"Lawmakers Debate Establishing “Truth Commission” on Bush Admin Torture, Rendition and Domestic Spying" (with audio and video)

Democracy Now! with audio and video:

On Capitol Hill, debate has begun over forming a truth commission to shed light on the Bush administration’s secret polices on detention, interrogation and domestic spying. A hearing on the issue was held Wednesday, two days after the Obama administration released a series of once-secret Bush administration Justice Department memos that authorized President Bush to deploy the military to carry out raids inside the United States. We speak to human rights attorney Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [includes rush transcript]

Barack Obama

"Howard Dean on the GOP divide" (video)

MSNBC, video (07:42).

Howie P.S.: Rachel Maddow talks with Dean about the current state of the GOP and his future political plans. More back and forth on the GOP on NPR, audio (37:31): "Rush Limbaugh: Voice Of The Republican Party?" Matt Bai and Jonah Goldberg hash it out with Ron Elving.

"Cantwell: Where's the AIG Money Going?" (video)

Josh Marshall, with video (04:06):

Here's an exchange from this afternoon between Sen. Cantwell and Secretary Geithner. Cantwell asks the question we and a lot of others have been asking: where's all the money going? Who are the counter-parties?

We grabbed this exchange because I want to flag that this question appears to be gathering momentum up on the hill. But the exchange itself is interesting for two reasons. First, Geithner simply won't engage. He just ignores the question. But in the course of doing so he provides the administration's rationale for why we have no choice but to keep shoveling money down this hole. But clearly, talk to the hand on the counter-parties ...

"Contemptuous Karl" agrees to testify (videos)

MSNBC-Countdown, video (05:01).

Howie P.S.: Law professor Jonathan Turley reviews some of the political and legal issues with Keith Olbermann. Rachel Maddow doubles down on the coverage with "At last!" (07:45). Michael Isikoff joins Rachel for the history and significance of this news.

Barack Obama

"Despite Celebrated Speech, Has Obama Really Ordered an End to US Occupation of Iraq?" (with audio and video)

Democracy Now! with audio and video:

President Obama’s plan to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq has both been hailed by some as a signal of the coming end of the war while criticized by others as an extension of the occupation. We host a debate between Lawrence Korb, the former assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan, and Jeremy Scahill, award-winning author and investigative journalist.

One of the main themes of President Obama’s campaign was his opposition to the war in Iraq. He heavily criticized the Bush administration for the 2003 invasion and vocally opposed the war from the very beginning, when he was still an Illinois state senator. Now, as President of the United States, Obama has finally announced his plan to pull US troops out of Iraq. In a speech at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina on Friday, Obama appeared to spell out a clear date for a withdrawal.

Under President Obama’s plan, up to 50,000 US troops would remain in Iraq through 2011. But President Obama’s decision to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq has angered some critics of the war. Iraq Veterans Against the War described Obama’s proposal as a ‘plan for almost three more years of an unjustified military occupation.’ Obama’s speech on Iraq left several major questions unanswered. He did not address whether the US will keep permanent military bases in Iraq, and he made no promise to withdraw the over 100,000 private US military contractors and mercenaries stationed in Iraq.

For a discussion on President Obama’s Iraq plan we are joined by two guests. Lawrence Korb is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan. He is author of more than 20 books. His latest article is, “The Promised Withdrawal from Iraq.” He joins us from Washington DC. And joining me here in the firehouse studio is Jeremy Scahill, an award-winning investigative journalist and author of the New York Times bestseller, “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” He reported extensively from Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. His latest article is called, “All Troops Out By 2011? Not So Fast; Why Obama’s Iraq Speech Deserves a Second Look.”

Barack Obama

Early Wednesday Roundup

"Minority Leader Limbaugh" (David Plouffe-WaPo):

The 2008 election sent many messages. At the top: Americans wanted to turn the page on the politics of division and partisan pettiness, and they wanted a government -- and country -- that would put the middle class first.

Watching the Republicans operate this past month, it would appear that they missed that unmistakable signal.

Instead, Rush Limbaugh has become their leader.

"Release of Memos Fuels Push for Inquiry Into Bush’s Terror-Fighting Policies" (NY Times):

A day after releasing a set of Bush administration opinions that claimed sweeping presidential powers in fighting terrorism, the Obama administration faced new pressure on Tuesday to support a broad inquiry into interrogation, detention, surveillance and other practices under President George W. Bush.

