Barack obama

Victory, but there’s little triumphalism as Republicans look to court America

Hysteria has lapsed into disaffection: it was a bleak night for President Obama. But, despite the apparent immediacy of a ‘conservative moment’, there is caution in Republican circles this morning: both Clinton and Reagan won from similar positions in 1982 and 1994. The G.O.P’s leadership knows that elections are not won from the extremes, as Barack Obama has discovered to his cost, and it is trying to calm the party’s often excitable fringe, which will be no easy task if Rand Paul’s ‘Tea Party tidal wave’ is anything to go by. Ben Brogan recently highlighted the G.O.P’s growing ‘Stop Palin’ campaign, and David Frum adds his voice again. Chancers and

James Forsyth

Republicans take control of the House, Democrats cling on in Senate

The Democrats have lost control of the House of Representatives. The Republican party looks to have picked up more than 60 seats in the lower house, slightly more than they were expected to, and they will have a comfortable majority there. The Democrats have lost six seats in the Senate but held onto their majority in the upper chamber. These results are a blow to President Obama. The loss of the Democratic majority in the House will force him to compromise to get things done.  The results do seem to be a rejection of his agenda, 56 percent of voters in the exit poll felt that government is now doing

A conservative revival in the States

Election night two years ago was not a good night for the GOP. Not only had it lost the White House but also all those predictions about how social trends and demographics were making America more Democrat appeared to be coming true.  In the south, Virginia and North Carolina shifted to the Democratic column. In the mid-West, Indiana went for the Democratic candidates for the first time since 1964. I was watching the results come in that night with an informal adviser to the McCain campaign and that evening it was hard to see how the Republicans could get to 270 in future with the upper south moving into swing

Barack Obama: suspicious packages contained explosives

The terror scare surrounding two planes in the UK’s East Midlands Airport and Dubai is now, officially, serious. In a statement this evening, Barack Obama has confirmed that packages on both aircraft contained explosive devices. The packages were sent from Yemen, and were headed for synagogues in Chicago. As Obama put it, this is a “credible terrorist threat” against the US. There is little detail yet, although the Yemeni connection suggests that this is an al-Qaeda plot. And the White House is not ruling out the grim possibility that there are more packages out there. Sadly, Islamist terror is casting its shadow across the West once again.

The insidious fingers of Iran are all over Iraq

Wikileaks is the story of the day. The Guardian has extensive coverage of unsubstantiated allegations made by unnamed Iraqis. That is not to prejudge the revelations, just to provide balance against the sensational headlines before proper investigations called for by the UN. In addition to the alleged atrocities and cover-ups, Wikileaks’ disclosures support what Blair and Bush said and maintain: Iran incited dissidence to exploit instability. In fact, it is still doing so, despite the Obama administration’s protests to the contrary. The New York Times has eviscerated Biden and Obama this morning. The Telegraph’s Toby Harnden has the best summary of the unfolding debate: ‘It seems to me that the

Groupthink and doubletalk

Soon after his historic victory over John McCain, Barack Obama was ushered into a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) located deep inside the Federal building in Chicago to receive his first top-secret intelligence briefing as President-elect. According to Bob Woodward, the Watergate icon and Washington journalism grandee, the space was designed to prevent eavesdropping and thus ‘unusually small . . . windowless and confining, even claustrophobic’. The briefing by Mike McConnell, then Director of National Intelligence, revealed little information that Obama — or any reader of Woodward’s Obama’s Wars — could not have found in a news- paper in November 2008: the dangers posed by North Korean nuclear weapons and

Obama 2.0

The piece in the New York Times magazine this weekend on the Obama presidency illustrates how far he has fallen. A large chunk of it is devoted to whether or not he can win re-election, something that most of his supporters used to take for granted.  Significantly, the Obama White House itself is admitting that things could have been done better: “While proud of his record, Obama has already begun thinking about what went wrong — and what he needs to do to change course for the next two years. He has spent what one aide called “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0” with his new interim chief

