American foreign policy is controlled by fools. What else can one conclude from the bipartisan demand that the U.S. intervene everywhere all the time, irrespective of consequences? No matter how disastrous the outcome, the War Lobby insists that the idea was sound. Any problems obviously result, it is claimed, from execution, a matter of doing too little: too few troops engaged, too few foreigners killed, too few nations bombed, too few societies transformed, too few countries occupied, too few years involved, too few dollars spent. As new conflicts rage across the Middle East, the interventionist caucus' dismal record has become increasingly embarrassing.
Hillary Clinton accomplished what all public officials want; protection of her privacy without breaking any laws or regulations. As a voter you can determine whether this is a political story or a real issue by how Congress acts to address the problem.
Not only have Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform when it had a real chance of passing, they're now trying yet again to bring up unconstitutional bills to drive their point home.
The revelation that potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State has shown more about the media's open disdain for the Clintons than anything about Hillary herself.
There are strong arguments making the case for the persistence (and indeed the intensification) of U.S. airstrikes against ISIS targets. But equally there are strong arguments, less frequently heard perhaps, for why the United States should not continue, and should certainly not intensify, those airstrikes.
When you hear the common refrain about Americans hating Washington, they aren't talking about the city in general. Rather, they are referencing the politicians, lobbyists, campaign staffers, and the black-and-white, us-versus-them partisanship of U.S. politics.
The emerging dynamic between John Boehner and Mitch McConnell is one to watch, because it is heading for a showdown in the next few weeks. Sooner or later, one of them is going to have to cave in to the hard, cold reality that Republicans just do not have the votes to impose their will on a Democratic president.
The sheer size of the Republican field, even at this early date, is downright astonishing. By some calculations, there are over two dozen valid possibilities for the Republican nomination.
Republican lawmakers are exploiting the terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo in order to strengthen their argument that Washington is still in the middle of an active war on Islamist extremism. To put the message more alarmingly: If it could happen in broad daylight in Paris, it could happen in DC or New York.
Obama's Justice Department has brought more than twice as many prosecutions for the crime of leaking confidential information to journalists as the combined total of all presidents back to Woodrow Wilson. Whether you agree with Obama's track record of such prosecutions, you'd have to admit that treating Petraeus differently would be indefensible hypocrisy and elitism.
Just as the gruesome beheadings in Syria rallied a once war-weary public to support the deployment of US troops in both Iraq and Syria, the brutal assault at Charlie Hebdo could have the effect of convincing more Americans that US intelligence should keep the power they have in order to detect a similar act of violence.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax is a wise and bold idea, but there is a need for wise and bold individuals to embrace it and fight for it.
Twenty-five years after ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Somalia and the South Sudan are taking steps to join 193 other countries around the world that have ratified the treaty.
John McCain would much rather have been elected president back in 2008, but for a man who was soundly defeated by Obama, being a Shadow President against that very same man is the perhaps the second-best thing that he could have hoped for.
The president's action is largely one of inaction, making it difficult to withhold money for the non-event. And funds would be cut for targeting dangerous criminals here illegally, as well as border security.
There is going to be yet another investigation of Benghazi. Yes, really -- another one. But don't worry, this investigation is actually going to be very different. This one is going to be led by a pissed-off (and/or embarrassed) Lindsey Graham.