Obama Considers Commission on Bush Admin Torture | Newsweek Scope

An Inconvenient Truth Teller
Holly Bailey 10/10/2009 12:00:00 AM
Joe Biden had a question. During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, "Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.
The Question Remains
Arian Campo-Flores 10/6/2009 12:00:00 AM
As Rep. Joe Wilson illustrated with his "You lie!" outburst during President Barack Obama's speech to Congress, the illegal-immigration issue remains as hot as ever. Lou Dobbs still fulminates about it most evenings on CNN. Conservative talk-radio hosts descended on Washington, D.C., last month for a “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” gathering, aimed at lobbying against "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. On the other side, the United We DREAM Coalition organized 125 events around the country a few weeks ago in support of a law that would legalize certain undocumented high-school graduates.
Why Don’t Liberals Care About Health Care?
Eleanor Clift 10/2/2009 12:00:00 AM
Railing about Afghanistan is a loser politically, but it gets liberal juices going in a way the Baucus health-care bill never will. The left is more focused on pressing President Obama not to escalate in Afghanistan than it is in convincing Congress with a real grassroots push on health care. It's in the party's DNA. Liberal Democrats are more emotionally invested in war and peace issues than in sausage-like compromise on health-care legislation. ( Click here to follow Eleanor Clift )
The Mutiny on the Left
Raina Kelley 9/24/2009 12:00:00 AM
Anybody remember the 2000 election? Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election to George W. Bush after the Supreme Court's decision to stop the recount in Florida with Bush ahead by a mere 537 votes. But what people may not remember (or may want to forget) are the 97,488 votes that went to third-party candidate Ralph Nader in Florida. If less than 1 percent of those votes had gone to Gore, there would have been no need for those Bush countdown clocks, Bill Maher would still be on ABC, and who knows who would be president now—but I bet not Barack Obama. Now, I know there is quite a bit of controversy over whether Nader actually lost the race for Gore (who also lost his home state of Tennessee and tight races in other states), but it's fair to say that Nader was a significant factor in Bush's victory. I remember my liberal friends were planning to vote for Nader with the rejoinder, "There's no real difference betweens Dems and Repubs. They're all part of the same rotten system. I'm going to vote for a real progressive who breaks the hegemony of the two-party system." Back then, liberals at the far end of the political spectrum were feeling stung by Clintonian compromises—"don't ask, don't tell" and welfare reform come to mind—and were disgusted by his personal foibles. Gore, they thought, would just be more of the same and really no better than Bush. A third way, Nader, seemed like the best idea at the time. Of course, it didn't really work out that way. Rather than "teaching our democracy a lesson," the third way contributed to Bush's eight-year sojourn in the White House. And, from the perspective of liberals (and most other people if approval numbers are to be trusted), Bush was one of the worst presidents we've ever had. From logging and drilling in national parks to limiting stem-cell research and botching Katrina, the Bush years were a nightmare for progessives. And that's not even counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or Guantánamo or "freedom fries." Meanwhile, Al Gore rebounded with An Inconvenient Truth, and was not only anointed a saint and honored with a Nobel, but even begged by those old Nader voters to lead the Democratic ticket in 2008. How's that for irony?
Ahmadinejad’s Nuclear Offer
Lally Weymouth 9/23/2009 12:00:00 AM
In an exclusive wide-ranging hour-and-a-half interview with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth and editors from The Washington Post, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discussed his upcoming talks with the United States, his opinion of President Obama, and his continued denial of the Holocaust, as well as the U.S.-led effort in Afghanistan, which he views as doomed. In it he previewed his offer to purchase enriched uranium from the United States for medicinal purposes, which proliferation experts say is likely a nonstarter. Excerpts:
Words Have Consequences
Jon Meacham 9/19/2009 12:00:00 AM
The wars of the Obama presidency—the tea parties, the heckling, the charges of racism—are covered breathlessly, but they are, sadly, all too familiar. Controversial presidents have always inspired epic love and epic hate; Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush are among those who commanded the loyalty of millions and endured the enmity of many. Given our short national attention span, it may come as a surprise to some that our present ferocity is the historical rule, not the exception. To want to look backward sentimentally is understandable: it is more pleasant to be a Scarlett O'Hara, thinking about tomorrow, than it is to be a William Faulkner, for whom the past is never past.