The X-Factor

Bob Woodwood could write a cookbook and it would be a bestseller, but Obama’s Wars, his latest book, will wreak quiet havoc beyond bookshops because Afghanistan already lours over Obama’s presidency. 9 years into the conflict and the limits of victory have been re-defined in the Taliban’s favour. The spat between the White Hosue and Stanley McCrystal has been replaced by further controversy with Petraeus over the withdrawal strategy. Woodward’s book is impartial, but he has given an acidic interview to the Sunday Telegraph where he implies that, when it comes to war, Obama doesn’t have the ‘x-factor’. The inherent contradiction between America’s current full engagement and proclaimed imminent withdrawal

General Conway versus the Commander-in-Chief

President Obama’s folly in setting a fixed date to start troop withdrawals from Afghanistan has been highlighted by the US Marine General James Conway. He told reporters on Tuesday that Obama’s July 2011 start date for withdrawal was “probably giving our enemy sustenance….In fact, we’ve intercepted communications that say, ‘Hey, you know, we only have to hold out for so long.’” As Mark Mardell noted on the Today programme, after having relieved General McChrystal of the Afghan command for his criticism of the civilian leadership Obama is keen to avoid another clash with a member of the senior brass. So there will be no White House reprimand for Conway. But

Strategic differences

When President Obama asked General Petraeus to take over the Afghan command after General McChrystal’s Rolling Stone implosion, there was much speculation that the two men would clash over the date for America to begin withdrawing troops. Obama had set down July 2011 as the starting point but Petraeus was almost certainly going to want more time than that. In Petraeus’s Meet the Press interview on Sunday, Petraeus made clear he might argue that withdrawal cannot begin that quickly ‘MR. GREGORY:  I just want to clarify this.  Did — could you reach that point and say, “I know that the process is supposed to begin, but my assessment as the

Obama defeats our shameful libel laws

Here’s one divergence between the US and the UK where we can all get behind our American brethren. Yesterday, Barack Obama signed into law a provision blocking his country’s thinkers and writers from foreign libel laws. The target is “libel tourism,” by which complainants skip around the First Amendment by taking their cases to less conscientious countries. And by “less conscientious countries,” I mean, erm, here.         As various organisations have documented, not least the Index on Censorship, the libel laws in this country are a joke – and a pernicious one at that. Various dodgy figures have exploited them to effectively silence publications and individuals who, regardless of the

Cameron lambasts Pakistan whilst on Indian trade mission. Bad move

Oh for the days of inactive prime ministers. After yesterday’s hot-headedness about Gaza, comes an even more deliberately pointed statement. Cameron said: ‘[Pakistan] should not be allowed to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.’ I agree, providing of course it is established that the Pakistani state is fomenting terror and the Wikileaks revelations do not give that impression. That said, the Pakistan government is responsible for all of its agents, and they should curb S-Wing’s collusion with the Taliban and its affiliates in Waziristan. Cameron and Obama are right to press the Pakistani authorities. But a goodwill tour

The Hayward saga draws to a close

There has been an inevitability about Tony Hayward’s departure from BP ever since the first aftershocks of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. But now, despite BP’s peculiar denials this morning, that inevitability has reached fever pitch – and it’s widely expected that Hayward will be booted out of his job tomorrow morning. As a thousand comment writers have quipped, he can now get his life back. The question on most observer’s minds is, does he deserve it? And it’s a question which Allister Heath answers persuasively in City AM today. My quick take is that, yes, Hayward came under unfair and politically-motivated fire at times, but much of the criticism flung

Few smoking guns in these leaks

Courtesy of WikiLeaks, the Guardian and The New York Times have obtained classified documents pertaining to the killing of civilians in Afghanistan and the duplicity of Pakistani spies. The White House is furious, condemning the leaks for ‘endangering US and allied servicemen’ on active duty – a statement that seems reasonable until the White House added that the documents pre-dated President Obama’s assumption of office and that they ‘do not reflect current on-ground realities’. But that makes the allegations contained therein irrelevant or dated. Judging by the two newspapers’ coverage, the leaks are vague and certainly not novel. It’s obvious that Pakistan is an unwilling ally, and one which has its

All for show?

