ThinkProgress filed this report from Pittsburgh, PA at the NRA’s annual convention.

Shortly after the shooting massacre in Tucson earlier this year, President Obama called on all sides of the guns and gun control issue to come together to figure out ways to avoid future tragedies like Tucson. In March, the administration made good on the pledge and invited National Rifle Association officials to participate in closed-door meetings to hash out a way forward.

However, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre rejected that offer, despite the fact that various news reports said that in interviews, LaPierre “sounded at times like the White House” on the issue and “favored much of what Obama endorsed.” LaPierre explained his decision, “It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people.” An Obama administration official said that it too wanted to “focus on the people, not the guns.” Nevertheless, the NRA was unwilling to talk.

Today, at the NRA’s annual convention in Pittsburgh, ThinkProgress asked a number of NRA members if they thought, in the wake of Tucson, NRA leaders and the Obama administration should, at the very least, sit down and discuss a way forward. While one person we spoke with said, “I really don’t know,” everyone else agreed, “It’s never a bad thing” to have conversation:

TP: I’m wondering if you think it’s a good idea to – or for the NRA leadership, I guess, and the Obama administration to sit down and talk about ways to prevent people like that from getting firearms – just to have a discussion about it.

NRA MEMBER 1: Yeah, a discussion is fine. … It’s never a bad thing to conversate about it. That’s how ideas are formed and things change. [...]

NRA MEMBER 2: It never hurts to talk. [...]

NRA MEMBER 3: If it’s a genuine conversation. [...]

NRA MEMBER 4: I would hope, I think a discussion is warranted. And I would hope there would be what they call some middle ground. … Yes I personally believe yes. I believe there should be discussions on a lot of things like that.

ThinkProgress also spoke with another attendee whose father is a lifetime NRA member. “I think it’s definitely worth a discussion,” she said, adding, “Everything is worth a discussion, so to just kind of get things out on the table and see each other’s point of view to see if there’s a compromise or a different way to do things.” Watch the interview clips:

So if NRA members think it’s a good idea to sit down and talk, why doesn’t the NRA leadership? As former NRA insider Richard Feldman once noted, “Safeguarding the rights of gun owners has become secondary to keeping the fundraising machinery well greased and the group’s senior staff handsomely compensated.” And how does the NRA do that? By making President Obama the enemy. After all, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, LaPierre said “gun rights are the safest they’ve been in 25 years.”

Back in 2008, presidential candidate Ron Paul released a nasty campaign ad showing undocumented immigrants sneaking across the border. “Ron Paul wants border security now,” declared the ad. “Physically secure the border, no amnesty, no welfare to illegal aliens, end birthright citizenship, no more student visas from terrorist nations,” proclaims the narrator. Watch it:

Now, it appears Paul has softened his tone. In an interview session with John Stossel, Paul expressed some doubts about the restrictionist positions that usually characterize the far right:

I don’t believe in the open borders. But I don’t like the idea of people wanting to build walls and fences and guns and thinking that the immigrant is the evil monster and the immigrant becomes the scapegoat of everything. I think that’s very very bad.

I do not support amnesty. [...] I’m not for amnesty but it’s absolutely impossible to think that anybody — no matter strongly feel against illegals — they’re not going to round up 12 or 15 million people. It doesn’t make any sense.

Watch it:

Paul also pointed out that “the purist Libertarian viewpoint is totally open-borders.” Yet, he quickly clarified that, “I don’t endorse that, I don’t think we are quite able to do that as long as people can come in here and take advantage of the welfare system.”

If that’s Paul’s only hesitation, he may want to take a closer a look and who actually qualifies to receive public benefits. Undocumented immigrants don’t qualify for any of the benefits of the “welfare system.” They do receive emergency care and their children can attend public schools. That is about it when it comes to the benefits that they are allowed to receive.

Of course, an open borders policy is totally unrealistic. Yet, Paul’s tempered position stands in sharp contrast to that of his son’s. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). When Sen. Paul was running for office, he infamously proposed building an underground electric fence. He later “clarified” that he would prefer it be built above ground.

Ron Paul announced earlier this week that he is forming a presidential exploratory committee.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has been attacking President Obama for wanting to reduce military spending. Earlier this month, the President announced nearly $400 billion in security spending cuts over the next 12 years and McKeon is not happy. However, it’s unclear why.

McKeon, along with other right wing war hawks criticizing Obama’s proposal, doesn’t really have any specific reasons as to why the United States should continue senseless spending on the military. (Here are a few good reasons why defense spending should be cut, and how it can be done.)

Take for example, his op-ed today in USA Today. McKeon says Obama’s proposal is “dangerous,” carves “out critical capabilities,” “will weaken our nation,” “leave us vulnerable to attack,” and will “intensify the stresses on our troops while eliminating the resources available to them.” But he doesn’t say how. Not once does McKeon offer any evidence to back these claims up (he also tries to use Defense Secretary Robert Gates for cover, but not only is Gates leaving the top DOD post, he signaled last week that he’s on board with Obama’s cuts.)

