Us politics

New Majority points out another reason why Obama should have politely told the Nobel Peace prize committee that he would rather they didn’t award him the prize: “The Nobel Committee has created a pretty little problem for White House counsel Greg Craig this morning. The value of the gift is $1.4 million. Technically, it’s a “Foreign Official Gift,” so it has to be retained by the U.S. government. Donating the money to charity will be very difficult, because first the gift will have to pass through the president’s hands -and the law requires that he must spend $1.4 million of his own money to buy the $1.4 million from the

The discovery that Iran’s regime has, yet again, deceived the international community and secretly built an additional nuclear facility has made world leaders re-focus on the issue. On Friday, the US, UK and France said the UN had to be given immediate access and urged tough new sanctions. Even Russia expressed concern. Today, the Iranian regime’s  response came. According to Ali Akbar Salehi, who heads the Atomic Energy Organisation, Iran will keep its uranium enrichment level at up to five percent – much lower than bomb-grade. “We don’t want to change the arrangement of five-percent enrichment merely to produce 150 to 300 kilos of 20-percent (enriched) fuel,” ILNA news agency

The ‘Appeal to Conscience’ World Statesman of the Year ought to be treated with more respect, otherwise the award becomes a mockery. The news that President Obama rebuffed the PM’s requests for bilateral talks at the UN or G20 meetings capped a dreadful day for Gordon Brown. A White House spokesman told the BBC: “Any stories that suggest trouble in the bilateral relationship between the US and UK are totally absurd.” To imply that the ‘special relationship is on the rocks is exaggeration, but there’s no doubt that Obama, who held bilateral talks with the leaders of China, Russia and Japan, departed from the Bush administration’s Anglo-American axis. The President

The New York Times reports that President Obama has re-opened internal debate about Afghan policy, suggesting that he is going to u-turn from the counter-insurgency strategy that he announced in March. It seems that Joe Biden, who lost the policy argument last time round, might win out with his argument that, “Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.” If Obama were to adopt this strategy, it would put

So, the report written by ISAF commander, Stanley McChrystal, to President Obama on NATO’s Afghan mission has been published. It does not contain a request for more US troops, but most analysts think it is only a matter of time before a request is sent from Kabul. In the recently-published report, McChrystal says: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.” But serious changes will be required. These will have to address what McChrystal calls “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials.” The US general also admits “ISAF’s own errors”. Bear in mind, though, that the report was

Bob Woodward has the scoop that General McChrystal’s review of Afghan strategy calls for more troops. McChrystal is direct, stating that “ISAF requires more forces” and that “inadequate resources will likely result in failure”. He is also clear that these troops are needed now, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” McChrystal has yet to present his request for more troops to the Pentagon but it is clear that he will ask the administration for considerably more troops. Obama now has to decide whether

Those who think that the financial bailout in the US was rushed through without sufficient thought and that the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had far too much latitude will find plenty of ammunition in a tell-all book by a former Bush speechwriter, Matt Latimer. Latimer worked in the White House in the final two years of the Bush administration and the extract from his book in GQ gives a sense of the confusion as the administration tried to deal with the crisis. What is most revealing to me is how even the president didn’t know what the bailout was trying to do: “the president was clearly confused about how the

Last night’s “tribute in light” for the victims of the World Trade Center attack on September 11th, 2001.

This tale from Ted Kennedy’s autobiography, to be posthumously published later this month, is classic Reagan and an illustration of what made him such an able politician: ‘The senator said it had been difficult to get Reagan to focus on policy matters. He described a meeting with him that he and other senators had sought to press for shoe and textile import limits. The senators were told that they would have just 30 minutes with the president. Reagan began the meeting, the book said, commenting on Mr. Kennedy’s shoes — asking if they were Bostonians — and then talking for 20 minutes about shoes and his experience selling shoes for

In most discussions about what would happen following a strike on Iran it is taken as a given that the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz, through which 90 percent of Persian Gulf oil exports pass. The thinking goes that this would lead to a huge spike in world oil prices. But an interesting article in the new issue of Foreign Policy argues that it would be far harder for Iran to close the Straits than is commonly assumed. It points out that oil tankers can travel through 20 miles of the Straits rather than just the 4 mile official channel, that oil tankers are actually not that vulnerable

A great spot by Tim Montgomerie over at ConservativeHome, who highlights this Wall Street Journal graphic on the words that both sides of the US healthcare debate should be using to score a rhetorical advantage.  For instance, it suggests that the pro-Obama team should say “rules” rather than “regulations”, while the President’s opponents should attack the system for being “too profit-driven” and “too bureaucratic”: As Tim says, words have power.  Indeed, over the past decade, the fiscal debate was partially