Justice Department officials said they might soon release additional opinions on those subjects. But the disclosure of the nine formerly secret documents fueled calls by lawmakers for an independent commission to investigate and make public what the Bush administration did in the global campaign against terrorism.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, said the revelations, together with the release of new information about the Central Intelligence Agency’s destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes, had underscored the need for a commission that would have the power to subpoena documents and testimony.

Barack Obama

Chuck Todd: "Has Obama declared war on conservatives?"

MSNBC, video (07:18).

Barack Obama

"‘Socialism!’ Boo, Hiss, Repeat"

TALKS THE TALK Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, is one of the detractors of “socialism.”
NY Times:

Conservatives might be seeking a spiritual leader, organizing principle and fresh identity, but they at least seem to have settled on a favorite rhetorical ogre: socialism.

As in, Democrats are intent on forcing socialism on the “U.S.S.A” (as the bumper sticker says, under the words “Comrade Obama”).

It seems that “socialist” has supplanted “liberal” as the go-to slur among much of a conservative world confronting a one-two-three punch of bank bailouts, budget blowouts and stimulus bills. Right-leaning bloggers and talk radio hosts are wearing out the brickbat. Senate and House Republicans have been tripping over their podiums to invoke it. The S-bomb has become as surefire a red-meat line at conservative gatherings as “Clinton” was in the 1990s and “Pelosi” is today.

“Earlier this week, we heard the world’s best salesman of socialism address the nation,” Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said on Friday, referring, naturally, to a certain socialist in chief.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas decried the creation of “socialist republics” in the United States. “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff,” Mr. Huckabee said, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference here over the weekend, a kind of Woodstock for young conservatives.

“Socialism is something new for us to hit Obama over the head with,” said Joshua Bolin of Augusta, Ga., who founded a Web site, “Reagan.org,” which he calls a conservative analog to the liberal MoveOn.org.

Of course, there is nothing remotely new about “socialism,” or the willingness of conservatives to hit the opposition over the head with the term, just as the name callers among the liberals have bludgeoned conservatives as “fascists,” “fundamentalists” and “plutocrats” and whatnot for decades.

But the socialist bogey-mantra has made a full-scale return after a long stretch of relative dormancy.

The contemporary era of socialist demonizing dates to the general election campaign between Mr. Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, repeatedly accused Mr. Obama of wanting to “spread the wealth,” an offshoot of Mr. Obama’s caught-on-tape exchange with an Ohio plumber (i.e. “Joe the,” last seen signing copies of his new book at CPAC).

“Socialism” became a star of subsequent McCain and Palin rallies in the same way that a dead bull is the star of a bullfight — an object of slings, spears and overall bloodlust.

The early fiscal activism of President Obama has provided a heap of new fodder for anti-socialists, effectively turning a useful label meant to inspire fear into a we-told-you-so taunt. Last week’s blizzard of economic developments — the administration’s new budget, its partial takeover of another major bank — was fortuitous timing for CPAC, which ran from Thursday to Saturday, giving conservatives an opportunity to give full-throated voice to this re-fashioned refrain.

“The right would use ‘socialist’ against Franklin Roosevelt all the time in the 1930s,” said Charles Geisst, a financial historian at Manhattan College in the Bronx. “To hear him referred to as Comrade Roosevelt during that period was not unusual.” But while socialism is being invoked repeatedly now, Mr. Geisst said, it is a less potent slam than it once was.

Vermont’s Bernie Sanders — an actual real-life, self-identified socialist in the United States Senate — agrees, saying that “socialism” used to carry a ready-made stigma given its association with Soviet-style Communism.

But since there are so few Communist regimes left today, and generations have grown up since the end of the cold war, that stigma has been muted.

Mr. Sanders said he was encouraged that even some conservative critics — he mentions Newt Gingrich — seem to be equating Mr. Obama’s economic agenda to “European-style socialism,” as if to consciously distinguish it from the old Soviet vintage of the term.

“I think this country could use a good debate on what goes on in places like Sweden, Norway and Finland,” said Mr. Sanders, saying that notions like universal health care, more funding for education and a greater tax burden on the wealthy have accessible models in those countries.

Still, when Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, denounced “European-style socialism,” in his speech at the conference on Thursday, the jeers from the crowd did not exactly signal an openness to debate it on the merits.

Or for that matter, any eagerness to differentiate the Swedish, Soviet and San Francisco flavors.

“The word is most resonant in places where no one is going to discriminate between the various meanings of the term,” Mr. Geisst said.

