All Blog Posts from Political Hotsheet

Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with conditions in the United States today and isolationist sentiments are at an all time high, according to a poll released today by the Pew Research Center.

For the first time in the institute's 45 years conducting the poll, more respondents agreed (49 percent) that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own" than disagreed (44 percent). A majority, 76 percent, believes that the country should focus more on problems at home and not concentrate as much on international issues.

Andrew Kohut, the president of the Pew Research Center, told the Associated Press in an interview that the "very bad economy" factored heavily in the growth of isolationist sentiment.

The poll also reflects a decidedly pessimistic mood among members of the public: only 25 percent reported feeling satisfied with conditions in America today, and even fewer, 15 percent, said they feel satisfied with conditions in the world.

Read full post…

During the Senate Armed Services hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was pressed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. on whether the July 2011 date for beginning to withdrawal troops is "locked in."

Gates seemed to suggest there was some flexibility, that "it was a clear statement of his strong intent" and that "the president always has the freedom to re-evaluate his decisions." After the hearing Graham said he took that to mean the date is "not locked in" and will depend on conditions on the ground.

It was a point of contention at the White House briefing today – I asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a "target."

After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.

Read full post…

The New York Times' David Sanger and CBS News Chief Political Consultant Marc Ambinder said on "Washington Unplugged" Wednesday that even as emphasis is placed on President Obama's deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan starting in the summer of 2011, there has been little discussion of the fact that the transition and withdrawal will like be very slow.

"There is certainly reason to skeptical about the ability to do the job in the timeframe he has described," Sanger told moderator Bill Plante. "On The Hill this morning the most interesting thing [Secretaries Gates and Clinton] were saying was, 'well the transition just begins in 2011.' But no one would say how long it would take and what at what pace."

"It could be years," Ambinder and Plante both noted.

Read full post…

House Republicans aren't backing the President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan policy. At least, not yet. The issue is not the additional 30,000 troops, which they support. It's the timeline for withdrawal.

Mr. Obama announced last night that he would begin removing troops from Afghanistan in July of 2011. That's a move that Republicans say will make the surge less effective.

"It never makes sense to tell the enemy when your commitment to fight will run out," said House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN), at left, after members met this morning to discuss the president's new strategy.

Republicans also questioned the president's true commitment to winning the war and criticized his speech last night for not focusing enough on commitment to success.

"Republicans want to know, is the president serious about fulfilling this mission?" said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Read full post…

Democratic members of Congress continue to offer mixed, and largely skeptical, reactions to President Obama's announcement that he will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The president will need the support of Congress to fund the stepped up war effort, but his own party has largely been muted in its reaction to his plan.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) opposes the troop buildup and is skeptical a drawdown could begin by July 2011, as the president indicated.

"I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda," Specter said in a statement. "If Al Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded?"

He added, "It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months, so there is really no exit strategy."

Specter’s statement addressed a key point of contention with respect to the president's plan: a timeline for withdrawal. Mr. Obama indicated troops should begin to withdraw by 2011, but he did not say when they would be fully out of Afghanistan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), for one, gave his unequivocal support for the president's plan. And he offered support for the timetable.

"President Obama made a convincing case that sending additional troops to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is critical to our national security," Reid said in a statement.

"More than anything, I am pleased that he made clear that our resources are not unlimited and our commitment is not open-ended," he continued. "By laying out a strategy that will begin to bring our mission to a close within the next 18 months, the president drew an essential distinction between his approach to the war and that of the previous administration."

Read full post…

Sarah Palin is offering rare praise for President Obama following his speech last night in which he vowed to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

"At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan," Palin wrote on her Facebook page last night.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee expressed gratitude that a president who ran on a platform opposing the surge in Iraq now supports a surge in Afghanistan. She also signaled confidence that a surge in Afghanistan can succeed.

Read full post…

Politics Today is CBSNews.com's inside look at the key stories driving the day in politics, written by CBS News Political Director Steve Chaggaris:

** Bipartisan support needed to fund buildup could hard for Obama to find...

** Senators target seniors and women with first health care amendments...

** White House crashers have some explaining to do after e-mails are revealed...

AFGHANISTAN: Following his highly-anticipated Afghanistan war speech last night, President Obama will let Congress mull over his plan today as he stays at the White House with no public events scheduled.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen will testify about the plan to the Senate Armed Services and the House Foreign Affairs Committees today.

Meantime, "A barrage of instant criticism blasting President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan strategy from across the political spectrum signaled the challenges ahead in selling the plan to a skeptical public and Congress," reports the Wall Street Journal's Peter Wallsten.

