning be abused and tortured in U.S. custody? Of course not -- Nobody should be. In fact, I thought we elected Barack Obama as president to make sure this never happened again.

Nope, sorry. Instead, President Obama fired Crowley and is owning what's happening to Manning right now. He also just reinstated and normalized indefinite detentions at Gitmo. (Obama the constitutional scholar? Meet the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.) And when not perpetuating Dubya-era illegalities, he (and new lefty-bashing chief of staff) spend their days talking up the deficit, talking down regulation, and hoping the Chamber and the NRA take their meetings. Feel those winds of change, y'all. (Obama meme pic above via here.)

Update: "Based on 30 years of government experience, if you have to explain why a guy is standing naked in the middle of a jail cell, you have a policy in need of urgent review." P.J. Crowley reflects on his recent firing. "I stand by what I said. The United States should set the global standard for treatment of its citizens - and then exceed it. It is what the world expects of us. It is what we should expect of ourselves."

"What is at stake in the long run? Two things, mainly, in my view. First, it seems to me that we as progressives need to make an honorable defense of the great legacies of the New Deal and Great Society -- programs and institutions that brought America out of the Great Depression and bought us through the Second World War, brought us to our period of greatest prosperity, and the greatest advances in social justice. Social Security, Medicare, housing finance -- the front-line right now is the foreclosure crisis, the crisis, I should say, of foreclosure fraud -- the progressive tax code, anti-poverty policy, public investment, public safety, and human and civil rights. We are going to lose these battles- get used to it. But we need to make an honorable fight, to state clearly what our principles are and to lay down a record which is trustworthy for the future."

In a hard-hitting address to the Americans for Democratic Action from last November, economist Jamie Galbraith puts the current situation of progressivism in perspective. His steely resignation may sound fatalistic, but it's hard not to feel thus these days. "Recovery begins with realism and there is nothing to be gained by kidding ourselves...We need to lose our fear, our hesitation, and our unwillingness to face the facts. If we thereby lose some of our hopes, let's remember the dictum of William of Orange that 'it is not necessary to hope in order to persevere.'"

"I brought my American passport today in case I die today," said Marwan Mossaad, 33, a graduate student of architecture with dual Egyptian-American citizenship. "I want the American people to know that they are supporting one of the most oppressive regimes in the world and Americans are also dying for it."

In the wake of Tunisia's "Jasmine Revolution," and as seen all over the news the past week (once the Village moved past its who-sitting-with-who, SotU-prom obsessions), protests continue to roil Egypt -- as well as Yemen, Jordan, and the Sudan -- in what amounts to an historic popular uprising across the Middle East. Our response so far (Joe Biden notwithstanding): "Saying that 'no one is satisfied' with the steps Mubarak has taken since the protests for political and economic freedom began, Clinton said a transition process was needed 'so that no one fills a void..what we don't want is chaos.'"

As Slate's Kai Bid notes: Nor do we want to alienate the Egyptian people further by seeming to back a cruel and repressive government that has clearly lost the confidence of its people. "Obama still has the relatively clean slate and the rhetorical powers to execute a pivot in American policy. In his June 2009 Cairo speech Obama said, 'America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.'"

Hopefully, that worthy standard will encourage us to think twice before backing any play involving Egypt's newly-appointed vice-president (and thus Mubarak's suggested successor), former intelligence chief Omar Suleiman -- a.k.a. the CIA's point man for extraordinary renditions. "In a nutshell: this appointment will do nothing to pacify the millions of rioting citizens, and if it stands it will perpetuate the same kinds of policies and US power interests in the region to which the people have said enough."

"'To the extent there are gaps in our laws,' Holder continued, 'we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say...that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing."

After another embarrassing document dump by Wikileaks -- this time diplomatic cables, next time Bank of America? -- Attorney General Holder threatens the prosecution of Julian Assange, an Australian citizen -- most likely under the Espionage Act, the same catch-all 1917 law used to lock up Eugene Debs back in the day.

First of all, Gawker's John Cook has already explained why this attempted line of prosecution doesn't work. However docile the "nation's watchdogs" remain on any other given day, the newspapers that published these leaks would have to be considered co-conspirators in any Espionage Act-related indictment. "We think its fairly obvious that the Department of Justice won't go after the Times or any of the other papers involved in the story. But if it doesn't, that's just evidence that its attempt to use the Espionage Act to go after Assange isn't about enforcing laws: It's about retribution, harassment, and rattling sabers."

Secondly, if Assange wants to avoid federal prosecution, perhaps he should just...I dunno...torture somebody? Or maybe rip off the American people for trillions of dollars? Or how 'bout just spying on Americans via warrantless wiretap? Apparently, disclosing those kinds of secrets is one of those look-forward-not-backward kinda things.

Let's get real here. There's no threat to our troops in these leaks -- Even the Pentagon admits that. (A more overlooked problem, as a friend pointed out, is what this leak might mean for human rights workers.) Wikleaks' methods are of the blunderbuss variety, yes. (That probably speaks in their favor: They don't seem to tailor their leaks to suit a predetermined spin. They just dump data. And, hey, somebody should be doing the media's job.) And, sure, Assange comes off as more than a bit pretentious, but what of it? If being a jackass were a crime, our prison system in this country would be completely broken...oh wait, it already is.