So what else does McKeon have? Lack of planning:

President Obama’s announcement earlier this month on Pentagon cuts was nothing short of shocking. It came after little consultation with his Defense Department. There appears to have been no consideration of threats, of deterrence, of logistics, or capabilities — or even the effect such cuts would have on our three wars, our troops, or our national security.

Obama’s plan may have come with little consulting because, as the President said in his speech, the specific military spending cuts will be the result of consulting with the Defense Department. “We’re going to have to conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world,” Obama said, “And I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.”

So in the end, McKeon doesn’t have any real reason why military spending shouldn’t be reduced. His argument seems to be: just because. Meanwhile, President Obama today announced he would nominate CIA Director Leon Panetta to succeed Gates. As one expert noted, Panetta moving to DOD “probably means bigger cuts to the Defense budget…Panetta will be more interested in getting along with the White House, which must find ways of cutting the deficit.” Maybe McKeon is a little nervous. Why? Perhaps in the future, he’ll lay out the specifics.

With the latest release of classified military files on Guantanamo Bay detainees, The Weekly Standard’s Thomas Joscelyn seems to think he’s stumbled upon some real breaking news:

[T]here is a new piece of information that has not received any press attention. Omar Khadr was determined to be of “high intelligence value.” His connections to senior al Qaeda terrorists, including his father, gave him insights into how al Qaeda and the Taliban operate.

Wow! The U.S. military thought Omar Khadr had “high intelligence value”? So that’s why he was shipped to Guantanamo Bay and held for all these years. Despite Joscelyn’s great investigative work, it turns out this information isn’t so new, as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage notes:

But it wasn’t among the initial files that The New York Times selected to publish, because it is relatively uninteresting. First, the basic narrative of what the government believed about Mr. Khadr’s actions had already come out — in far greater detail — as a result of his prosecution before a military commission on war crimes charges, which resulted in his guilty plea. Moreover, unlike some other assessments, the one of Mr. Khadr does not reveal previously undisclosed reasons or sources for the government’s beliefs about him.

Yes that’s right. As Canada’s Globe and Mail reported, “The newly released assessment sheds few new details about Mr. Khadr, who was captured as a 15-year-old al-Qaeda fighter in Afghanistan in 2002.”

It seems that Joscelyn is upset that “many advocates have turned him into something of a false martyr, however, claiming that Khadr is the real victim of American wrongdoing.” So that by uncovering this (not so) new evidence, Joscelyn seems to be claiming he has the goods on how Khadr deserved what he got. And as a kicker, he points to one instance in which a judge ruled that a specific piece of evidence against Khadr would be admissible in court because it was not the product of torture. Therefore, Joscelyn concludes, “there is no evidence” Khadr was ever tortured (this is not true).

And Khadr’s detention and ultimate conviction aren’t as simple as Joscelyn makes it seem. Khadr’s prosecution was “unusual” not only because child soldiers are normally not prosecuted (Khadr was 15 years old when the U.S. military apprehended him), but also because the main charge against him was killing a soldier on the battlefield, an action, again, that is not traditionally prosecuted. But the irregularities of Khadr’s saga don’t end there. While questions of illegitimacy also surround Khadr’s legal proceedings, Dennis Edny, Khadr’s Canadian lawyer, said the U.S. military even added charges “that we’d never heard of” during his plea hearing. “The Americans have made up the new rules in the laws of war,” Edny said. Apparently, that’s all just fine for the folks at the Weekly Standard.

In an interview last night with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin criticized the President for engaging in a military conflict in Libya, then almost immediately contradicted herself, telling Van Susteren it is America’s “responsibility to help freedom fighters”:

PALIN: He’s been extremely inconsistent in the reasons given for our involvement in Libya. … Why aren’t we intervening in Syria, why not Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain? We cannot afford to be engaged in any of these military interventions unless America’s interests are being challenged. And we need to hear from our President, what is our interest there in Libya?

VAN SUSTEREN: Do we have an interest in Libya, what’s your answer?

PALIN: Well, you know, to whom much is given, much is required. America is such a blessed and prosperous nation, we are that beacon of hope for those who seek freedom. So yes, I believe it’s our responsibility to help freedom fighters.

Watch it:

Palin seems to tacitly acknowledge that she agrees with the President’s rationale for intervening. It’s unclear, though, if Palin is willing to back up her insistence that the U.S. has a “responsibility” to help freedom fighters, or whether it’s just empty talk.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Palin has used the conflict in Libya as an excuse to publicly admonish the President. He had barely finished his Oval Office Address on the intervention when Palin was on TV, describing the speech as “profoundly disappointing.” In both instances, Palin complained that the President has failed to explain America’s interest in Libya, when he has in fact explicitly done so on several occasions. As ThinkProgress reported, Palin also dramatically exaggerated the cost of the Libyan conflict in that interview.

Palin has consistently demonstrated that her only interest is attacking the president, regardless of whether she actually disagrees with his positions. Ironically, on Van Susteren’s website, the segment is described as “Palin: Make Up Your Mind, Mr. President.” A more accurate title would be “Palin, Make up Your Mind.”

