Obama Speaks on Energy Security March 31

Obama and Karzai in Afghanistan

Update March 31: See video of Obama's speech on expanding offshore drilling here.

Obama will speak on energy security at 11:05 am eastern.

It will be live audio streamed here.

Later, the Obamas will host a workplace flexibility forum at the White House. Michelle Obama will launch the forum at 1:15 pm and Obama will close out the session with remarks at 4:15 pm.
The forum will also be live streamed at WhiteHouse.gov.

In between, Obama will sign a proclamation in honor of Cesar Chavez Day (2:40 pm) and Michelle Obama kicks off spring planting in the White House garden (4 pm).

In the meantime, here are some more awesome photos from Pete Souza:

Seder at the White House
Obama and Karzai at dinner
Obama's visit with troops in Afghanistan
Obama rallying the troops

Obama in Afghanistan Live Stream March 28

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

Obama Touches Down in Afghanistan March 28

Update: See Obama's speech to the troops here.

Obama plans to speak to troops at the Bagram Air Base:

President Obama landed in the dark at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan this morning after a secret, 13-hour flight from Washington. He's scheduled to meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his cabinet, then spend some time with U.S. troops. He's expected to leave the country before the Afghan sunrise, and be back in Washington early Monday.

The unannounced visit comes as the U.S. and allied forces consolidate their hold on the territory surrounding Marjah and prepare for a bigger battle in Kandahar — the birthplace and spiritual home of the Taliban.

National Security Adviser Jim Jones describes this as a "strategic moment" in the Afghan conflict, in which coalition forces are beginning to implement the president's new strategy for the region. The meeting with Karzai is intended to impress on the Afghan leader the role his government has to play in rooting out corruption, battling narco-traffickers, and building credible government services in the countryside. More at NPR

According to CBS' Mark Knoller, Obama left Andrews AFB at 10:55 pm eastern.

Obama was met on arrival at Bagram Air Base by US Amb. Karl Eikenberry and top US Commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

He also tweets:

US officials say Obama will stress need for more progess against corruption, narco-trafficking & merit-based appointment of officials.

Obama welcomed in Afghanistan:

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

Obama Says Afghanistan Decision Coming in Weeks

Obama says after the election it was important to reassess the situation in Afghanistan. That's what's going on now with the deliberations. The main mission is to root out Al Qaeda, Obama says. The U.S. is also interested in stabilizing the region, including Pakistan, and helping achieve peace and prosperity.

Response to Obama's Afghanistan Update

Obama met with congressional leaders today to give them an update on Afghanistan.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, John McCain respond:

The long version:

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

Liz Cheney Critiques Obama on Afghanistan

In her own unique way, Liz Cheney, nearly as bad as dad, criticizes Obama on Afghanistan. She says Obama's going against his own strategy. No. Obama is rethinking strategy given new information. Cheney can't even keep up with her own argument.

Then she says the loss of the Olympics led to the loss of "American prestige." America lost the world's respect under her father's leadership. Liz Cheney lives in a bubble.

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

McCain Says Jim Jones Was Wrong in Iraq

Thousands of troops are at stake and McCain and the war mongers have made Afghanistan a political thing. By publicly saying more troops is the only way in Afghanistan, McChrystal has over stepped his bounds.
McCain, who agrees with McChrystal, thinks he's right as always. The surge! The surge! The surge! McCain may be right. But he's not the president. McCain then goes on to say Jim Jones was wrong on Iraq. Nice dig. What's his point? That Jones is always wrong? On Sunday's Face the Nation, Jones said that the president should be presented with options on Afghanistan.

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

Obama Speaks at National Counterterrorism Center Oct. 6

Updated Oct. 6 with speech:

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

Obama will speak at 11:40 am eastern at the National Counterterrorism Center in D.C., according to Robert Gibbs. The speech is likely to be live streamed at cnn.com, msnbc.com or whitehouse.gov. Later, Obama will update Congressmembers on Afghanistan (see who's on the list)
Wednesday, Oct. 7, Obama will award the National Medal of Science and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation to a number of people. Later, Obama meets with his national security team. In the evening, Obama will mix it up with middle grade students, teachers and scientists at the White House.

On Saturday, Oct. 10, Obama will speak at Human Rights Campaign national dinner:

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, announced today that President Barack Obama will deliver the keynote address at the 13th Annual National Dinner on Saturday, October 10th, in Washington, D.C. U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy will also present the first-ever Edward M. Kennedy National Leadership Award to Judy and Dennis Shepard. The award is named in honor of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), a champion in the fight for LGBT equality.

