President-elect Barack Obama and President George W. Bush meet at the White House. (Nov. 2008) AP-Photo

By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Analyst

Dec. 31, 2009 – The last day of 2009 will usher in the final year of the decade: 2010.  So it’s a great opportunity to look back at the stories that have made an indelible mark in our world since 2000?

That’s also the question I was asked in preparation for an appearance on National Public Radio’s program Tell Me More, with Michelle Martin scheduled to air Thursday on the national network. 

During the program we weren’t able to discuss every story since the Y2K, but in the process of racking my brain over the decade I was able to come up with a list of 10 stories I thought were worth sharing. 

But what do you think?   Look over the list below and let me know other stories you would like to add to the list.

• Terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001
• Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast
• Internet Mania; Including social networking; dating services, political outreach and fundraising, Bloggers, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube
• War in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks
• Weapons of Mass Destruction misinformation that led to the U.S. military occupation of Iraq
• Election of the first African-American President Barack Obama
• First Latino named to the U.S. Supreme Court, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomeyer
• American bank failures leading to the Federal Government ’s billion dollar bailouts
• 2008 presidential candidates raised a combined $1 billion in the race for the Oval Office  
• Former Vice President Al Gore garners the worlds attention on the reality of Global Warming

By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Analyst

Dec. 2, 2009 – President Barack Obama addressed the nation Tuesday night to tell the American people firsthand his plan for success in Afghanistan.  In his opening remarks he said, “I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.”

The news that he would be sending an additional 30,000 troops was announced earlier this week, so the president took this prime time opportunity to deliver more details to a packed auditorium at U.S. Military Academy West Point.

The president said the additional troops would start to be deployed quickly to secure key population centers.  He also confirmed U.S. troops will began to transition security and training to the Afghan forces in July 2011. 

Not pleased with the president’s plan, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) issued a statement saying, “His decision to implement yet another unnecessary and counterproductive escalation of troops in Afghanistan is disappointing.”

Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the war in Afghanistan eight years ago said, “We can’t continue to send more troops and expect different results. Our military is already stretched too thin. Afghanistan needs a political solution — not a military one. Adding more troops won’t change this important fact.” 

The Associate Press reports, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was Obama’s opponent in last year’s presidential campaign, told Obama at an early evening meeting attended by lawmakers that declaring a timetable for a withdrawal would merely send the Taliban underground until the Americans began to leave.

Here are excerpts from President Obama’s speech:

“Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
 
“To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.

“These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

“As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security – said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.
 
“Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.”

By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Analyst

Dec. 1, 2009 – The long-awaited strategy on how President Obama will address the war in Afghanistan will be unveiled to the American people on Tuesday.

Before the primetime address, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are scheduled to meet with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Congressional leadership to discuss the administration’s direction. 
 
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked what key issues the president will share with the American people. “The President’s speech tomorrow will discuss our relationship with Pakistan and touch on, going back to the very beginning of this administration, in a renewed engagement diplomatically with the Pakistanis,” he said.

“I think our relationship is stronger and our efforts are stronger in dealing with that as a result of that engagement and diplomacy.  The President will build on that and talk about the importance of them in the region tomorrow night.”

The president has authorized as many as 35,000 more troops but is also vowing there isn’t an open-ended commitment.  It’s not clear if he will outline a specific exit strategy, a timeline for troop drawdown, or list benchmarks for Afghanistan and Pakistan.  

Gibbs is confident the president will be direct with the American people on how he plans to move forward.

“I think the President will reiterate tomorrow what I’ve said a number of times, which is that this is not an open-ended commitment; that we are there to partner with the Afghans, to train the Afghan national security forces, the army and the police, so that they can provide the security for their country and wage the battle against an unpopular insurgency in that country.  That’s, I’d say, first and foremost, our primary mission there.”

By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Analyst

Oct. 6, 2009 – Eight U.S. soldiers were killed near the Afghan and Pakistan border on Saturday just as President Obama, his national security team and his ground commanders plunged into the debate on  the next steps to take in the eight-year war. 

The conflict has intensified in recent months and so has the tension between the president and Congress.  This could be the reason Obama has invited members of Congress to the White House Tuesday for a briefing on Afghanistan.  

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters during Monday’s briefing, the president will “walk them through where we are in (the) process and solicit their views.”

Gibbs added, that the president has not made any decision as of yet on sending extra troops.  Lawmakers from both parties have been invited and Gibbs said the president’s meeting is to hear all opinions on the war.

Obama may find some Democrats a tough sell on sending more troops to the Afghanistan.  Some Dems were early opponents to the conflict that has lasted longer than expected and remains unpopular with those members of Congress firmly against an insurgency of troops in an already volatile,  dangerous territory. 

One outspoken longtime opponent, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is a member of a group of Democrats who have introduced legislation to the House of Representatives to block the deployment of any additional troops by prohibiting the use of funds to support troop increases.

