Debates about national security always fascinate me, because almost without exception nobody bothers to define the term itself. This, to me, is a key feature of any debate about national security versus the people's right to know what their government is doing in their name -- such as the one currently raging over whether to publicly release thousands of photographs of detainee abuse. But the definition of "national security" is always conspicuous in its absence in the debate. Which allows the government to get away with using two definitions of the term interchangeably, when only one should be legally allowed.

Read Complete Article »

When I wrote yesterday's column ("What, Exactly, Was Pelosi Supposed To Do?") I expected a certain amount of debate, but I had no idea what direction it would take (which is the whole fun of the blogosphere). To be perfectly honest, I thought some Pelosi defenders would take me to task for being too hard on her.

Read Complete Article »

Listening to the news over the past week, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi was personally responsible for torturing prisoners. Because that's how the storyline seemed, if you had just beamed in from Mars and didn't know anything else about the debate on prisoner interrogation. The problem is, we have not just arrived on this planet, and Nancy Pelosi will ultimately wind up in the history books with a footnote (if that) in the description of what took place under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But her critics in the past few days have remarkably failed to answer a very basic question (not that the media is really asking, but maybe they'll get around to it) -- what, exactly, was Nancy Pelosi supposed to do?

Read Complete Article »

I have to start by saying that in all honesty, President Obama and the Democrats didn't have a great week.

Read Complete Article »

President Obama recently reversed his position on an appellate court ruling which orders the release of hundreds of torture photos, and is now saying he will fight the decision. Since the court in this case is already a federal appellate court, this would seem to mean that the Obama administration will file an appeal with the Supreme Court. The practical effect of this filing will be to delay any action until October, when the court's next session begins. And since the court does not rule immediately in most instances, it will likely delay it at least until the end of the year. This leads to the question of whether this delay is precisely the desired outcome for Obama -- six months of breathing room on the matter.

Read Complete Article »

America is approaching an important date for our military involvement in Iraq. By the end of next month, American combat forces are supposed to pull out of Iraqi cities. Little attention has been paid to this first withdrawal deadline in the American media, but as the date gets closer hopefully they'll realize what is about to happen. Because the next phase of America's military presence in Iraq could determine how fast President Obama can draw down the total number of American troops in the country.

Read Complete Article »

The intraparty struggle within the Democratic Party over what exactly to do with Arlen Specter now seems to have been worked out. For the time being, at least, Specter will not get to keep his overall seniority (which was apparently promised him by Majority Leader Harry Reid), but as a consolation prize will chair the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee, part of the Judiciary Committee he used to chair as a Republican. This struggle may wind up being re-fought after the 2010 election, but for the next year and a half the dust appears to have settled on the issue.

Read Complete Article »

Another "big news" number is the percent of people who think things in the country "are generally going in the right direction" versus "have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track." The scores of 50 percent for "right track" and 48 percent for "wrong track" don't sound all that impressive, until you compare them to preceding polls. Just before Obama was sworn in, those numbers were 19 percent "right track" and 78 percent "wrong track." Just before the election last year, the "right track" number was an abysmal eight percent, with ninety percent responding "wrong track." Right track numbers haven't topped fifty percent since 2003. That is a stunning turnaround, for only 100 days in office.

Read Complete Article »

I admit, I am getting the jump on the rest of the media here, by writing my "First 100 Days" article six days early (some would say five days early, but they would be wrong). I have jumped this particular gun already, I should point out, having already written one article (after Obama's first week in office) entitled "Obama's First 168 Hours." So today we are going to pre-empt the usual Friday Talking Points article this week with a special edition on President Obama's "First 100 Days," since everyone will be talking about it starting this weekend.

Read Complete Article »

Welcome back to my pre-emptive strike on the thousands of journalists preparing their "Obama's 100 Days" articles for next week. How many of them will count wrong and publish one day early (his first day in office, depending on how you measure, ended at noon 1/21/09)? Time will tell. So while I will be publishing my own take on "Obama's First 94 Days" tomorrow, we continue today with a look back at President Obama's immediate predecessors. Yesterday's article examined Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan's first 100 days (and how they were seen at the time in the media). Today we take a look at George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Read Complete Article »