And one of those places might be CPAC. “Socialism is a bold color concept for conservatives,” said one CPAC celebrity, the commentator Bay Buchanan, who had just finished scribbling autographs for a small cluster of young fans. She contrasted the “bold color” distinctions with the “pale pastels” that conservatives have drawn for too long.

Ms. Buchanan said that while “socialist” has largely been on hiatus as a put-down in recent years, it was an effective instrument in defeating Bill Clinton’s effort to overhaul the country’s health-care system in the early 1990s. “ ‘Socialized medicine’ was a great argument for us,” she said, noting that the term will surely gain even more of a hold when the Obama administration unveils its own health care proposal, probably sometime this year.

“Americans are just genetically opposed to socialism,” said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group headed by Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader.

Mr. Kibbe had just finished moderating a CPAC panel in a packed ballroom on Friday morning called “Bailing Out Big Business: Are We All Socialists Now?”

After four speakers took turns whacking the S-beast, Mr. Kibbe ended the proceeding with a quick survey:

“If anyone here is not a socialist, raise your hand,” he said, before heading off to a reassuring mass of palms.

Barack Obama

Hardball: "Obama picks new HHS Secretary" (video)

MSNBC, video (05:29).

Howie P.S. Tweety talks with Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm about the nomination of Kathleen Sibelius.

Countdown: "Budget battle's broader implications" (video)

MSNBC, video (05:45).

Howie P.S.: Olbermann riffs on Rove and Republican opposition to Obama's budget agenda.

Barack Obama

Can you handle the truth (in 11:15)?: "The Crisis of Credit Visualized"(Video)

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Howie P.S.: Danny Schecter (Media Channel) covers some of the same material, using words, and raises the red flag with "Who Will Rescue Us As Our Economy Stays In Free Fall?:

Someone needs to take a deep breath and figure out what all of economic stimulus efforts are stimulating, General Motors and many banks have received and lost billions. Insurance companies are lining up for more moolah. Fannie Mae needs another $15 billion.

It seems endless, and we are not even touching the surface of the real economic time bombs on the horizon from credit default swaps, derivatives and credit cards.

Rahmbo on "Face the Nation" (video)

CBSNews, Face the Nation, video (25:18).

Barack Obama

Monday Morning Excerpts

"Finally a Progressive Budget" (Robert Reich):

President Obama’s new budget is, well, audacious -- not just because it includes several big, audacious initiatives (universally affordable health care, and a cap-and-trade system for coping with global warming, for starters) but also because it represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years.

"Iraqi leaders embrace Obama’s withdrawal announcement" (Think Progress):

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he would withdraw combat troops from of Iraq by August 2010. ThinkProgress noted yesterday that several U.S. military service members have embraced the withdrawal timetable. The announcement has also been welcomed by Iraqi leaders, who have favored a U.S. withdrawal for years.

"We're really leaving Iraq" (Juan Cole):

On Friday, nearly six years after George W. Bush's swaggering "Mission Accomplished" speech, a new and humbler president addressed a cheering military audience and declared an end to the Iraq War. But some observers fear that President Barack Obama's blueprint, which extends the American presence for another quarter-decade, raises the possibility of a continued U.S. entanglement in that war.

"All Troops Out By 2011? Not So Fast; Why Obama's Iraq Speech Deserves a Second Look" (Jeremy Scahill):

Some anti-war analysts find hope in President Barack Obama's address at Camp Lejuene in North Carolina on Friday, in which he appeared to spell out a clear date for withdrawal from Iraq.

"I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Obama said in a speech that quickly generated headlines announcing that an end to the occupation is on the horizon. As far as rhetoric goes, Obama's statement seems very clear. But in reality, it is far more complicated.

"Budget chief: Obama will sign spending bill" (AP):

The White House on Sunday downplayed massive deficit spending and President Barack Obama's pledge not to sign legislation laden with billions in earmarks amid Republican criticism that he was recanting on a key campaign promise.

The administration's top budget official, Peter Orszag, said Obama would sign the $410 billion spending bill despite a campaign pledge that he would reject tailored budget requests that let lawmakers send money to their home states. Orszag said Obama would move ahead and overlook the time-tested tradition that lets officials divert millions at a time to pet projects.

It was the Washington equivalent of officials pinching their nose and swallowing a bitter pill.

