In the days ahead, as we reappraise Edward Snowden's complicated legacy, now two years old -- and as Congress considers a package of sensible NSA reforms -- what's called for is a dose of clear-eyed realism, an appetite for nuance, and a high tolerance for uncertainty.
Dear God, if you are listening to Governor Jindal's prayers asking if he should run for president, please just say, "No." Louisiana cannot afford his ambitions anymore.
Bush recently stated that knowing what we know now, he still "would have invaded" Iraq. While the GOP presidential candidate blames "faulty intelligence" for the Iraq invasion, it's important to revisit the predictions of Dick Cheney shortly after America's Gulf War victory.
Yesterday, President Obama acted to restrict the Defense Department and other federal agencies from providing military equipment to local police departments. In essence, the president adopted, by Executive Order, the Grayson Amendment that I introduced last year in the House of Representatives.
Some leading Democrats seem to have a love-hate relationship with the left. Sure, progressives seem to have more influence than ever this year, at least rhetorically. But it doesn't look like the friction will be going away any time soon. Clearly, the left matters. Why, then, is it so difficult for progressives to get a seat at the table?
Rather than blame Barack Obama or George W. Bush for the creation of ISIS, Americans should place the blame right where it belongs -- on the Saudi royal family. But then blame likewise must be apportioned to every American president who has acted to sustain America's oil-based relationship with the Saudis originally struck by Franklin Roosevelt -- Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. Every president named was made aware of the unsavory nature of the Saud-Wahhabi alliance, and every president chose to ignore it. This wasn't because each president willfully turned a blind eye to the realities of the Saudi regime, but rather because American presidents are inherently political creatures who respond to the needs and desires of their electorate.
The Green News Report is also available via... ...
...asked my 9 year-old last month. Otherwise absorbed in a rousing Fifa 15 match, he looked up from the iPad when the news upstaged Isco's corner kick.
The Obamas are proving singularly inept at choosing appropriate venues to highlight their initiatives.
Hello, Mr. President! Welcome to the wonderful world of Twitter! A lot has changed in the tweeting world since you stepped into office. Now we can have banners atop our profiles that no one ever sees.
Basic facts about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are under public dispute. Fast track must not be approved until this is cleared up. We the People deserve to know what is being voted on with fast track.
Think how 50,000 hungry Syrians in the besieged town of Al Waer must be feeling right now. They have just received their first food packages in months! They have been blocked from aid because of the ongoing civil war. Now who is WFP's largest donor in Syria to provide this life-saving food aid? It's the U.S. Food for Peace program.
They say timing is everything in life. Well, if that's true, the timing of this legislation to approve fast-track trade authority could not be worse for middle-class families.
Recently, the president claimed that critics who say that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) "is bad for working families ... don't know what they are talking about."
President Obama and the Republican Senators know what they are doing. They are handing gifts to the business lobbies out of sight of the American people, and attacking the opponents of fast track as anti-trade or ignorant, when in fact the opponents are merely pro-public interest. If the President and the Republicans believe these draft agreements are so good, and therefore merit fast track, let them make the agreements public, so that the public could say a resounding NO to ISDS and other threats to the common interest hidden within the draft agreements.
There are few policies that show the split between elite opinion and everyone else as clearly as trade policy. On trade we see a remarkable convergence of the leadership of both parties against their base, with the elites firmly behind the leadership against what they view as the ignorance of the masses.