Earlier this week, there was a tragic shooting at a checkpoint in Nablus, in the West Bank section of the Palestinian Occupied Territories. A group of religious Israelis, en route to Joseph’s Tomb, attempted to enter the city of Nablus unauthorized.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that the Israelis tried to break through a checkpoint, and that the governor of Nablus said that Israeli settlers began to pelt Palestinian police officers with stones when they wouldn’t let the group into the city. The Palestinians responded with live fire, and an Israeli was tragically killed and four other Israelis were wounded:

During the incident Sunday, Livnat, a Jerusalem resident, was killed and four other Israelis were wounded when a group of Hasidim tried to break through a Palestinian police checkpoint in Nablus. The worshippers entered the city, contrary to orders by the Israel Defense Forces, to pray at Joseph’s Tomb.

According to the Nablus governor, settlers arrived at the scene and threw stones at the Palestinian police. He said the policemen fired in the air to disperse the Israelis and that one of the vehicles carrying Hasidim tried to break through a checkpoint, not heeding calls to stop after the officers had fired in the air.

Yet as Mondoweiss notes, the shooting was portrayed a little differently in the New York Times (NYT). Under the headline “Palestinian Police Kill Israeli Visiting West Bank Holy Site,” the Times wrote only that the shooting may have been “the result of a lack of coordination between the worshipers and the Israeli Army,” glossing over the fact that the Israelis had tried to break through the checkpoint. The Times also included numerous quotes by Israeli officials calling the shooting a “murder“:

The shooting occurred outside Joseph’s Tomb in the West Bank city of Nablus after three carloads of religious Israeli Jews visited the site to pray, without coordinating their plans through the Israeli Army. Twice-monthly trips to the tomb have been organized with army escorts for the past four years without incident. … The Palestinian governor of Nablus, Jibril al-Bakri, told Israel Radio that the shooting was a result of lack of coordination between the worshipers and the Israeli Army. [...]

A statement from Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is responsible for Israeli security in the West Bank, also used the term “murder,” adding, “No failure of coordination can justify an event of this kind and firing on innocent people.”

Mondoweiss points out that there is actually a major conflict of interest in the NYT reporting. The article’s author, Ethan Bronner — who is also the paper’s Jerusalem bureau chief — actually has a son in the Israeli Defense Forces. Additionally, Bronner actually lives in the upper story of a building that was seized from Palestinians during their exodus. This is a major conflict of interest that may explain why the article was slanted in the way that it was.

Right wing war hawks recently had some fun mocking part of President Obama’s theory of leadership which a top aide described as “leading from behind.” (Nelson Mandela also espoused this particular idea of leadership, although it’s unclear if these same war hawks mocked him for it as well.)

It’s also unclear what they found so wrong with this idea. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, quoted in a recent New Yorker article analyzing Obama’s foreign policy, may have stumbled on the conundrum for the right. Referring to the situation in Libya, Clinton said, “[F]or those who want to see the United States always acting unilaterally, it’s not satisfying,” she said, “for the world we’re trying to build, where we have a lot of responsible actors who are willing to step up and lead, it is exactly what we should be doing.”

Put former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R) in that camp. Pawlenty has been all over the airwaves recently attacking Obama on Libya and yesterday on a local Chicago radio show, the likely 2012 GOP presidential candidate straight up said that he opposes Obama’s multilateralism:

PAWLENTY: And then of course the president subordinated our decision-making interests in Libya to the United Nations. And I don’t think a president in our country should ever subordinate or decision making to the United Nations when it comes to the [inaudible] of our military. So, I think the better strategy would’ve been to do it quickly and decisively when that moment window of opportunity appeared.

Listen here:

If the United States went to war in Libya without international sanction, it would have absolutely no legitimacy and could quite possibly be considered illegal (see: Iraq, 2002-2003). But who was it that got the UN to agree to a resolution authorizing something stronger than a no-fly zone? The United States:

[T]he [U.S.] U.N. envoy quietly proposed transforming a tepid resolution for a no-fly zone into a permission for full-scale military intervention in Libya. Some officials thought it was a trick. Was it possible that the Americans were trying to make the military options appear so bleak that China and Russia would be sure to block action?

Gradually, it became clear that the U.S. was serious. Clinton spoke with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, who had previously told her that Russia would “never never” support even a no-fly zone. The Russians agreed to abstain. Without the cover of the Russians, the Chinese almost never veto Security Council resolutions.

With U.S. leadership, the UN Security Council’s passage of the Libya resolution was the first time in 60 years the UN authorized military action to prevent an “imminent massacre.” “It was, by any objective standard, the most rapid multinational military response to an impending human rights crisis in history,” said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch.

And with the UN, the Arab League and NATO on board, the international community, not just the United States, is responsible for the outcome in Libya. That’s what Nelson Mandela called “leading from behind.” Perhaps for folks like Pawlenty, that just isn’t very satisfying.