In the end, as Glenn Greenwald well put it, "our government and political culture is so far toward the extreme pole of excessive, improper secrecy that that is clearly the far more significant threat." You'd think an administration that ran on unparalleled transparency in government might feel the same way. But, sadly, like its predecessor, the only crime this administration really seems to hate is whistleblowing.

"When historians look back to the moment when the post-Cold War reign of American power ended, they may well settle on 2010 as a crucial year. Everywhere, it seemed, there were signs that the long-predicted "rise of the rest" had finally occurred, whether in the newfound assertiveness of fast-growing China or the impatient diplomacy of new powers like Brazil and Turkey. Foreign Policy's second annual list of the Top 100 Global Thinkers fully reflects that new world."

As above, Foreign Policy has picked its Top 100 Global Thinkers of the year. And, while there are some really atrocious choices on here (for example, the man at #33, who much more deservingly made the list in the next entry too), the article is worth a perusing regardless. (FWIW, #65, #68, and #80 seem really iffy to me as well.)

"The president told Democrats that making change happen is hard and 'if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place.'" As part of a continuing pattern of late, President Obama tells Rolling Stone that progressives need to stop whining about the way things are going and get happy, because, in what's become a new talking point, "If you look at the checklist, we've already covered about 70 percent [of the 2008 campaign promises.]" (70%?! Uh, can I see this checklist?)

Anyway, this latest weird effusion against the base has already been well-critiqued and well-answered many times. See, for example, Glenn Greenwald and David Dayen: "I've never seen a politician run an election with the message 'Don't be stupid, quit your bitching and vote for me.'" I would only add two things:

1) As it turns out, the unhappy Dems among us are more likely to vote, so perhaps berating them for not clapping enough is not altogether productive. (Unless, of course, the WH is doing it as a Sistah Souljah bank shot to get independents, on the classic establishment premise that indies love hippie-punching.)

2) I'd love to live in a world where progressive bloggers have the power to move ginormous voting blocs, I really would. But it takes a certain type of top-down, Beltway-obsessive mentality to think that's what's going on here. The biggest reason voters are depressed is because the economy is, quite obviously, not doing so well at the moment, and people are feeling the pinch. And, that aside, most Obama voters don't need blogs to tell them that this administration, on all too many fronts, hasn't lived up to its promises.

If this White House wants to engage the base (and I really, really hope they do, for reasons personal, professional, and patriotic), then, for Pete's sake, don't browbeat and lecture the Left for being disappointed -- Try to make them less disappointed! Give them some red meat, respond to their concerns, and, you know, do the things you were elected to do. Why this even has to be said is beyond me.

"[T]o the extent that the 'liberal left' is upset at the President, it's because they are seeing a great opportunity slip away in real time. The only one that told the base that they could change America from the bottom up and bring forth a transformative new era of leadership is Barack Obama. If he didn't want one, he shouldn't have said anything."

In response to the most recent disparaging of liberal and progressive blogs by "senior administrative official" to his or her media lap dog of choice, FDL's Dave Dayen gets to the heart of progressive consternation with Team Obama: "Nobody had a bigger challenge coming into office than Barack Obama but nobody had a bigger opportunity. And liberals like myself are generally peeved that the opportunity has been squandered. Yes, squandered." Yep, sounds about right.

In very related news, with the passage of financial reform in the Senate today, The Prospect's Kevin Drum gets off a zinger about Obama's legislative accomplishments thus far. I think, overall, this president could have accomplished much more than Drum's biting joke suggests -- most obviously on executive power issues like torture and indefinite detention. (Or, put another way, I just get irritated with people who throw up their hands and say the problem with our politics is entirely structural when you have an ostensibly-lefty president saying patently dumb things like this. Choices matter, and this administration makes terrible ones.) All that being said, Drum's comment was still worth a (rueful) laugh regardless.

"'The CIA appears to have broken all accepted legal and ethical standards put in place since the Second World War to protect prisoners from being the subjects of experimentation,' said Frank Donaghue, the CEO of PHR, a nonprofit organization of health professionals."

A new report by Physicians for Human Rights suggests the CIA conducted human experiments on detainees, including "monitoring the effects of sleep deprivation up to 180 hours" and testing out new forms of waterboarding on them. Once we're all happy with the president's visible anger levels toward BP, perhaps we can get some wrath-of-God fury -- and criminal prosecutions -- directed towards these atrocities committed in our name also? Thanks much. [Update: Here's the Mother Jones story.]

"The Israeli commando raid on Monday on an aid flotilla, which left at least nine people dead, has dragged relations between Israel and Turkey to a new low, political experts here say, threatening to derail diplomatic relations between two close American allies."

Gee, I wonder why (and as if we need another crisis right now.) All the facts aren't in yet on what happened -- in international waters -- yesterday on the humanitarian-aid flotilla headed to Gaza. But, right now Slate's Fred Kaplan seems to be on the right track: "Israel's storming of the Mavi Marmara, killing at least nine Free Gaza activists and wounding several more, was an act of jaw-gaping stupidity--strategically and tactically, even leaving aside morally."