"This is last year's business," Orszag said, offering an acknowledgment that Obama would sign a bill that doesn't conform with his campaign vows. "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

"Dean Talks About Not Getting HHS And Post-DNC Plans" (Sam Stein):

Having been bypassed for a cabinet post after leaving the DNC, former Gov. Howard Dean has chosen to pursue a multi-faceted career in health care advocacy, progressive political strategy, speeches, education and energy, and even election monitoring.

The Vermont Democrat, whose supporters were hoping to see him end up as Secretary of Health and Human Services, summed up his plans this way: "It is sort of outside government but doing the things that I want to do anyway."

"The Un-Rove" (Andrew Sullivan):

I've learned for two years now not to under-estimate Obama. I watched from the very start of the campaign how he strategized a path to achieving his goals partly by eschewing the kinds of tactics that Washington has come to see as political skill. I think of him in some ways as the Un-Rove.

Barack Obama

Sunday Obama Roundup (excerpts, with video)

"The Ecstasy and the Agony" (Frank Rich-NY Times):

Among the highlights of Obama’s triumphant speech was his own populist jeremiad about the “fancy drapes” and private jets of Wall Street. But talk is not action. Two days later, as ABC News reported, the president of taxpayer- supported Bank of America took a private jet to New York to stonewall Andrew Cuomo’s inquest into $3.6 billion of suspect bonuses.

Handing more public money to the reckless banks that invented this culture and stuck us with the wreckage is the new third rail of American politics. If Obama doesn’t forge a better plan, neither his immense popularity nor even political foes as laughable as Jindal can insulate him from getting burned.

"Obama's Plan Is About Dreams, Not Dollars" (Will Bunch-Huff Po):

Make no mistake, Obama believes in honest accounting and he seems sincere about sharply reducing the deficit once our economic crisis has passed. But inherently he knows that it in a weird kind of way it may not matter a great deal in the long run if the deficit is $500 billion or $10 trillion, that America is worthless without our capacity to dream, to set impossibly lofty goals and then achieve them. And why wouldn't he know that, since he knows that the dreams of another man, Dr. Martin Luther King, were so important in getting him to the position he is in now. Times change, issues change. We've been to the moon and we've marched slowly toward racial equality. But to be America, we will still all need to learn to dream, all over again.

"Obama Touts Budget at State of the Black Union" (The Caucus-NY Times:

Last year, when Barack Obama declined an invitation to attend the State of the Black Union conference, it seemed to reflect worse on Tavis Smiley, the host of the event, than on the then-candidate himself. This year, President Obama again chose not to attend the conference, but he did address the group via video on Friday. The White House has just released his prepared remarks.

Mr. Obama did not address the historic nature of his election, nor did he embark on the racial dialogue he called for in his landmark address in March. Rather, he used the opportunity to tout his budget by talking about how it would ease issues affecting Americans generally, but particularly the black community.
(snip)
At this point, it appears that any direct racial dialogue is more likely to be driven by Mr. Obama’s surrogates than by the president himself.

"Adm. Mullen: I Don't Know Where Obama Got War Cost Numbers" (Sam Stein-HuffPo with video-01:36):

Vowing to fight Barack Obama's budget in Congress, Republicans have resorted to a three-pronged attack: the president is proposing unprecedented spending, irresponsible taxation, and using dishonest projections about how to pay for it all.

On the latter front, the GOP got a bit of an assist Sunday morning from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, the head of U.S. military forces said he didn't know where the Obama administration was getting its long-term projections for the money it will save by drawing down the war in Iraq. Asked by host Chris Wallace whether it was a budgetary "gimmick" that the government would save $183 billion in 2019 simply by drawing down the war in the next few years, Mullen said he wasn't sure. But he did say, on two occasions, that he never had seen that number before, the implicit message -- at least the one pushed by Wallace -- being that Obama had chosen rosy figures to meet its deficit reduction strategy.

Barack Obama

Obama's Budget and the Fight Ahead (excerpts)

"The New and Improved "Us vs. Them" Narrative" (Al Giordano):

Okay, here's what I think just happened: The President has reframed the narrative from the stale dysfunction of Democrats demonizing Republicans and Republicans demonizing Democrats and stepped over that puddle of slime to create a more authentic narrative: The American people vs. the special interests (and note that the ones he mentions are universally from the corporate sector).

And let's keep in mind that the interests he mentions - "the insurance industry... the banks and big student lenders... the oil and gas companies..." - have their hooks and donations just as deeply into Congressional Democrats as they do for Congressional Republicans. They've all just been put on notice: oppose the reforms he's pushing and be portrayed as siding with those corporate interests against the American people.