“We are honored to share this night with President Obama, who has called upon our nation to embrace LGBT people as brothers and sisters,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “It is fitting that he will speak to our community on the night that we pay tribute to his friend and mentor Senator Edward Kennedy, who knew that as president, Barack Obama would take on the unfinished business of this nation – equal rights for the LGBT community, and for every person who believes in liberty and justice for all.”

Today's press briefing:

Gates on Speaking Candidly Yet Privately

Speaking today at the Association of the United States Army, Gates talked about speaking privately:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appeared to subtly rebuke America’s top commander in Afghanistan on Monday for publicly speaking out against calls for scaling back the war effort there.

“I believe the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency, so it is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right,” Mr. Gates said at a gathering here.

“And in this process,” Mr. Gates went on, “it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilians and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.” Read more at the NYT

More of the speech if you're so inclined:

McChrystal Put Obama in a Tight Spot

Gen. Stanley McChrystal was supposed to use the chain of command to communicate with Obama, not make documents available to be leaked to Bob Woodward and make speeches in London. McChrystal should've known that, politically speaking, John McCain and the neoconservative war mongers are going to have a cow if the U.S. doesn't send more troops. What McChrystal did was make Afghanistan a political football. In real life, McChrystal should be fired.
Why did McChrystal undermine the Commander in Chief? That's what I want to know. What role is McCain playing?

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

Gibbs doesn't diss McChrystal as much as the press presses. One thing that's off the table--withdrawal from Afghanistan.

McChrystal's Foot Soldiers

I remember when no one was minding Afghanistan, including the media. About a month ago, I could barely find a story on Afghanistan, except in a publication such as Foreign Policy.
Now, Afghanistan has become a political football. Republicans don't miss a beat when it comes to exploitation.
Something's definitely awry with Stanley McChrystal, who seems like a decent guy but somehow thinks he landed the job as Commander in Chief.
Morally speaking, I think we've done too much damage in Afghanistan to leave the people behind. That would be my only argument for staying. But there are the moral implications of war itself and more troops in Afghanistan is going to equal more death.
Read McChrystal's assessment on Afghanistan here (the so-called leaked document). It's actually different than what you might expect. He's all about helping the people. He also writes things like "resources won't win this war but under-resourcing will lose it." What's that supposed to mean? That the war is never winnable? What is a "winnable" war anyway?
Meanwhile, the naysayers and critics will keep yapping until Obama announces the new strategy for the region.
Here's Rep. Bill Shuster, a republican, who's promoting McChrystal in an interview with BBC.

McChrystal promoted his plan in London:

Obama's Toughest Decision

Two schools of thought on Afghanistan:

Now, as Americans debate whether or not to double down in Afghanistan, it’s striking how opinion is divided not according to left and right, or hawk and dove, but rather by the difference between the Wilsonian “what we must do” and the Kennanite “what we can do.”
Stephen Holmes, a left-leaning law professor at New York University, recently wrote a critique of General McChrystal’s plan that almost exactly echoed Will/Kennan: “Turning an illegitimate government into a legitimate one is simply beyond the capacities of foreigners, however wealthy or militarily unmatched.”

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a hawkish Democrat, has reportedly urged the president to devote less of the country’s energies to Afghanistan in order to apply them where they will do the most good — Pakistan. On the other hand, advocates of the proposed new strategy, like Peter Bergen, an expert on Islamic terrorism, invoke America’s “obligation” to the Afghan people and the strategic catastrophe that would come of ceding the country to the Taliban. One side reasons from the means, the other from the ends.

In the real world, of course, the distinction between these two very different dispositions is a fluid one. After all, in a true war of necessity, like World War II, a state and a people summon the capacity to do what must be done, no matter how difficult. So the objective question at the heart of the current debate is whether the battle for Afghanistan represents such a war, or whether — like those for Vietnam or Iraq — the problem that it presents can be solved by less bloody and costly means. NYT

Former NPR reporter Sarah Chayes, who runs the Arghand Cooperative in Afghanistan, has her own plan for Afghanistan. Chayes says resources should be focused on the people and the taliban should be rendered irrelevant. In this recent speech (in Sept.) at the University of Nebraska, Chayes said she's worried that Afghanistan will get left behind. She says it would be a mistake if the U.S. left Afghanistan. Chayes says the U.S. can't just be there to chase Al Qaeda. She also says Afghanistan needs more troops but they have to be used in a different way.