And morally, there are obvious problems too. As Peter Beinart -- continuing his recent heterodoxy -- explained today: "[T]he embargo must be tight enough to keep the people of Gaza miserable, but not so tight that they starve...There's a name for all this: collective punishment." Also of note: today's J-Street response: "This shocking outcome of an effort to bring humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza is in part a consequence of the ongoing, counterproductive Israeli blockade of Gaza...We urge President Obama and other international and regional leaders to take today's terrible news as an opportunity to engage even more forcefully in immediate efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

I agree, and I hope our immediate actions in the wake of this flotilla fiasco (I feel like I'm using that word a lot lately, and yet it continually applies) -- watering down the UN resolution and working the phones for Israel -- are being done with an eye to the long game of bringing peace to the region, not just the usual, reflexive circling of the wagons.

"The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence. I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary." Me too, Senator Obama, me too.

In a decisive break with his campaign stances and the best indicator yet that this administration is now happily perpetuating deeply troubling Bush-era policies, the President wins the right to hold detainees indefinitely in Bagram -- the difference from the Boumediene decision on Gitmo being that Bagram is a "war zone." (And Ben Franklin's admonition aside, that's an excuse you hear quite a bit these days.)

FWIW, Politico's Josh Gerstein -- while bending over backwards, as per the Village norm, not to call torture "torture" -- suggests civil liberties concerns are overblown here, but check out his reasoning: "The Obama administration...has, so far, resisted seeking a full-scale preventive detention law that would apply to future captives. Instead, it has pleaded with civil liberties and human rights groups not to oppose some legal mechanism to allow the continued detention of Al Qaeda captives, at least some of whom may be untriable because of aggressive interrogations many view as torture."

Oh, please. We have to hold them forever because we tortured them? How utterly and completely effed up is that? As Stephen Colbert well put it: "It's essentially the same stance taken by George Bush. With one important difference: Obama makes the kids like it."

"Things in that unhappy country are going badly -- much worse, of course, than Team Obama had to pretend this week but quite a bit worse than even a sensible skeptic might think. And unless Karzai takes to heart the lectures he heard (someone must have given him a stern talking-to amid all the bonhomie), things are only going to get worse still."

After perusing an unclassified DoD report released last month, Slate's Fred Kaplan sees ominous trends unfolding in Afghanistan. "[T]he full report is a hair-raiser. The news is almost all bad; and the few bits of good news turn out, on close inspection, to be extremely misleading...[T]he report states, 'The insurgents perceive 2009 as their most successful year.'"

"I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground."

They do? I thought they expected change we can believe in. But worn-out nods to an elusive, ephemeral, and, given the current GOP, often undesirable bipartisanship does not constitute such. In any event, so concluded the President's State of the Union address last Thursday. This is old news at this point, so I'll keep it brief. Suffice to say, while it got better as it went along, I thought the speech was merely ok, and often troubling. Throughout the evening, the president's remarks had that excessively-poll-tested, small-bore feel that conjured up grim odors of 1995 and 1996. Throw on a flannel and fire up the Pulp Fiction soundtrack, y'all: One year into the Obama era, are we already back to V-chips and school uniforms?

Part of the president's problem is that the Senate is looking like the elephant's graveyard of progressive-minded legislation right now. The president called for an energy reform bill. The House went out on a limb to pass one last June. The president called for a financial reform bill. The House passed one in December. The president called for a new jobs bill. The House also passed one in December. All of these bills, and many, many others, are languishing in the Senate right now, as Sen. Reid and others try to figure out how to somehow get something -- anything! -- passed with a larger majority than Dubya ever enjoyed.

The Senate issue aside, there were other problems in the President's speech, including far too many nods and feints in the direction of ridiculous deficit peacocks like Judd Gregg and Evan Bayh. First off, at the risk of sounding like Dick Cheney, I tend to think that deficits are troubling, but, even in the best of times, they shouldn't really be the foremost driving concern of our government policy. If we run a deficit to invest in education now, we'll save money down the road and improve Americans' quality-of-life to boot. (Put in somewhat ugly fashion, it's invest in schools now or prisons later.)

And that being said, right now is emphatically not the best of times. We know exactly what happens when you cut spending too quickly after a virulent recession -- It was called the 1937 Roosevelt recession, and it would be flagrantly idiotic to repeat it. Just because the GOP doesn't seem to understand basic Keynesian economics doesn't mean we should follow them down the rabbit hole of flat-earth thinking, just so we can look bipartisan.

No, the problem with deficits isn't necessarily the running of a deficit. It's the running-up of massive deficits for patently stupid reasons -- like, say, prosecuting a war of choice in Iraq, or doling out excessive tax breaks to multi-millionaires. And that's why some of the President's nods in that direction were so irritating last Thursday. Calling for a spending freeze on discretionary spending, without touching the exorbitant "security-related" budget (cute euphemism, that), is kabuki theater at best. And at worst, you're balancing the books at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. (I tend to agree with Candidate Obama on this issue anyway.)

Similarly, this deficit commission which the president plans to foist on Congress by executive order after the Senate killed it, is, again, at best kabuki theater and at worst trouble. It's clear to everyone involved that the entire point of this commission is CYA: i.e, to create political cover for raids on entitlement spending, while once again ignoring the grotesquely swollen defense budget. (Altho', to be fair, Secretary Gates has at least tried to rein in growth in this sector.) In other words, this commission will basically just be a chance for deficit peacocks to pretend they're Serious People and "make tough decisions," while in fact the one really tough idea that actually needs to be tackled -- reining in defense spending -- will be completely avoided.