Lee said, “As we consider the possibility of further entrenching United States Armed Forces by sending significantly more brave men and women in uniform into harm’s way, this legislation sends a clear message in opposition to this course of action.”

It’s really hard to tell who will have the most influence on the president’s decision.  But one thing is for sure, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has publicly said he needs 40,000 more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to be successful. 

Let’s see if he gets what he wants.

Do you think we should send more troops to Afghanistan?

By Pamela Gentry, Senior Political Analyst

Oct. 1, 2009 – The president held a meeting with his national security team Wednesday to discuss the progress and the challenges the U.S. is facing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Today he’ll leave for Copenhagen to plug the U.S. as the host of the 2016 Olympics.

First lady Michelle Obama stops to talk to waiting reporters as Pat Ryan, third right, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chicago 2016 looks on. Mrs. Obama meets with International Olympic Committee (IOC) members in Copenhagen,Wednesday as part of the Chicago 2016 bid team who are competing with Tokyo, Madrid, and Rio de Janeiro for the right to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. The OIC will vote on Friday, Oct. 2, in Copenhagen. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Critics this week have charged the president is spreading himself too thin and that he needs to stay put and worry about health care reform, two wars and the economy.

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, told reporters Tuesday, “I think at a time of recession, at a time where Americans have expressed rather significantly their concerns and frustrations over the course of the spring and summer about health care, about the economy, about a host of domestic issues, even international issues, I think that this trip, while nice, is not necessary for the president.”

But the White House disagrees.  During Wednesday’s press briefing, Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, was asked if all the issues with Iran, Afghanistan, and health care created an “extraordinary week.”  Gibbs said, the administration has been juggling a number of issues since taking office on January 21, and this week was no exception.

“I think this has been an extraordinary eight months. What did we wake up to on the 21st of January?  An economy that was sliding off the cliff; a banking system that your paper had written about that could fail; any number of international challenges,” Gibbs said.

On Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner added his voice to the chorus of critics. “Listen, I think it’s a great idea to promote Chicago, but he’s the president of the United States, not the mayor of Chicago. 

“And the problems we have here at home affect all Americans and that’s where his attention ought to be,” Boehner said.

One of those important issues is how the U.S. deals with al Qaeda. It was the topic of a closed door meeting with the president and his national security team.  Few details were released, but the White House released a brief summary stating, “As the U.S. aggressively confronts al Qaeda and its leadership around the world, the President has set a clear goal in Afghanistan: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and their extremist allies.”

“When it comes to decisions as important as keeping this country safe and putting our troops into harm’s way, the President has made it clear that he will rigorously assess our progress.”

The president will join the first lady in Copenhagen Thursday, but it’s doubtful his critics will go away.  It’s also doubtful his absence for a few days will be more than symbolic in asserting he isn’t working on other issues at hand.
 
What do you think? Should the president be promoting the Olympics coming to the U.S. or minding the store here in Washington?

By Rep. Maxine Waters (D- Calif.)

May 19, 2009 – As a founder and leader of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, I opposed the failed Bush policy in Iraq, and I am now increasingly concerned that escalating military involvement in Afghanistan could lead to disastrous consequences.

I believe we must enable the people of Afghanistan to develop a stable and functioning state that cannot be used by al Qaeda terrorists, the Taliban and other extremists to threaten our security or other nations.

The question is how can we best achieve this objective?

President Obama and his key advisors – including military leaders – have acknowledged that nonmilitary initiatives are essential to stabilizing Afghanistan.  However, his most recent spending request for Afghanistan and Iraq dedicates only about ten percent of funds to humanitarian, diplomatic and other civilian efforts.

I am also disappointed that there is no exit strategy or timeline or set of benchmarks to measure progress.

The spending bill presented to the House of Representatives for a vote last week simply continues and amplifies the failed policies that have caused us to be caught up in a continued occupation of Iraq and an increasingly large presence in Afghanistan.

Instead of playing the Taliban shell game, we should devise a smart strategy to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan. They will help us to locate Osama bin Laden.

Airstrikes that kill innocent civilians will only harden the civilians against us.

The Taliban is leading us into Pakistan, where we are on the verge of establishing a new footprint.  Previously, U.S. policy gave the former Pakistani President Musharraf billions of dollars while he was playing footsie with the Taliban and allowing it to control the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now President Zardari has proven to be weak and ineffective, yet he is being rewarded with more of our tax dollars.

Next week, we will observe Memorial Day and remember the sacrifice of those who have given their lives while serving our nation, including almost 5000 Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As we honor them, I will also be thinking of the brave men and women now in uniform, and I will continue my efforts to bring them home safely to their loved ones.

I believe we must place our troops in harm’s way only as a last resort and only with a sound plan.

Tens of thousands of American troops are serving courageously and honorably in Afghanistan, but they have been executing a flawed strategy, and Afghanistan remains mired in violence with a weak and corrupt central government.  I am worried that sending another 21,000 troops there will not succeed, and instead I advocate strengthening our diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives.

Do you think we should continue to send more troops to Afghanistan?