This is is quite huge. It hasn't been done by a president since FDR. And the populist campaign rhetoric by Edwards, Clinton and even Obama in 2008 aside did not rise to this level of clarity by a longshot. Really, it hasn't been done this way by any Democratic presidential candidate since Oklahoma Senator Fred Harris ran in 1976.

"Battle Lines Quickly Set Over Planned Policy Shifts--Massive Budget Marks Largest Ideological Swing Since the Reagan Era" (WaPo, page one):

Battle lines are rapidly hardening over the broad policy shifts, massive deficits and tax increases President Obama unveiled last week in his first budget request, a 10-year spending plan thick with political friction points.

Yesterday, the president used his weekly radio and Internet address to declare his budget plan a fundamental reordering of federal priorities that would deliver "the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November."

The budget proposal "reflects the stark reality of what we've inherited: a trillion-dollar deficit, a financial crisis and a costly recession," Obama said. He warned off lobbyists and other critics, who, he said, "are gearing up for a fight as we speak."

"My message to them is this: So am I," he said. "The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don't."

"Flailing Republicans pray for meltdown" (Andrew Sullivan-Sunday London Times):

Although Obama clearly signaled early on in the transition that he wanted to tackle entitlements that will cripple the US fiscally in the future, his budget showed none of it. The only marginally credible spending cuts were tied to withdrawal from Iraq (an iffy proposition) and the only attempt to rein in the mounting costs of healthcare for the elderly was an increase in premiums for the very rich and . . . cost controls for an expanded public sector in health.

Many fiscal conservatives, prepared to give Obama a pass on short-term spending, felt gobsmacked by this insouciance. No wonder Hillary Clinton was dispatched as her first duty to placate the Chinese. If Obama breaks the bank the way he is intending to, they’d better keep lending the US money or the dollar will fall into an abyss.

Hence the one sliver of Republican hope. They need an epic failure from Obama to give them some chance of regaining power. They need a second Great Depression, intensified by a long-term fiscal failure. It’s just tragic – for both right and left – that the only serious path back from the brink for the Republicans is the implosion of their own country.

"Paul Krugman praises President Obama's new budget proposal" (via CROOKS AND LIARS):

Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

Barack Obama

"Behind the Get-Out-of-Iraq Plan"

The Daily Beast:

During the campaign, President Barack Obama discussed a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq, but yesterday he revealed a 19-month plan. Where’d those three extra months come from? According to the Associated Press, he added them at the request of field commanders in Iraq. Obama chose the 19-month plan over 16-month and 23-month alternatives after a dozen working groups and 10 interagency meetings. Obama’s plan also backloads the withdrawals, rather than removing one brigade a month as he had discussed during the campaign. Politico says “one reason [for the changes] was that presidential advisers calculated that whatever option Obama chose, even the most passionate in the anti-war camp would most remember that he ended the war — not when.”

Barack Obama

David Horsey: "Obama's tax plan is nothing but Class Warfare!"

David Horsey, (Seattle P-I).

Barack Obama

"Obama Outlines Goals for Afghanistan, Iraq" (with video)

PBS "NewsHour," with video (18:58):

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, welcome.

U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Thank you so much for having me, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: You have just been with 2,000 U.S. Marines. Some have been in harm's way, some are about to go in harm's way, Iraq or Afghanistan, under orders from you as the commander in chief. Was this difficult for you this morning?

BARACK OBAMA: Well, it wasn't difficult because my main message was, number one, thank you. And the easiest thing for me to do is to express the extraordinary gratitude that I think all Americans feel for young men and women who are serving in our armed forces. And the second was to be very clear about our plans in Iraq, and that we are going to bring this war to an end.

But I will tell you that the most sobering things that I do as president relate to the deployment of these young men and women. Signing letters of those who have fallen in battle, it is a constant reminder of how critical these decisions are and the importance of the Commander in Chief, Congress, all of us who are in positions of power to make sure that we have thought through these decisions free of politics and we are doing what's necessary for the safety and security of the American people.

JIM LEHRER: These specific Marines that were in this hall that you were talking to, as you said, you said in your speech that some of these kids are going to be going to Afghanistan soon as part of the...

BARACK OBAMA: That's exactly right.

JIM LEHRER: And you also said in your speech that it's - one of the lessons of Iraq is that there are clearly defined goals. What are the goals for Afghanistan right now?