In any event, all this discussion of the deficit ignores the larger problem. Obviously, one of the president's biggest charges coming into office was to restore economic sanity after eight years of Dubyaite excess. That being said, people were not looking to President Obama for this sort of deficit tsk-tsking and small-bore, fiddling around the margins. You'd think we Dems would have learned this by now. But curling up into a fetal position and mouthing moderate GOP-lite bromides will not stop the Republicans from kicking us, ever.

We have a Democratic president, an 18-seat majority in the Senate, and a 79-seat majority in the House. In short, we Dems need to keep thinking big or we will pay dearly at the polls this November. Perhaps the dysfunction of the Senate is the central problem Obama faces right now, but his speech nonetheless suggests that we're getting dangerously close to Eisenhower Republican territory now, and not even in the good "the military-industrial complex is completely frakked" kinda way. Without vision, the people perish. So too will our party, if we keep up with this thin gruel, triangulation schtick. At the advice of the careerist DLC-types over the years, we have tried this path several times over -- Put simply, it does not work.

"The whole thing basically went like that: Republican asks obnoxious question rooted in Glenn Beck-ian talking points; Obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. It got so bad, in fact, that Fox News cut away from the event before it was over."

My issues with the SotU notwithstanding, the president's sallying back-and-forth with House Republicans on Friday clearly indicate that, whatever our problems are within the party, the GOP are just not ready for prime-time right now. (I also get the sense that this will mark the definitive end of the Republican's goofy "teleprompter" meme.) [Full transcript.]

To his credit, the president made his political opponents seem like the blatantly hypocritical ideologues they in fact are. Which begs the "common ground" question once again: Why should we try to meet the "Party of No" halfway, particularly when we know that they move the goalposts every single time you try to take them seriously?

"I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is 'liberalism,' and they don't like what they see. I don't, either. What's they're seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That's a recipe for going nowhere fast -- but getting there by November."

I already said my piece about this last week, and was going to let it drop for now. But this long essay by Drew Westen on the problems with Obama's leadership so far is right on the nose and well worth-reading. "[W]hat Democrats just can't seem to understand is that the politics of the lowest common denominator is always a losing politics. It sends a meta-message that you're weak -- nothing more, nothing less -- and that's the cross the Democrats have had to bear since they 'lost China' 60 years ago. And in fact, it is weak."

"Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional 'centrists.' Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry."

A day after Senate Democrats kill Byron Dorgan's non-importation amendment in order to preserve the administration's back-door deal with Big Pharma, the indispensable Glenn Greenwald takes the Obama administration to task for the final Senate product on health care, which, suffice to say, is looking pretty far afield from the House bill. (And all the while, the bought and paid for Joe Lieberman grins like the Cheshire Cat.)

I was going to wait until year-in-review post week to put this up, but now's as good a time as any: From civil liberties to this Senate health care fiasco, it's hard to think of any arena where this administration's first year hasn't been a tremendous disappointment. (Regarding the former: I didn't mention this here earlier, but the brazen audacity of this passage from the president's war-is-peace Nobel Prize speech made me blanch: "We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard." Uh, your Justice Department is not upholding them, remember? Is the president even aware of his own civil liberties record?)

Anyway, I keep being reminded of this line from my Obama endorsement of January 2008: "There's a possibility -- maybe even a strong possibility -- that he'll end up a Tommy Carcetti-like president: a well-meaning reformer outmatched and buffeted to and fro by the entrenched forces arrayed against him." Well, welcome to the Carcetti presidency, y'all. The only surprise so far for many of us is in how little he's actually even tried to enact meaningful reforms. But I guess once the president surrounded himself with the exact same GOP-lite people we'd spent months trying to defeat in the Democratic primary, the writing should have been on the wall. This will not be change we can believe in. A New Day is not dawning. And the president is not really with us -- We're going to have to do the heavy lifting for reform next year without him.

"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."

This is a bit late by now, but regardless: As you all know, President Obama made the case last week for sending 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. At this point -- and like Fred Kaplan -- I'm conflicted about our continued involvement there...but I'm leaning toward withdrawal. Everything I've heard about the war lately has had that "Vietnam in '66" sense to it: A corrupt government as our ally; trouble winning "hearts and minds"; The US stepping half-blindly into a conflict that's been simmering for centuries (in Southeast Asia, it was the endless Vietnamese war against interlopers; here it's long-simmering ethnic rivalries between the Pashtuns and everyone else.) And now, our new progressive-minded president tells us: If we just commit X more troops (where, now X=30,000), we can win, close up shop, and go home. Uh, really? I think I've already seen this movie a few times.

Obama's shout-out above to basically token international support doesn't assuage my fears. And, as far as the threat posed by Vietnam: True, Tonkin never happened, but obviously policymakers of that era were less sanguine about a Communist victory in South Vietnam than we are today -- The threat of the Enemy can always gets unduly amplified in the heat of the moment. (Speaking of said Reds, it should sober us to acknowledge that all we've done so far in Afghanistan is basically manage to re-create the Soviet experience in the region. Iirc, that didn't end so well.)

Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, yes, and if we could weed them out and destroy their capacity to attack again, all the better. (And always remember: If Dubya, Rummy et al had just finished the job properly in 2002 rather than salivating over Iraq, we would be in a lot better position right now.) But Al Qaeda is also in Somalia, Tajikstan, Yemen, the Philippines, Kosovo...all over the place. We don't have the resources to play whack-a-mole in all these nations anymore, particularly when every whack usually just works to create new moles. (You'd think we learn that the Hydra sprouts two more heads every time you cut off the wrong one.)

The biggest argument in favor of increasing our military position in Afghanistan would be the continued stability of neighboring Pakistan. (There's Vietnam again -- it's another variation of the Domino Theory.) But, there's a good amount of evidence to suggest that more troop increases by us will only inflame the situation and further destabilize Pakistan. In which case, I'm not sure what we're doing over there, and what we could possibly accomplish in 18 months that we haven't gotten done the last seven years.

In short, it seems to me like we had our shot in Afghanistan, and Dubya blew it. I could be wrong, of course. But, to my mind, now feels like a good time to recognize that fact and stop chasing good money after bad.

"Obama needed to regain control quickly, and he started by jettisoning liberal positions he had been prepared to accept -- and had even okayed -- just weeks earlier." TIME's Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf examine the recent ousting of Greg Craig, a slow death by leaking, as a telling indicator of how the Obama administration has fallen so far astray on civil liberties. "[Obama] quietly shifted responsibility for the legal framework for counterterrorism from Craig to political advisers overseen by [Rahm] Emanuel, who was more inclined to strike a balance between left and right." Uh, what? As Nick Baumann points out in Mother Jones, what business do the politicos have in overseeing legal matters? That's rather Rovian, isn't it?

On target as usual, Salon's Glenn Greenwald puts this Craig story and the KSM trial into broader perspective: "As even Time now recognizes, many of the policies once widely declared by Democrats to be a grave threat to the Constitution are now explicitly adopted by the Obama administration. And it's flatly inconsistent to invoke 'the rule of law' to defend Obama's decision to give trials to a few Guantanamo detainees without pointing out that he's violating that very same precept by denying trials to so many." (Pic via the MJ article linked above.)

"Holder has fallen prey to the sort of magical legal thinking that seeps through the whole CIA report: the presumption that if there's a legal memo, it must be legal...In other words, we are now protecting the good-faith torturers. That isn't just wrong, it's outrageous. It ratifies the most toxic aspect of the whole legal war on terror: that anything becomes permissible if it's served up with a side of memo. Paper your misconduct with footnotes and justifications--even after the fact--and you can do as you please."

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick explains the fundamental problem with the Justice Department's new inquiry into Dubya-era torture: "Pretending we are investigating and curtailing a torture program isn't all that different from pretending we didn't torture in the first place."

Meanwhile -- hold on to your hats, people -- Slate's Tim Noah discovers that Dick Cheney hasn't been entirely truthful about what's in the theoretically exculpatory CIA memos. "Portions have been redacted, so perhaps the evidence Cheney claims that enhanced interrogation saved American lives has been blacked out. But judging from what's visible to the naked eye, the documents do not provide anything like the vindication that Cheney claims." (Of course, even if they did provide said vindication, the question of whether or not torture is effective -- 24 notwithstanding, we're pretty sure it isn't -- is a completely separate question from whether or not torture is legal -- it isn't.)

"Instead, constructivists would posit that the zombie problem is what we make of it. That is to say, there are a number of possible emergent norms in response to zombies. Sure, there's the Hobbesian 'kill or be killed' end game that does seem to be quite popular in the movies. But there could be a Kantian "pluralistic anti-Zombie" community that bands together and breaks down nationalist divides in an effort to establish a world state."

Following up on this recent mathematical modeling study confirming the dire global ramifications of a zombie outbreak (naturally, the talk-radio right remains unconvinced), Daniel Drezner ponders the responses of various IR schools to World War Z. "Now, some would dispute whether neoconservatism is a systemic argument, but let's posit that it's a coherent IR theory...clearly, neoconservatives would argue, zombies hate us for our freedom not to eat other humans' brains."

As many readers here well know, I've spent a good bit of time over the past decade studying US history. (In fact, over the past few years, I've occasionally helped my advisor keep a textbook up to date that recently drew the ire of right-wing blowhard Bill O'Reilly. Apparently, those damn pesky facts were somehow mitigating O'Reilly's ability to spew forth the usual idiotic blather.)

Anyway, over that period of time, I believe I have in fact learned me a few things. So, as a public service of sorts, and because, after this morning's revelations, I've reached the limit of craven and/or patently stupid falsehoods that I can feasibly ingest over so short a time, some "U.S. History for Dummies." I expect most everyone who comes by this site with any frequency knows all this, but ya never know. Apologies for the didacticism in advance -- if this were this a Coors Light commercial, this would be where i vent. (And thanks to Lia for the timely visual tax lesson, above.)

The Tea Party: As you no doubt know, the Boston Tea Party of 1773 was recently appropriated by FOX News and the conservative group Freedomworks to simulate a widespread popular uprising against high taxes. (In other words, it was an "astroturf," rather than a grass-roots, movement.) And, yes, the inconvenient fact that President Obama and the Democratic Congress actually lowered income taxes for 95% of Americans earlier this year didn't seem to dissuade them from trying to jury-rig some rather dubious anti-tax ramparts and gin up enough disgruntled FOX-watchers to man them.