Back in 2008, then presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) ran smear ads portraying fellow presidential contenders as soft on immigration. Yet, this past summer, Politico reported that Romney “signaled quietly to [Sen.] Graham that Republicans must address immigration before the campaign heats up.” Of course that didn’t happen and now that Romney is once again eying a presidential bid, he has to start figuring out what to say about immigration.

He could support immigration reform — but that would alienate the GOP Tea Party base. And if he goes the mudslinging route he pursued in 2008, it could cost Republicans the Latino vote and possibly the presidency. So, Romney has decided to play it safe by touting border security and opposing immigration reform on the grounds that he’d have to read a really long bill:

Well, I must admit, I’m kind of inclined to take problems sort of a bite at a time. And you know, if somebody wants do something comprehensively, why you can sit down and have that conversation. But you look at some of the legislation that’s passed over the past couple of years, and you’re talking about legislation of a couple thousand pages or more. I find that very difficult to deal with, both as a person who is supposed to read something like that and express an opinion on it or vote on it, but also as somebody who’s being regulated or being affected by the legislation.

Let’s look at things piece by piece. That’s the approach that I prefer, which would suggest let’s go after securing the border and making sure that those who come here legally are able to work here and those that come here illegally are no longer able to.

Watch it:

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was a little under 800 pages long to be precise. Admittedly, that’s not exactly bedside reading. But even President George W. Bush, who was always committed to setting aside time for leisure, was able to get around to understanding the main points of the bill.

Romney also indicated that “you’ve got to have a system for identifying who is here illegally and who’s not.” According to him, “Once we have a system like that in place, with an identification card for those who come legally, you can finally get tough on employers that hire illegals.” There actually is a system in place. It’s called a Social Security card. Romney may be advocating for some kind of biometric identification. If he is, it may not go over so well for him with the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

Romney has flip-flopped on immigration throughout his career, I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened again. As governor, he once stated that he favored a sensible path to citizenship. Then he “embraced a ship-them-back-home, tough- guy approach” even though he was okay with hiring undocumented Guatemalan workers to clean up his yard. Romney’s own family fled to Mexico for three generations.

“I happen to think immigration is a good thing,” affirmed Republican presidential candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. A few years ago, it wouldn’t have been news for a Republican candidate for major office to declare such a thing. These days, it’s hard to name a single member of the GOP who is willing to campaign on anything but a restrictionist platform of attrition through enforcement, no “amnesty,” and “build the dang fence.” Johnson, however, would like to find some way to allow undocumented immigrants to legally work in the U.S. and doesn’t believe building a border wall is going to solve any of the country’s problems:

I view immigration as a job creator, not a situation that takes away jobs. [...] Regarding the 11 million illegal immigrants who are here in this country right now. This is one of those unintended consequences of government. Government has made it impossible for individuals who want to come in to this country and work to get a work permit. So they know, that if they get across the border — even illegally — [...] they’ll get that same job. [...] There needs to be a grace period where the 11 million illegal immigrants that are in this country right now can get a legal work visa. [...]

The notion of building a fence across 2,000 miles of border, the notion of putting the national guard arm in arm across 2,000 miles of border — in my opinion — would be a whole lot of money spent with very little, if any, benefit whatsoever.

Watch it:

Most experts agree that building a costly border wall may only put a small dent in the flow of undocumented immigrants entering the country looking for a way to feed their families. It would also do little to prevent determined drug traffickers from finding new ways to sneak illicit substances into the United States.

Meanwhile, an enforcement-only policy similar to the one supported by most Republicans could cost the country billions. A guest worker program — which sounds a lot like what Johnson is proposing — would have a rather mixed effect. According to the Center for American Progress, a temporary worker program would generate an increase in U.S. GDP of 0.44 percent and amount to $792 billion of cumulative GDP over then years. However, it would also lead to a decline in wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.

In contrast, comprehensive immigration reform that establishes flexible limits on permanent and temporary immigration would generate an increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent and amount to a cumulative $1.5 trillion increase in additional GDP. Unlike the guest worker program that Johnson seems to support, it would also boost wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.

Although it’s refreshing to hear a Republican talk about immigration without demanding more deportations, Johnson’s line of reasoning is shaky. According to him, immigrants are not coming across the border and taking entry-level jobs from Americans because “we as Americans, we can sit at home and collect a welfare check that’s just a little less money or the same money for doing nothing.” It’s more likely that most U.S.-born workers aren’t directly competing for jobs with immigrant workers not because they’re on welfare, but because they are occupied in entirely different labor markets.

Johnson hasn’t received nearly as much media buzz as other potential GOP candidates. Yet he did surprise many critics with his third place finish in the February CPAC straw poll.

The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza has a lengthy piece out today exploring “how the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy.” The article outlines the President’s big foreign policy decisions throughout his young presidency — from the surge in Afghanistan and keeping a low profile during the Green Movement in Iran to participating in the UN mandated intervention in Libya — and ultimately ends with an interesting quote from one of Obama’s advisers:

Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

Predictably, the war hawks on the right picked up on this adviser’s “leading from behind” quote, and extrapolated something nefarious. War charging outfit Keep America Safe tweeted the quote and highlighted it on its website in mockery and AEI’s Danielle Pletka called it the article’s “best line.” And at Commentary, John Podhoretz claimed it damages Obama’s “chances for reelection” because it will be “thrown in his face.”