In August, Chayes said she bought five voter registration cards:

Jim Jones on Face the Nation Oct. 4

Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Ike Skelton and General Anthony Zinni talk about the coming decision on Afghanistan. Levin says we don't need more troops. Zinni says hurry up with the troops. It's too bad politics has to play a part in something as important as sending our troops to war:

David Gregory Interview With John McCain

John McCain talks about the minute by minute news cycle, which helps leads to a polarized nation, which makes it more difficult to govern.
McCain talks about a little bit of everything, including his thoughts on Sarah Palin's new book.
McCain says we haven't "won" in Afghanistan because we had all of our resources in Iraq. For background on Afghanistan, McCain recommends the book "Ghost Wars." Okay. I'll check it out.
On Iran, McCain says we should apply passive pressure for regime change. I think we should support the Iranian people but only Iranians can change their leadership. And they will. And we can support them as they do.
Modern day communism works for China. Communism works for Cuba. We can co-exist with other nations without them being exactly like us.
McCain paints a pretty picture of the republicans. He makes it sound like they want to negotiate and work with Obama. McCain may want to work with Obama, but most republicans don't.
This interview took place Oct. 1 at the Atlantic's First Draft of History forum. There is a Q&A session at the end with questions coming from the audience:

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

Obama's Options in Afghanistan

Obama may be waiting for the Afghanistan election to be resolved, says Alex Thier, Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the US Institute of Peace. Normal people talk in quiet voices (not screaming talking heads) about Obama's decision:

McChrystal might change his mind about more troops:

In a lengthy telephone interview, retired Gen. James L. Jones outlined Obama's plans for reassessing the war effort. Jones noted that although the administration has seen some progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it remains uncertain about the outcome of President Hamid Karzai's contentious bid for reelection. Obama has scheduled at least five meetings with his national security team over the next weeks to reexamine the strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Tuesday marks the start of five scheduled intensive discussions with the National Security Council, as well as field commanders and regional ambassadors, on Afghanistan," Jones said. He said he expects two of the meetings to be held the next week but stressed that there is no target date to complete the review. "I don't have a deadline in my mind. I think the most important thing is to do it right. But it is going to have a high priority in the administration to do this pretty relentlessly. We have a lot of other things on the table as well." In his Aug. 30 classified assessment, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and International Security Assistance Force commander, said he urgently needs more troops within the next year or his mission will "likely result in failure." McChrystal advocated a full counterinsurgency strategy in which the military aggressively and systematically protects the Afghan population, and will request 10,000 to 40,000 more troops to carry out his counterinsurgency mission, according to sources. The upcoming meetings will begin with the assumption that the McChrystal strategy is correct, Jones said, adding that the president will "encourage free-wheeling discussion" and that "nothing is off the table." Asked why al-Qaeda, which is comparatively safe in its current sanctuaries in Pakistan, would want to return to Afghanistan, where more than 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops are stationed, Jones said, "That's a good question. . . . This is certainly one of the questions that we will be discussing. This is one of the questions, for example, that one could come back at with General McChrystal." Jones said it remains possible that, after a decision on strategy by the president, McChrystal might change his mind about the need for more troops. "We will ask General McChrystal, and say, 'Okay, now that you've heard what our strategy is, does this affect your thinking in terms of your resources and, if so, how?' " Jones said. The Nation

Gibbs Dismisses Cantor

John McCain and Eric Cantor and other republicans have been saying Obama should stop thinking and do whatever it is that Stanley McChrystal says. What a bunch of malarkey. And why do they care now? For longer than eight years no one cared what was going on in Afghanistan. Now it's hurry up? Do republicans really think we're all that stupid?
Obama has more to consider than the General. He also has far more to consider than McCain or Cantor. Gibbs puts Cantor in his place:

Obama on His Chat With NATO Chief Video

Obama spoke with NATO chief Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Afghanistan and missile defense. Rasmussen says strategy first and then troops.

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

Obama Video Conferences With McChrystal Sept. 30

Tomorrow, Obama will hold a video conference with Gen. Stanley McChrystal and other high-level officials, according to Jake Tapper.
Tapper also has Gibbs' response as to why Obama has only talked to McChrystal once in 70 days-- chain of command and memos. The 60 Minutes episode Sunday, featuring McChrystal, left the impression that McChrystal was upset for not being able to communicate with the president. I was left with the impression that the reporting was biased and edited to look that way. But perhaps McChrystal felt as though he wasn't being heard.

“The president receives a memo every week from General McChrystal,” Gibbs said.
Gibbs says that the weekly memo, which has both military and diplomatic components, guides the President’s decisions regarding Afghanistan and emphasized that Obama meets regularly with the military chain of command.
In response to a question about how the president views McChrystal, Gibbs responded, “Understand that the President signed off on putting General McChrystal where he is.”
ABC

Here is the clip. It looks as though there could've been a quick edit right after McChrystal answers the question. In other words, it wasn't filmed as a continuous line of questioning:

Howard Fineman High Profile Hack

Howard Fineman has long had a beef with Obama. I don't mind critics. David Brooks is a good critic. Paul Krugman is a good critic. Fineman is just a bad critic and a lazy one. I bet he's overpaid as well.