At any rate, as most people remember from high school, the original 1773 Tea Party was not a protest against high taxes or high prices at all. (In fact, legally imported tea -- i.e. that of the East India Company, which was both suffering serious setbacks over in India and losing market share to smuggled Dutch tea at the time -- was actually cheaper in the colonies after the Tea Act, since it was now exempt from the usual obligations.)

In small part a reaction of the East India's commercial rivals to this sweetheart deal, the Boston Tea Party was mainly held to uphold the principle of No taxation without representation. Which I don't think I need to explain. So, with the minor exception of DC-area conservatives who attended the tea gathering in Washington (without crossing over from Virginia or Maryland), the, uh, "teabaggers" don't really have a leg to stand on here. This is particularly true after you consider that both ruthless gerrymandering and the vagaries of the Electoral College (I'm looking at you, Wyoming) actually tend to lead to over-representation of conservative Republicans in our halls of governance, even despite heavy losses for the "Grand Old Party" in 2006 and 2008.

The "Right" of Secession: Apparently, Rick Perry, the right-wing governor of Texas, really wants to keep his job. As such, he's scared stiff of the forthcoming primary challenge by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who happens to be much more popular than he is among Texas Republicans. So, to sow up his "activist" (re: freak show) bona fides, this desperate fellow has been doing anything and everything he possibly can to prostrate himself before the paranoid ultra-right, including appearing before the current poobahs of the GOP's lunatic fringe, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. As you no doubt know, this recently culminated in Gov. Perry's upholding Texas' right to secede before a crowd of rabid teabaggers. Said the Governor: ""We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that..."

Well, in fact, no state in the Union has any legal right to secede. (Not even Texas.) The existence of such a right was posited and debated quite often in the early years of the republic: by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, by the members of the Hartford Convention, by South Carolina's philosopher-politician John C. Calhoun, and countless others.

But the illegality of secession was eventually confirmed -- in blood -- when eleven states attempted to pull out of the Union in 1861, due mainly to differing opinions on the institution of slavery and its expansion into the western territories. As a result of this insurrection by the southern states, a violent conflict broke out, which we call the Civil War. It lasted four years, and it was kind of a big deal.

Prior to the war, the states of the Confederacy believed secession to be their natural right, while those remaining in the Union believed it to be tantamount to an act of treason. With the Union victory in that conflict, and the subsequent readmittance of southern states in such a manner that reaffirmed that no right of secession exists, the question was settled. So it remains to this day.

Waterboarding, Torture, and "Just Following Orders": In the wake of recent revelations, there's been a renewed push among certain conservatives to laugh off waterboarding as not being constitutive of torture. (See also Rush Limbaugh's fratboy defense of Abu Ghraib a few years ago.) But (as even John McCain concedes), in the years after World War II, there was no question among Americans that waterboarding is torture. In fact, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes for waterboarding American GIs and Filipino prisoners. When you think about it, it's not really a tough call.

Another argument we've heard lately -- today Sen. McCain made it with his usual comrades-in-arms, Sens. Lieberman and Graham, while trying to protect Dubya's lawyers -- is that the CIA officials who actually conducted these recent acts of torture should be exempt from prosecution, because they were following the legal dictates of those higher-up in the administration. (To follow the reasoning around the circle, the torturers should be exempt because they were listening to the lawyers, and the lawyers should be exempt because they didn't do the actual torturing. Cute.)

Anyway, whatever you think of the merits of this argument, this is usually referred to as the Nuremberg defense, and it is in fact no defense at all. Argues Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles, devised by the Allies after WWII to determine what constituted a war crime: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Insert "CIA interrogator" for person in that last sentence and you can pretty much see the problem.

Is America a Christian Nation?: At the end of his recent European tour, President Obama told an audience in Turkey the following: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." This statement -- well the "not a Christian nation" part of it, at least -- prompted no small amount of consternation from the porcine-moralist wing of the GOP -- James Dobson, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and sundry other freaks of the industry -- all of whom fell over themselves to proclaim to the Heavens and preach to the FOX News choir that, yes, Virginia, America is a glorious Christian nation.

America is not a Christian nation. This will be patently obvious to anyone who's ever heard the phrase "separation of church and state." Unlike, say, England, America does not have and has never had an official, established church. This is very much by design. For proof of this not-very-radical claim, see the very first clause of the very first amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If that doesn't do it for you, see George Washington's famous 1790 letter to the Jewish residents of Newport, Rhode Island. "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Or consider that Thomas Jefferson skipped his presidency on his tombstone to make room for his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." (We could also make mention of the Jefferson Bible, but let's start slow.)

Is the reasoning here too circuitous for Rove, Gingrich, et al to follow? Ok, then, here's the cheat sheet: the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, passed by a Congress of our Founders without declaim and signed into law by President John Adams. It begins: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Did y'all catch it this time? Good, let's move on.

A Smile for Chávez: Our new president also attended the Summit of the Americas recently, at which he was photographed smiling and shaking hands with Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chávez, a particular bête noire of the right who has said all manner of unpleasant things about America over the past few years.

After the picture was taken, conservatives went predictably livid, with Matt Drudge headlining the offending photograph with the usual red text, Dick Cheney deeming Obama "a weak president" on FOX News, and Gingrich arguing that it made Obama look "weak like Carter." "We didn't rush over, smile and greet Russian dictators," said Newt, and he wasn't the only potential 2012'er aghast at Obama's behavior. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada called the president "irresponsible" and the consistently shameless Mitt Romney painted Obama a "timid advocate for freedom".