Why is the right all up in arms about this line? It’s unclear because they don’t say. Podhoretz never really says why this is bad, seemingly for him and the rest of his colleagues, perhaps it just sounds like subordination. But one of history’s most significant and important leaders thinks the idea is a good one, Nelson Mandela:

“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”

Mandela biographer and Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel quoted Mandela expounding on this view:

“He said, ‘It’s interesting because there are lessons for leadership because the way you herd cattle is you lead them from behind. You find the most able and smartest cattle and have them lead the way. You empower them.’ He said that’s a good lesson for all of us. You basically have to kind of share the wealth. You have to find people who can execute your vision and ideas. I think that’s relevant not only in politics, but again even within families.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — who is also quoted in the Lizza article — appeared to confirm this sentiment in Obama’s decision making on Libya. “[F]or those who want to see the United States always acting unilaterally, it’s not satisfying,” she said, “for the world we’re trying to build, where we have a lot of responsible actors who are willing to step up and lead, it is exactly what we should be doing.”

Clinton is probably right. For those like Pletka, Podhoretz and the other neocons at Keep America Safe, acting with the international community, instead of acting unilaterally against or without it, is not particularly satisfying. But as the Libyan case illustrates, the United States can still lead, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its allies can’t stand ahead of the pack.

Cross-posted at the Wonk Room.

The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza has a lengthy piece out today exploring “how the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy.” The article outlines the President’s big foreign policy decisions throughout his young presidency — from the surge in Afghanistan and keeping a low profile during the Green Movement in Iran to participating in the UN mandated intervention in Libya — and ultimately ends with an interesting quote from one of Obama’s advisers:

Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

Predictably, the war hawks on the right picked up on this adviser’s “leading from behind” quote, and extrapolated something nefarious. War charging outfit Keep America Safe tweeted the quote and highlighted it on its website in mockery and AEI’s Danielle Pletka called it the article’s “best line.” And at Commentary, John Podhoretz claimed it damages Obama’s “chances for reelection” because it will be “thrown in his face.”

Why is the right all up in arms about this line? It’s unclear because they don’t say. Podhoretz never really says why this is bad, seemingly for him and the rest of his colleagues, perhaps it just sounds like subordination. But one of history’s most significant and important leaders thinks the idea is a good one, Nelson Mandela:

“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”

Mandela biographer and Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel quoted Mandela expounding on this view:

“He said, ‘It’s interesting because there are lessons for leadership because the way you herd cattle is you lead them from behind. You find the most able and smartest cattle and have them lead the way. You empower them.’ He said that’s a good lesson for all of us. You basically have to kind of share the wealth. You have to find people who can execute your vision and ideas. I think that’s relevant not only in politics, but again even within families.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — who is also quoted in the article — appeared to confirm this sentiment in Obama’s decision making on Libya. “[F]or those who want to see the United States always acting unilaterally, it’s not satisfying,” she said, “for the world we’re trying to build, where we have a lot of responsible actors who are willing to step up and lead, it is exactly what we should be doing.”

Clinton is probably right. For those like Pletka, Podhoretz and the other neocons at Keep America Safe, acting with the international community, instead of acting unilaterally against or without it, is not particularly satisfying. But as the Libyan case illustrates, the United States can still lead, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its allies can’t stand ahead of the pack.

Next week, the United Kingdom’s Prince William and Catherine Middleton will tie the knot, in a wedding that has graced the cover of newspapers across the world. One study from technology specialist firm Greenlight found that the wedding receives one mention online every ten seconds, and online search engine and news source Yahoo! brags that Internet searches about the royal wedding soared “eight million percent overall” since the couple announced their wedding.

One of the most-covered aspects of the wedding is its guest list. Included among the coveted list are singer-songwriter Elton John and actor Rowan Atkinson of “Mr. Bean” fame.

However, one name on the guest list is stirring up controversy. Al Jazeera English reports that Bahraini human rights activists — who are facing a brutal crackdown in the country that has killed or disappeared hundreds following a nonviolent pro-democracy uprising — are outraged that Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, the Crown Prince of Bahrain, is among the 40 foreign royals invited to attend the wedding:

Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, the Crown Prince of Bahrain, was one of more than 40 foreign royals invited to attend the British royals’ wedding in Westminster Abbey on Friday. Human rights advocates were quick to condemn the decision to invite al-Khalifa to the ceremony.

Najib Rajab, president of Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, told Al Jazeera that protesters were expecting the British to take a “tough stance,” rather than invite those accused of grievous human rights abuses to the high-profile celebrations. “Calling our crown prince at a time when people are being killed … for demanding their political rights and peacefully protesting, is extremely disappointing,” he said in a phone interview. “They’re losing the hearts and minds of the people in this region.”

Watch Al Jazeera English’s report about activists protesting the invitation of the Crown Prince:

It was the Crown Prince himself that was widely regarded as the Bahraini figure who invited Saudi troops into the country to help violently put down the student-led movement for democracy.