BARACK OBAMA: Well, I don't think that they're clear enough, that's part of the problem. We've seen a sense of drift in the mission in Afghanistan, and that's why I've ordered a head-to-toe, soup-to-nuts review of our approach in Afghanistan.

Now, I can articulate some very clear, minimal goals in Afghanistan, and that is that we make sure that it's not a safe haven for al-Qaida, they are not able to launch attacks of the sort that happened on 9/11 against the American homeland or American interest. How we achieve that initial goal, what kinds of strategies and tactics we need to put in place, I don't think that we've thought it through, and we haven't used the entire arsenal of American power.

We've been thinking very militarily, but we haven't been as effective in thinking diplomatically, we haven't been thinking effectively around the development side of the equation, you know, what are we doing to replace poppy crops for Afghans that allow them to support themselves. Obviously, we haven't been thinking regionally, recognizing that Afghanistan is actually an Afghanistan/Pakistan problem, because right now the militants, the extremists who are attacking U.S. troops are often times coming over the border from Pakistan.

So that's why we've assigned an envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to work comprehensively in the region, and this review that we're talking about should be completed by the middle of next month. I will then be reporting to the American people and Congress about how exactly we are going to be moving forward in Afghanistan.

We now have to move forward. It's my job to come up with the best possible approach given some of these mistakes that have been made, and the fact that the situation right now has deteriorated badly in Afghanistan.

JIM LEHRER: As you know, Mr. President, there's a traditional language for these kinds of conflicts, and its victory, or its loss, you win a war or you lose a war. Is there a victory definition for Afghanistan now or is that part of your thinking at this moment?

BARACK OBAMA: I think there are achievable goals in Afghanistan, and the achievable goal is to make sure it's not a safe haven for terrorists, to make sure that the Afghan people are able to determine their own fate. One of the things that I think we have to communicate in Afghanistan is that we have no interest or aspiration to be there over the long term. There's a long history, as you know, in Afghanistan of rebuffing what is seen as an occupying force, and we have to be mindful of that history as we think about our strategy.

Our goal in the region is to keep the American people safe. And I think that the more we can accomplish that through diplomacy, and the more we can accomplish that by partnering with actors in the region, rather than simply applying U.S. military forces, the better off we're going to be.

But I don't want to pre-judge this review. That's why I've asked - we're looking at a wide range of view points that are being brought together, and a set of recommendations will be provided to me shortly.

JIM LEHRER: But in a kind of non-policy, public point of view, this all came about, we're in Afghanistan because of 9/11.

BARACK OBAMA: That's exactly right.

JIM LEHRER: And that was almost eight years ago.

BARACK OBAMA: Yeah.

JIM LEHRER: So why are we still there?

BARACK OBAMA: Well, my assessment is that we took our eye off the ball. I mean Iraq was an, obviously, enormous diversion of resources and attention. Now, we've had a long debate about the wisdom of having gone into Iraq in the first place, I don't want to relitigate that. But just objectively, there's no doubt that had we stayed more focused on Afghanistan and the problems there, and had we thought through more effectively Pakistan and its role in this whole process of dealing with extremists, that we would probably be further along now than we are, but, you know, that's history.

We now have to move forward. It's my job to come up with the best possible approach given some of these mistakes that have been made, and the fact that the situation right now has deteriorated badly in Afghanistan.

JIM LEHRER: But unlike what you talked about today, of course, is that a, quote, "exit" from Iraq, you're not even there yet in terms of when - if and when and how - we might exit from Afghanistan, if I hear you correctly?

BARACK OBAMA: I think until we have a clear strategy, we're not going to have a clear exit strategy. And my goal is to get U.S. troops home as quickly as possible without leaving a situation that allows for potential terrorist attacks against the United States.

Keep in mind something that is important, and that is, Afghanistan is not a U.S. mission, it's a NATO mission, and one of the things that I think has been lost is the sense of international partnership in dealing with the problem of international terrorism.

Part of our goal is, when I go to the NATO summit in April, to have a conversation with our NATO allies, many of whom have put troops into Afghanistan, have made enormous sacrifices, have lost their own young men and women in the battle there, to figure out how do we coordinate more effectively to move the ball forward.

JIM LEHRER: On Iraq specifically, you drew applause and shouts from some of the Marines when you went through what was accomplished in Iraq, particularly Saddam Hussein, you went through a couple of other things. In general, should the Iraq mission now be seen as, quote,"successful?"