Um, ok. Well, let's see here...

I could go on. With regards to that last one -- Reagan yukking it up with Mikhail Gorbachev, then of "the evil Empire" -- it didn't take long before (surprise) Newt was caught in a contradiction. Apparently, Gingrich had previously argued on his website that Ronald Reagan's good humor with Gorby was a sign of strength, not weakness.

Speaking of which, as Lawrence O'Donnell noted on MSNBC the other day, saintly old Ronald Reagan didn't just smile and shake hands with America's enemies. His administration sold them weapons under the table. So, please, assorted puddin'-heads of the GOP talkocracy, spare me your warmed-over tripe about poor diplomacy and weak leadership. As with everything else above, I've swallowed enough of your swill over the past few weeks to last me a lifetime.

"The Times article, based on information from former intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding." Perusing last week's sordid torture memos, eagle-eyed blogger Marcy Wheeler discovered an unsettling statistic: two suspects -- Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- were waterboarded by the CIA 266 times. Zubaydah "revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been 'unnecessary' in his case."

Meanwhile, as right-wing stooges like former CIA director Michael Hayden and Mike Allen's anonymous friend excoriate the president for breaking tradition and revealing the illegalities of the Dubya era, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel ventured onto the Sunday shows to tamp down talk of any prosecutions, even for the higher-ups. "[P]eople in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted...those who devised policy, he [Obama] believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter."

Wrong answer, Rahm. And, unless President Obama were to grant full pardons to the architects of Dubya-era torture, it's not even his call whether or not they should be prosecuted. In fact, choosing not to prosecute them would constitute a violation of international law.

Update: The White House doesn't necessarily agree with Rahm. "[A]dministration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale. Three Bush administration lawyers who signed memos, John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury, are the subjects of a coming report by the Justice Department's ethics office that officials say is sharply critical of their work. The ethics office has the power to recommend disbarment or other professional penalties or, less likely, to refer cases for criminal prosecution."

Update 2: "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that." President Obama opens the door further for prosecution.

"You asked me once," said O'Brien, "what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." The door opened again. A guard came in, carrying something made of wire, a box or basket of some kind. He set it down on the further table. Because of the position in which O'Brien was standing, Winston could not see what the thing was. "The worst thing in the world," said O'Brien, "varies from individual to individual. It may be burial alive, or death by fire, or by drowning, or by implement, or fifty other deaths. There are cases where it is some quite trivial thing, not even fatal...In your case," said O'Brien, "the worst thing in the world happens to be rats."

And, sometimes, here in our own Room 101, it's insects. As breaking everywhere this afternoon, the President authorizes the release of four long-awaited CIA memos that detail the rationalizing and application of Bush-era torture policies. [No. 1 | No. 2, No. 3a/3b | 4a/4b.] And, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald notes, they seem to suggest that even the parties-that-be knew what they were doing constituted torture. ("Each year, in the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the United States condemns coercive interrogation techniques and other practices employed by other countries. Certain of the techniques the United States has condemned appear to bear resemblance to some of the CIA interrogation techniques...The State Department's inclusion of nudity, water dousing, sleep deprivation, and food deprivation among the conduct it condemns is significant and provides some indication of an executive foreign relations tradition condemning the use of these techniques.") But, they approved these already-condemned practices as legal anyway, with the caveat that they "cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion." Yeah, you think?

Well, let's hope the courts get a chance to decide either way. While releasing these documents today, Pres. Obama and Attorney General Holder also made clear that the CIA interrogators involved will not be prosecuted for these acts. "'It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department,' he said in a statement." Um, I'm of the opinion that it would be unfair to get strung up in a, cough, "stress position" by a bunch of Cheney-authorized CIA yahoos and then see no legal recourse for it. (And, hey, "just following orders" -- what a novel legal defense. Who were the ad wizards that came up with that one?)

On the other hand, as the WP points out: "Today's carefully worded statement left open the possibility, however, that agents and higher-level officials who may have ventured beyond the strategies approved by Bush lawyers could face legal jeopardy for their actions." That still closes too many legal doors, imho. The strategies approved by Bush lawyers are horrible -- and illegal -- enough. But, at least we can still hold out the minute possibility that the real, top-level architects of Dubya-era torture policy will face some sort of prosecution for their crimes, above and beyond their inevitable condemnation in the history books. (President Obama may argue that "[t]his is a time for reflection, not retribution," but, the law is the law. And, as he should know, pardoning Nixon didn't do Gerald Ford any favors.)

Either way, let's be clear: These memos prove beyond a shadow of a doubt -- as if there were any doubt left -- that it was the stated and directed policy of the Dubya-era CIA to engage in acts they knew to be torture. That is unacceptable, completely antithetical to our ideals, and exceedingly worthy of a criminal investigation. If, in the name of national unity or CIA morale or whatever, the president wants to give a pass to the flunkies who actually held the victims down as they flailed, choked, or writhed in agony...well, that just means somebody else higher-up has to pay. Fine. But, if the rule of law means anything anymore, and I believe it does, the people responsible must be held to account.