The Bahraini government’s latest tactic it is using against its nonviolent protest movement is to target Shi’a mosques for destruction. Some reports indicated that dozens of places of worship have been destroyed by al-Khalifa’s government. Earlier this month, a Bahraini captured a picture of a man praying in the ruins of one mosque ordered demolished by the government:

By inviting al-Khalifa, Kate and William may be sending a message to the world that the British monarchy is indifferent to the atrocities being committed by the Bahraini monarchy. The famed couple should consider whether this is the message it wants to send.

No one loves war more than the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol. Kristol is one of the biggest cheerleaders for George W. Bush’s costly and unnecessary war in Iraq. He is a staunch defender of torture. And he wants America to start even more wars to bring about “regime change in Syria and Iran.” So it should come as no surprise that Kristol wants the Obama Administration to ramp up its military presence in Libya.

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Kristol lamented what he perceives as an obstacle to a broader effort in Libya. Kristol claims that the United States is now relying less on slower, lower flying aircraft that are relatively easy to shoot down — and that this is a bad thing:

The A-10 and the AC-130 were doing a huge amount of damage in those first couple of days. Then we pulled them back. Now we’re bombing from 25,000 feet . . . . It’s ridiculous. What are we saving now?

If you talk off the record with people from the Administration, they’re terrified of having some American pilot show down, taken hostage. The A-10 and the AC-130 fly low and sort of lumber along. They do a huge amount of damage.

You can’t get involved in a military action like this though and be totally driven by fear of one American pilot getting shot down. It’s just wrong, in my opinion.

Watch it:

Morality is obviously a difficult subject for Kristol, so he could use a brief tutorial on what the word “wrong” means. Dragging the United States into an unnecessary war against a nation that did not attack us is “wrong.” Torture, which is both an ineffective interrogation method and a good way to contribute to our enemies’ recruitment efforts, is “wrong.” Thrusting our already-overstretched military into war with every nation Bill Kristol doesn’t like is “wrong.”

Living every day in abject terror that the people you sent into harms way could be killed or captured — even if you sent them there for good reason — is the opposite of “wrong.”

Our guest blogger is Mike Elk, a freelance labor journalist and third generation union organizer based in Washington, D.C. You can follow him for more updates on twitter at @MikeElk.

This past month, there was much outrage over the fact that General Electric, despite making $14.2 billion in profits, paid zero U.S. taxes in 2010. General Electric actually received tax credits of $3.2 billion from American taxpayers.

At the same time that General Electric was not paying taxes, many undocumented immigrants, who are typically accused of taking advantage of the system while not contributing to it by many on the right, paid $11.2 billion in taxes. A new study by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy shows that undocumented immigrants paid $8.4 billion in sales taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $1.2 billion in personal income taxes last year. The study also estimates that nearly half of all undocumented immigrants pay income taxes.

ITEP bases its figures of what immigrants pay taxes based on the following factors:

Sales tax is automatic, so it is assumed that unauthorized residents would pay sales tax at similar rates to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants with similar income levels.

Similar to sales tax, property taxes are hard to avoid, and unauthorized immigrants are assumed to pay the same property taxes as others with the same income level. ITEP assumes that most unauthorized immigrants are renters, and only calculates the taxes paid by renters.

Income tax contributions by the unauthorized population are less comparable to other populations because many unauthorized immigrants work “off the books” and income taxes are not automatically withheld from their paychecks. ITEP conservatively estimates that 50 percent of unauthorized immigrants are paying income taxes.

While it’s impossible to estimate exactly how much in taxes undocumented immigrants paid, it is clear that undocumented immigrants are paying more taxes than General Electric, which paid absolutely nothing. This raises the question of who really is leaching off the American system: undocumented immigrants who pay their taxes and are typically too afraid of being deported to receive public assistance or corporations that pay nothing while receiving billions in credits.

At this point, it’s no secret that thousands of U.S. guns have illegally made their way across the U.S. – Mexico border and into the hands of deadly drug cartel operatives. State Department Secretary Hillary Clinton has indicated in the past that she feels “very strongly” that the U.S. and Mexico share co-responsibility in the drug war. Now, the Mexican government may be considering holding U.S. gun companies responsible in court. CBS reports:

CBS News has learned that the Mexican Government has retained an American law firm to explore filing civil charges against U.S. gun manufacturers and distributors over the flood of guns crossing the border into Mexico.

Sources say Mexico’s frustration with U.S. efforts to stop the flow of weapons has pushed them into this novel approach. The law firm is looking at charges that may include civil RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]. The contract was signed on November 2, 2010 by a representative of Mexico’s Attorney General, at their Washington embassy.