BARACK OBAMA: Well, I think what we can say unequivocally is that our military succeeded in every mission that was given to them. They consistently performed above and beyond expectations under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I don't think that we can rightly say that the strategy cooked up by our civilian leadership, with respect to either going in in the first place or how the war was managed, was a success. But I think that we can say without equivocation that our military was successful, and if we get it right over the next few months and years, that there is the strong possibility that we can leave Iraq as a stable, peaceful partner in the region.

A lot of the ultimate outcome in Iraq now is going to depend on how the political issues that have dogged Iraq for a very long time get resolved, and frankly we have not made the kind of progress over the last year to two years despite the surge.

JIM LEHRER: Bottom line question, of course, Mr. President is, what was accomplished, has it been worth the 4,200 American lives, 35,000 wounded, maybe 100,000 Iraqis who have been killed, to accomplish what has been accomplished?

BARACK OBAMA: Well, you know, I don't want to look backwards. As you know, I opposed this war, I did not think it was the right decision, but I don't want to in any way diminish the enormous sacrifices that have been made by our men and women in uniform.

I think the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone is a good thing. I think the fact that Iraq has now carried out a series of successful elections with diminished violence each time, I think that's a good thing. A lot of the ultimate outcome in Iraq now is going to depend on how the political issues that have dogged Iraq for a very long time get resolved, and frankly we have not made the kind of progress over the last year to two years despite the surge - we have not made the progress that needs to be made on the hydrocarbons law, the oil law, on making determinations about central government versus provincial government power.

There are a whole host of political issues between the various factions and between Sunni, Shia and Kurd in Iraq that still have to be worked on and that's why I emphasized it in the speech. We've got to redouble our efforts when it comes to the diplomatic side if we're going to be successful.

JIM LEHRER: You've caught some heat as you know, Mr. President, today from some of your Democratic colleagues in Congress saying wait a minute, we're not supposed to have 50,000 troops still there or whatever. What is your -- the criticism being that the withdrawal is too slow and it isn't as dramatic as they had expected, your colleagues, your supporters had expected. How do you answer that?

BARACK OBAMA: Well, what I would say that is that they maybe weren't paying attention to what I said during the campaign. I said that we were going to take 16 months to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq. We are now taking 18 months rather than 16. I said that we would have a residual force, a transition force that could continue to stand up Iraqi security forces, provide them logistical support and training and also make sure that we are protecting U.S. civilian and military personnel.

I said that we would have a counterterrorism capacity to make sure that al-Qaida or other extremist organizations did not try to take advantage of a diminished U.S. presence there. So everything that I said I would do during the campaign I am now doing.

Obviously because of consultation with commanders on the ground, something I also said we would do, there are some modifications to the plan. But this is basically the thrust that I have been talking about for several years and I think it is a responsible solution. It arrives at -- it was arrived at out of close consultation with commanders on the ground, the CENTCOM Commander David Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary Gates, but also my secretary of state, my national security adviser, individuals who like me opposed the idea of going into Iraq in the first place, and yet we were able to arrive at a very strong consensus that has the support of our military brass, the folks on the ground as well as our diplomats and our analysts. I think it is the right way to go.


President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama

I feel an enormous obligation to get it right, which is why I say the last thing I'm thinking about is either applause or cat calls from the public or, you know, the cable stations as I'm making these decisions.

Obligation to the troops

JIM LEHRER: You're not the least bit uneasy over the fact as John McCain and John Boehner, the Republican leader of the House, have praised your plan while the Democrats are criticizing it?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, I don't - I don't make these decisions based on polls or popularity. I make the decisions based on what I think is best. This is consistent with what I said during the campaign. The fact - if anything I think people should be interested in the fact that there's been a movement in the direction of what I thought was going to be the right plan in the first place.

JIM LEHRER: Go back to the first - to where we began, Mr. President, where you are, the setting here. You're with some young people and some older people as well who...

BARACK OBAMA: One thing that's always striking when you talk to these extraordinary young people, they are awfully young, and they look younger to me every year.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Yeah, but the issue of making the decision to put them in harm's way, and when you ran for president it was discussed off and on all the time of course during the campaign, but now you're actually having to do it. How difficult is it? I don't mean - I asked it in a different way to begin with, but just as - in general, how difficult is it for you so far?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, it will keep you up at night. I feel an enormous obligation to get it right, which is why I say the last thing I'm thinking about is either applause or cat calls from the public or, you know, the cable stations as I'm making these decisions. I feel a profound obligation to these troops and their families to make sure that the decisions I'm making are the best possible decisions given the best possible information that I have, having canvassed the widest range of viewpoints in order to keep the American people safe.