"Some of Mr. Obama's most loyal supporters among liberal grass-roots groups denounced the 30,000-troop escalation—despite a newly revealed plan for a quick drawdown that White House officials had hoped would mollify the left.

"Many Republicans, while supporting the troop increase, were quick to charge that the timetable for withdrawal would embolden U.S. adversaries. Arizona Sen. John McCain warned that Mr. Obama risked telling the enemy 'that you're coming and you're leaving.'"

Read full post…

Vice President Joe Biden said the target of withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 18 months makes President Obama's newly announced troop increase more palatable to the American public and sends a message to the Afghan government to get serious about fighting militants.

"To be completely blunt with you, it probably makes it more palatable but that's not the purpose," Biden told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith Wednesday. "The purpose is to make it clear to [President Hamid] Karzai and his government, that up until now has been unwilling to step up to the ball, 'Fellas, you've got to step up to the ball.'"

Mr. Obama announced plans Tuesday to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at the fastest pace possible, with the first deployment of new Marines likely coming by Christmas. The president vowed to begin drawing down forces by July 2011.

Biden said it was a "date certain to begin the process" because he's confident that the revamped U.S. strategy will effectively stabilize the region. But the timetable for withdrawal drew immediate criticism.

"If you tell the enemy when you're leaving, it despirits your friends because they have to stay there in the neighborhood," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Smith, though he supports the president's overall strategy.

Read full post…

Call this a war stimulus package for Afghanistan: the Commander in Chief is sending in just enough extra troops to turn the momentum around, he hopes, and then he’s going to start bringing them home in 2011. At least, that’s how the president’s new plan for Afghanistan is being described inside the beltway. Put another way, he’s sending the signal to the American people, Congress, the Afghans and the world in general that he is renting this war, not buying into it.

The purpose is to tell those multiple audiences there’s an end in sight, because that’s what he thinks they need to hear—the American people, because they’re tired of it and afraid they can’t afford much more of it; the Congress, especially the Democrats, who fear they may get voted out if they are perceived as having bought into a war that’s been labeled a (potential) quagmire; and the Afghans, because Mr. Obama wants them to know he’ll not only let them have their country back, but that he intends to leave them to it, as soon as possible, so they (read: Afghan President Hamid Karzai) better cooperate with the Americans now because the gravy train will eventually pull out.

He told them how he plans to leave, in the form of a somewhat retooled strategy. It’s not a wholesale departure from what we’ve heard before. Instead, it’s a narrowing of goals, using the same tactics the president articulated when he sent an extra 21,000 troops earlier this year: an expanded use of counterinsurgency, with continued counterterrorism (going after the bad guys, be they remnants of foreign Al Qaeda fighters or resurgent local Taliban), and a hyped-up schedule to train and then turn over responsibility to Afghan forces, so we can get out. Old fashioned counterinsurgency is "clear, hold and build." This is more "clear, hold, while building up someone else, and handover ASAP."

"It’s status quo plus," Af-Pak scholar Haider Mullick e-mailed me after the speech. (E-mail reactions were flying thick and fast, post-speech. ) He called it "a clever counterterrorism and counterinsurgency hybrid free of costly nation-building – enough to suppress Taliban and al Qaeda in the next two years but not enough to deter their resurgence in next five." Mullick is a fellow at the U.S. Joint Special Operations University, and he’s spent a lot of time in the region.

Read full post…

President Obama delivered his much-anticipated address detailing his new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan on Tuesday night, and reaction is already pouring in. Below, a sampling:

• Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, issued a statement saying he is "glad the president will finally provide General McChrystal with the troops he needs."

"If the president remains committed to this crucial fight, Republicans - and the American people - will stand with him," he said. "But sending mixed signals by outlining the exit before these troops even get on the ground undermines their ability to succeed."

• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the president "articulated a way out of this war with the mission of defeating Al Qaeda and preventing terrorists from using Afghanistan and Pakistan as safe havens to again launch attacks against the United States and our allies."

"The President has offered President Karzai a chance to prove that he is a reliable partner," she said. "The American people and the Congress will now have an opportunity to fully examine this strategy."

• Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell said he supports "the President’s decision to follow the advice of Generals Petraeus and McChrystal in ordering a surge of forces into Afghanistan."

"As this surge of forces produces results in security, governance and in capabilities of the Afghanistan Security Forces, we must ensure that the transition of responsibilities is based on conditions, not timelines," he added.

• "I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest," said Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold. "It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy. Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al Qaeda is headquartered."

Read full post…