Mexicans have good reason to be frustrated by the United States’ inability to stem the flow of guns down south. A report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that “90% of guns recovered and traced from Mexican crime scenes originated from gun dealers in the United States.” From 2006 to 2009, a total of almost 19,000 guns in Mexico were traced to the United States. An overwhelming majority of these guns came from the stores in Texas, California, and Arizona. News broke earlier this year that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives purposefully permitted 1,800 weapons to “walk” into the hands of drug lords and gun runners in an attempt to trace them back to high-level drug cartel operatives. And while these traced firearms do not represent all of the guns recovered in Mexico, there’s only one gun store in all of Mexico where they could’ve come from. That store is run by the Mexican military. The Brookings Institution estimates that 2,000 U.S. guns are smuggled into Mexico each day.

Meanwhile, the Mexican drug war has claimed the lives of at least 35,000 people — many of them innocent civilians — since 2006.

The Firearms Committee responded to the news that Mexico might sue U.S. gun manufacturers, saying, “it is wrong for anyone to blame America’s firearms industry for the problems Mexico is currently facing.” Richard Feldman, President of the Independent Firearms Association, suggested that “maybe we should be suing the Mexican government for their failure to prevent drugs from coming into our country.” Tea Party Nation also issued its own release which proclaims that “Mexico is our enemy” and that “Mexican President Felipe Calderon is about as useful as Joe Biden sleeping through a Barack Obama speech.”

While the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act makes it especially hard to win a lawsuit against the gun industry, Mexico may have have a case. Many of the guns that have made their way to Mexico were purchased by U.S. citizen “straw buyers” who were paid by gun runners to buy the firearms for them. Yet, there has been at least one case in which a gun dealers were directly involved in funneling weapons to Mexican drug cartels. If Mexico can prove that at least one individual engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity,” they might have a case against the gun industry under the RICO statute.

With all that said, even if Mexico does have a case against gun manufacturers, it shouldn’t distract attention away from the responsibility that Mexico shares with the United States. U.S. drug consumption is funding the drug war, U.S. guns may be fueling it, but ultimately, Calderon’s militarization of the drug war has only resulted in more violence and deaths.

After President Obama announced his plan to cut military spending last week, the war hawks immediately got to work trying to throw a wrench in any talk of reducing the Pentagon’s massive budget. But without much substance to fall back on, many hyped a made-up narrative that Defense Secretary Robert Gates disapproved of Obama’s suggested cuts.

“[W]hy is Gates publicly announcing that the commander in chief blew it?” the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin wondered (though he didn’t publicly announce anything of the sort). And in a post titled “Gates and Mullen vs. Obama,” the Weekly Standard pointed out that Gates had recently as February warned against cutting military spending and suggested that must mean that Gates also disagrees with Obama’s new plan:

In February, Defense secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sounded a cautionary note at a congressional hearing on the defense budget. [...]

But now it’s not congressional cuts to the Pentagon’s budget that the top civilian and military commanders have to worry about. Mullen and Gates will have to worry about cuts that the commander in chief is proposing.

However, during a press conference at the Pentagon yesterday, Gates put all this nonsense to bed, saying he’s on board because of “the way it is structured, with the president saying that no specific budget decisions will be made until we have completed this review.” He later added that his previous comments about spending cuts did not apply in this case:

Q: Last November, you criticized the deficit reduction commission’s specific cuts as math, not strategy. Could that same criticism be applied to the White House number of $400 billion that seems to have come out of thin air.

GATES: Well, first of all, it’s a target. And I don’t have that same criticism because of what the president said, that no specific budget decisions will be made until we’ve reviewed these things, and these choices and options are put before them.

So that pretty much takes care of that. So what will the Military Industrial Complexers make up next? They better hurry. As Aviation Week noted yesterday, “the momentum had until now been on the side of those who want to protect defense coffers” but President Obama’s proposal is moving the debate in the other direction.

Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi called upon the United States yesterday to help strengthen international human rights law, and stressed the need for political, as opposed to economic, sanctions against the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its human rights abuses.

Speaking at an Iran conference at George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies, Ebadi, the 2003 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, examined how democratic countries should behave toward non-democratic countries like Iran. “The worst solution is a military attack,” Ebadi said. “Democracy is not merchandise to be exported to a country, democracy cannot be purchased and sent to another country.”

In the past, Ebadi has strongly criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying that it increased Iran’s influence in the region and politically benefited hardliners in Iran. “Dictators actually like to be attacked by foreigners,” Ebadi said yesterday, “so using excuse of national security, they can put away their opposition.”

Ebadi also opposed the use of economic sanctions, “because they will hurt the people.” “Notwithstanding the ten years of economic sanctions against Iraq,” she said, “Saddam was still there, while many people died deprived of food and medication.”

The best tools against regimes like Iran’s, Ebadi said, are political sanctions, which she described as “measures taken against violators of human rights, [but] that do not hurt the people.”

Read the rest at Middle East Progress.

Earlier this month, Utah’s governor signed off on a set of bills that include provisions similar to Arizona’s SB-1070 immigration law, in addition to language that would allow undocumented immigrants to live and work in the state of Utah and create a migrant worker partnership with Mexico. Now, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-TX) is chiding the Department of Justice (DOJ) for going after Arizona for passing an immigration law that is allegedly federally preempted and not pursuing a similar case against Utah.