Gordon Brown will be seething, and with some justification: he never got photo-ops like these with Barack Obama. Shots of a cosy chat in the Oval Office are usually reserved for Benjamin Netanyahu, following the latest impasse between Israel and America. The Obama administration has gone to great lengths to repair the damage it did to Anglo-American relations at the start of its term. The President was all sparkle and bonhomie during the joint press conference, and he was careful to name-check ‘The Truly Special Relationship’ twice. Obama may be faking it but he looks comfortable with Cameron. He has always given the impression of being a cold fish, short

A special relationship in the making?

I’ve spent the morning contending with the WSJ’s Heath Robinson-esque subscription service so you don’t have to. Inside the paper, David Cameron explains what the Special Relationship means to him. 1). The Special Relationship is close and robust because British and American values are essentially the same, which explains why our national interests are often aligned: ‘The U.S.-U.K. relationship is simple: It’s strong because it delivers for both of us. The alliance is not sustained by our historical ties or blind loyalty. This is a partnership of choice that serves our national interests.’ There may be differences in emphasis and application, but, Cameron argues, Britain and America stand together on Afghanistan, global

Europe rises from its slumber

Emblazoned across the Times is the headline: ‘Europe warns Obama: this relationship isn’t working.’ The piece is teeming with quotations from diplomats and representatives of major European governments, voicing their concern that post-Cold War America no longer offers Europe a privileged relationship. The goodwill that Europe offered Obama has entirely evaporated. Few diplomatic spats are ever one-sided, and the Americans are deeply frustrated with the European Union. A White House official condemned the EU’s ‘non-existent foreign policy apparatus’, and Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations said: ‘Europe created these posts (EU President and EU Foreign Minister) to speak for the collective as a whole. But from the perspective

Why Obama did not consider pulling out of Afghanistan

The implosion of General McChrsytal’s career has refocused attention on Afghanistan. Reading Peggy Noonan’s column on the subject I was struck by this paragraph reflecting on Jonathan Alter’s reporting of Obama’s decision making process when he ordered the surge: More crucially, the president asked policy makers, in Mr. Alter’s words, “If the Taliban took Kabul and controlled Afghanistan, could it link up with Pakistan’s Taliban and threaten command and control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?” The answer: Quite possibly yes. Mr. Alter: “Early on, the President eliminated withdrawal (from Afghanistan) as an option, in part because of a new classified study on what would happen to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if the

Cameron wants troops out of Afghanistan by 2015

Everything about the Cameron government comes in fives. Five year terms, a five-year coalition and now we learn that it is Cameron’s considered opinion that British troops cannot remain Afghanistan for another five years. All Cameron has offered is the hope that troops will be home before the proposed May 2015 election. Five more years in Helmand on the current trajectory would be extremely costly and unpopular, especially given the political pressure surrounding defence cuts. Cameron realises this but will the nature of Britain’s engagement change? The assumption was that Britain would mirror President Obama’s timetable and begin a gradual withdrawal next year. That political and military strategy depended on

Obama wants ‘global concert’ to delay cuts

G20 summits are usually turgid affairs, but this one has some (limited) potential. Relations between the White House and Britain and the White House and Europe have been frosty of late. Afghanistan, BP, the Falklands, Merkel and Sarkozy’s irritation at Obama’s personal and political aloofness, all of these have been contentious. Diplomatic tension has now developed an economic arm. The broadly centre right governments of Britain, France and Germany are committed to cutting public spending now. Each has introduced an austerity programme, and Cameron has made retrenchment is his international cause. Obama still stands for stimulus. The President said: ‘This weekend in Toronto, I hope we can build on this