"Even for the hardest-core Obama loyalists, it's rather difficult to attribute these increasingly harsh condemnations of Obama's civil liberties, secrecy and executive power abuses to bad motives or ignorance when they're coming from the likes of Russ Feingold, Talking Points Memo, the Center for American Progress, Nancy Pelosi, EFF, the ACLU, The New York Times Editorial Board, Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, The American Prospect, Bruce Fein, Digby, along with some of the most enthusiastic Obama supporters and a bevvy of liberal law professors and international law experts -- those who were most venerated by progressives during the Bush era on questions of the Constitution and executive power."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald surveys the growing progressive consensus that something is rotten at Holder's DOJ with regard to state secrets and the continuation of Bush-era policies antithetical to, if not downright contemptuous of, civil liberties. (In case you missed it here or here, I'm not happy either.) "That the Obama DOJ has repeatedly embraced the very legal theories responsible for much of the intense progressive rage towards the Bush/Cheney regime is now beyond dispute. The question of motive -- of why Obama is doing this -- is far less clear."

Now, obviously, the president has a lot on his plate these days, and a finite amount of political capital with which to achieve an enormous number of objectives. Still, it's well past time that the administration explain what's going on on the civil liberties front from start to finish, akin to Obama's economic overview speech at Georgetown this morning. These are not piddling matters.

We are its leaders. We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's give a trillion. "Mr. Brown, who organized the meeting in a hangarlike conference center in London, said: 'This is the day the world came together to fight against the global recession. Our message today is clear and certain: we believe that global problems require global solutions.'"

In the meantime, Slate's Fred Kaplan applauds the return of real, honest-to-goodness American statecraft in London. "Vast multinational conferences, like the G20 summit...are useful mainly for the 'bilaterals' -- the one-on-one side-room conversations -- and, in these forums, President Barack Obama is living up to high expectations. Which is to say, the United States seems to be returning to diplomatic basics -- a development that in the wake of the last eight years is practically revolutionary."

At the very least, the president's diplomatic mojo seemed to work on Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. "'Yesterday I spoke about this with my new comrade President Barack Obama,' Medvedev told reporters travelling with him to the London summit...'I liked the talks. It is easy to talk to him. He can listen. The start of this relationship is good,' he said, adding: 'Today it's a totally different situation (compared to Bush).'"

"It's a debate that the Bush administration never seriously had in the seven years following the post-9/11 invasion. Now, by contrast, in the wake of three major strategic reviews, Obama is extending and deepening the discussion of Afghanistan, because the outcome of this debate may set the course of American foreign policy for the remainder of his presidency." Counter-terrorism (CT) or counter-insurgency (COIN)? In Slate, Fred Kaplan discusses the major decision on Afghanistan before Obama this week.

Update: "'We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,' Obama said. 'That is the goal that must be achieved.'" The president announces our new Af-Pak strategy. Sounds like the COINS won out. Update 2: Or did they? Call it CT-plus.

"'I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility,' Clinton told reporters accompanying her to Mexico City a day after the Obama administration said it would send more money, technology and manpower to secure the Southwestern frontier and help Mexico battle the cartels." During a visit to our ailing neighbor, Secretary of State Clinton admits American culpability in the exacerbating of Mexico's drug war. "'Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,' she said. 'Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians... Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity... to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible,' she said.'That's not right.'"

Well, cheers to Sec. Clinton for being honest about some of the causes of Mexico's escalating drug violence. Still, in pledging tighter borders, more troops, yadda yadda yadda, she and the administration are still dancing around one of the more obvious solutions to the problem.

"Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? The Obama administration and Holder Justice Dept. uphold Dubya's dubious use of a "state secrets" privilege to put the kibosh on a lawsuit put forward by five men "extraordinarily rendered" by the CIA.

See also a livid Glenn Greenwald for the details: "The entire claim of 'state secrets' in this case is based on two sworn Declarations from CIA Director Michael Hayden -- one public and one filed secretly with the court. In them, Hayden argues that courts cannot adjudicate this case because to do so would be to disclose and thus degrade key CIA programs of rendition and interrogation -- the very policies which Obama, in his first week in office, ordered shall no longer exist. How, then, could continuation of this case possibly jeopardize national security when the rendition and interrogation practices which gave rise to these lawsuits are the very ones that the U.S. Government, under the new administration, claims to have banned?"

Update: Sensing the likely blowback, one presumes, the Justice Dept. announces it'll be reviewing Dubya's "state secrets" claims in due course. "It's vital that we protect information that if released could jeopardize national security, but the Justice Department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know." So apparently, the ugly details of our now-defunct(?) extraordinary rendition policy aren't among the actions we should have any clue about. Ugh...this one definitely goes in the Carcetti file.

"It is precisely our ideals which give us the strength and moral high ground to deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorism organizations around the world...We are going to win this fight, we are going to win it on our terms." As hinted soon after the election, it's finally on its way out: One day after putting a hold on all Gitmo tribunals, the president orders the closing of the national embarrassment at Guantanamo within the year.

"[T]he orders [also] bring to an end a Central Intelligence Agency program that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists. They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said."

And there was much rejoicing! We can all breathe a little easier and stand a little taller now that America is actually starting to act like America again. (And, trust me, I won't shed any tears over dropping the gulag and torture news category here at GitM.)

Btw, the "new sheriff in town" pic above is via The Big Picture's very worthwhile inaugural collection, as seen at Webgoddess.