This argument of ubiquity and charisma is the laziest of all criticism of Obama because it's not only the lowest hanging fruit, it's the one that's rotting on the ground.

It's absurd because it's not relevant to anything. It's a personal attack. Fineman never does any reporting for his columns criticizing Obama. He writes the same column over and over.

Here's Fineman's lead for his Newsweek column, which has no reporting whatsoever (it's strictly an opinion straight out of Fineman's head):

If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota. NW

I'm sure Obama isn't thinking about being enshrined in South Dakota. And after nine months in office, it's not reasonable to expect that Obama would check AfPak done or Middle East done. Come on. The Middle East problem is centuries old. Obama's supposed to have that checked off?

Obama's approach, obviously, is to tackle different issues at the same time because he has a holistic take on governing. Every piece is connected. Climate change is connected to the economy. So is Afghanistan. Education is connected to everything.

I bet, despite Obama's TV appearances, there still are people in this nation who couldn't tell you who the president was. There are people who still don't know how to spell his name. That's for sure.

The criticism that Obama is too charismatic is also a favorite criticism of the rightwing haters, such as the birthers. If the rightwing wasn't pumping out so many lies and distortions from their hate factory, Obama wouldn't have to expend so much time dispelling rumors and myths and debunking personal attacks. The burst of TV appearances wasn't a long-term strategy. It was an attempt to replace bad information with the good. Far too many people still believed in "death panels."

In addition, the problems we face need to be tackled today because they've been put off for so long. Obama has a cabinet and a large staff that work on various issues--education, healthcare, economy, foreign policy. People shouldn't be complaining that our government is doing too many things. Obama has always touted efficient government, not big government.

The argument that Obama would get more done if he tackled problems one by one is ignorant because it's not even feasible. The criticism that Obama relies on charisma is just lazy. I suspect Fineman is jealous. I suspect he is the one who battles a very large ego and thinks he sees the same in Obama. Fineman is one of those overpaid people that gets to keep his job because he's been around for so long.

For Fineman, it's personal.

He clearly loathes Obama. I suspect Obama hasn't given Fineman the time of day (and it's no wonder). This is what he wrote in Sept. 2008, some insight into the root of his criticism:

But if I were an Obama partisan I would be worried that his mistakes have a common thread - pride.

Obama seems to want to do things on his own, and on his own terms. It’s understandable. Obama has his own crowd – from Chicago, from Harvard, and from a new cadre of wealthy, Ivy-educated movers and shakers.

“He’s an arrogant S.O.B.,” one of the latter told me today. “He wants to do it his way, and his way alone.” But politics doesn’t work that way. And has Obama should know, or is about to find out, that everyone needs a little help. msnbc

In 2007, Fineman writes that Oprah out-shined Obama. Fineman didn't think Obama was charismatic enough. He also slighted Michelle Obama:

Whether by instinct or design, the thin-as-a-rail, youthful looking Obama looked somehow innocent as he appeared—a man-child in this setting, doted over and presented by two powerful, commanding women (his wife and his endorser).
He said all the right things for the crowd—expressing his support for universal health care, for better public schools funding, for a defense of the nation based on diplomacy as well as military might. His biggest applause line came when he reminded the crowd that George Bush would not be on the ballot in 2008.
The pictures were great—there will be ads on the air soon from this event (the Obama staff had three cameras working it). But the candidate went on—and on—and toward the end seemed to leave the crowd less pumped up than Oprah had made it.

These sentences and this lead from another Fineman column is the sign of a hack: "A knack for riding political waves" and "But now the president's skill at riding well-timed waves into history is being tested."

Barack Obama has a knack for riding political waves. I put that down to his upbringing in Hawaii, where surfing is second nature. He also yearns to make history. I put that down to his time as editor of the Harvard Law Review, where it dawned on him that a son of a Kenyan and Kansan could be president, and a path-breaker in the process. But now the president's skill at riding well-timed waves into history is being tested. In fact, he's in danger of wiping out. The reason is health-care reform. Why? Because his timing isn't good and his plan, at least what we've seen so far, isn't "reform." NW

Republicans Cared Less About Afghanistan for Years

And now they care?
Give us a break. Anybody would know this hurry-up ploy by republicans is a farce.
If it wasn't for Obama, Afghanistan wouldn't even be on the tips of people's tongues.
Before Obama can decide on troop numbers, he has to decide on the new strategy, which will dictate troop numbers. Robert Gates said on Sunday that the wrong strategy would be deadly. Kit Bond clearly hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Obama is the Commander in Chief. He's the one with the thousand foot view. He's the one who considers all of the consequences of our actions in Afghanistan. He makes the decision--not Gen. McChrystal.