And I think that's what we've done with respect to our Iraq decision. I think that's what we're aiming for with respect to our strategy in Afghanistan. And I hope that I never start feeling as if these decisions are easy. They should never be easy. I should always lose a little sleep when I'm making these decisions.

JIM LEHRER: In a more general way, it's slightly more than five weeks now that you've been President of the United States, and we've been talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. We could go on and on and also talk about a lot of other things.

BARACK OBAMA: I've got a full plate.

JIM LEHRER: You got a full plate.

BARACK OBAMA: Yeah.I am invigorated by the challenges. But look, we've got a lot of big stuff ahead of us. Not every decision we're going to make is going to be perfect. Not every plan that we lay out is going to work out exactly as we intended.

JIM LEHRER: Do you feel burdened by the full plate?

BARACK OBAMA: I think that we are at an extraordinary moment that is full of peril but full of possibility and I think that's the time you want to be president. I think there's a sense that right now we are having to make some very big decisions that will help determine the direction of this country - and in ways large and small the direction of the world - for the next generation. And I won't lie to you. I wish that they weren't all having to be made at once. It would nice to be able to stage them on one another.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

BARACK OBAMA: Let's - you know, we'll take, you know, the economy first and then we'll take Afghanistan after that and then Iraq after that and Iran after that and, you know, the banking system somewhere out there, autos, you know. It would be wonderful if we didn't have all the planes in the air at the same time.

But having said that, I meant what I said in my joint address to Congress. I think that there's - there's something about this country where hard times, big challenges bring out the best in us. This is when the political system starts to move effectively. This is when people start getting out of the petty and the trivial debates. This is when the public starts paying attention in ways that they - you know, when things are going well, you know, they've got better things to do than to think about public policy, you know.

So I am - I am invigorated by the challenges. But look, we've got a lot of big stuff ahead of us. Not every decision we're going to make is going to be perfect. Not every plan that we lay out is going to work out exactly as we intended. But if we get the big stuff right then, you know, the ship of state is a - is a big tanker and, you know, you can't simply reverse direction on the economy or any of these things overnight, but you can start moving in a better trajectory so that five years, 10 years down the road you can say, you know, what, because of good decisions now our kids are safer, more secure, more prosperous, more unified than they were before.

JIM LEHRER: And in a word, you feel like you're clicking now?

BARACK OBAMA: Well, I - I feel like our team is making very good decisions based on the best possible information we have and the - and the best options available to us. And that's all I can ask of myself or of them is that we're making the best decisions based on what is good for the American people. And this is a human enterprise, it's not going to be flawless, but - but I think that - I think it's fair to say that you haven't seen an administration who's had to come in and juggle this much stuff of such large import this quickly and we're getting a lot of stuff done under that kind of pressure and, and I'm very proud of the team and what we've done so far.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. President, thank you very much.

BARACK OBAMA: Thank you. Great to talk to you, Jim.

Howie P.S.: Using these remarks today, Al Giordano defends Obama from the charge by Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller and Christina Siun O'Connell during the campaign that he would leave troops in Iraq indefinitely.

Barack Obama

Amy Goodman: "Too many troops left in Iraq?" (video)

MSNBC, video (04:35).

Howie P.S.: Amy Goodman applies her own "stress test" to Obama's proposals for Iraq and Afganhistan.

Barack Obama

Obama's Budget: Left, Right or Center? (audio)

Banner image: President Obama makes his point to Lawrence Summers (L), head of the National Economic Council, and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag (2nd L), during a Saturday budget meeting in the President's first week in office. Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, is seated to Obama's left.

"Left, Right and Center" (KCRW, audio-29:00):

Hosts: Arianna Huffington,Tony Blankley, Matt Miller and Robert Scheer. Is Obama's budget the most ambitious economic plan in decades? Does it lay out the building blocks for the 21st century economy? Could it do more to reduce defense spending? Also, Citibank's latest bailout. Could the banks be Obama's Achilles heel? Plus, Jindal's stunning debut and the future of the GOP.

Howie P.S.: The panelists apply their own "stress tests" to Obama's budget, as well to his other proposals. They can't agree whether Obama's policies put him to the "left," the "right" or to the "center."

Barack Obama