“If the [Obama] administration is serious about having a uniform immigration policy rather than the ‘patchwork’ of state immigration laws you profess to oppose, then the administration needs to take action against the Utah law,” stated Smith in a letter to DOJ Secretary Eric Holder. “Under normal circumstances, the Justice Department should take legal action against the Utah law for usurping Congress’ constitutional authority to determine national immigration policy,” Smith claimed.

Utah’s political leaders shot back. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff (R) stated, “This is your responsibility, Congressman Smith…It is your responsibility to do comprehensive immigration reform. What are you doing? Instead of wagging your finger at Utah when we’re actually trying to do something here.” Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) agreed. “Typical Washington-attempt to deflect criticism that comes from Washington’s abject failure to address immigration, then sue a state over something that won’t even take effect for two years, rather than use those two years to do something positive,” stated Herbert.

Yet, earlier yesterday, Smith dismissed the possibility of passing immigration reform. “It’s premature to talk about anything other than enforcing the law and protecting jobs for American citizens and legal immigrants,” Smith said. Rather than focusing on immigration reform, Smith prefers to push for more immigration enforcement, including a controversial electronic verification program.

If anything, Smith undermines his own defense of Arizona’s immigration law when he asks Secretary Holder to bring a civil action against Utah’s law on the basis that the government made the preemption argument in its case on Arizona. Smith’s argument goes as follows: the DOJ believes SB-1070 is unconstitutional, so it must also believe that Utah’s law is especially unconstitutional. Yet, that line of reasoning only really works if Smith were to admit that Arizona’s law is unconstitutional. Smith claims that the difference is that Arizona’s law “complements” federal law while Utah’s law usurps it. However, two courts have already concluded quite the opposite.

Meanwhile, there are also practical reasons for why the DOJ may choose not to pursue a case against Utah. Although the Utah and Arizona laws are substantively different, both boil down to the same legal issue: whether these state and local laws are federally preempted. It would be somewhat redundant for the DOJ to pursue essentially the same case against Utah — particularly when, as Herbert pointed out, Utah’s law isn’t set to go in effect for another two years and the case against Arizona could set an important judicial precedent.

Soon after President Obama announced the relatively modest proposal last week to reduce military and security spending by $400 billion over the next 12 years, the war hawks predictably threw a fit, throwing out false scare lines about how the President is gutting DOD and that there’s no possible way — despite contributing 43 percent of the world’s total military spending — the Pentagon could afford further cuts.

Enter the Washington Post editorial page. The Post editors — whom earlier this month argued that the U.S. needs to stay in Iraq past 2011 — today warned against cutting defense spending too drastically because one day, the U.S. military might have to go to war with Iran and/or North Korea:

[R]eaching Mr. Obama’s goal would probably require cuts in the size of the Army and Marines beyond the reduction of more than 40,000 troops already proposed by Mr. Gates. Defense analyst Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution thinks it could require the elimination of more command structures and another round of base closures. What will then happen if the United States is forced into more conflicts like those of the past decade — if it must intervene to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon or respond to aggression by North Korea, for example?

Well at least the Post editorial board is consistent. After all, Fred Hiatt and Co. have been calling for an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and have been trying to push the United States toward a more belligerent stance toward Iran, even regularly running op-eds and hiring a right-wing blogger to make that case. Thus, it’s understandable that they might ask the question: How are we going to pay for all these wars we are calling for?

But of course, Obama doesn’t want to eliminate or even reduce the U.S. military’s capabilities to wage war should it become necessary to wage one and at least part of the plan involves reducing America’s costly commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, not continuing them. The war hawks really shouldn’t really lose much sleep, though. America will still have the world’s largest, strongest, and most skilled military on the planet, just one that’s leaner and more efficient.

And instead of eagerly anticipating a war with Iran, perhaps the Washington Post editorial board might want to focus on the fruits of negotiation, seeing that it does appear to be working quite well with the Iranians.

Yesterday, the Defense Department announced that it will transfer Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is accused of leaking thousands of classified documents to the open government website WikiLeaks, to a facility at Ft. Leavenworth, KS from a detention facility in Quantico, VA. Human rights groups and even members of Congress have criticized the Pentagon for holding Manning in inhumane conditions, reportedly forcing him to sleep naked and holding him in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day.

State Department spokesman PJ Crowley recently resigned after he publicly criticized DOD for Manning’s treatment, calling it “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” Referring to the White House, Crowley told Politico, “I knew I had lost their trust and confidence and in that circumstance I knew that I had to resign.”

Over at the American Prospect, Adam Serwer noted that Pentagon officials said yesterday that “the decision to move Manning to Fort Leavenworth was at least in part based on mental-health reasons” and wondered if the move vindicated Crowley. And today on Fox News, Crowley again stood by his criticism of DOD and himself suggested that it had been vindicated by DOD’s decision to move Manning:

CROWLEY: I think yesterday the Pentagon without saying as much affirmed that the situation at Quantico had become unsustainable. The level of solatary confinement and arduous nature of his treatment was inconsistent with how we normally handle soldiers or inmates in a pretrial situation. They’ve now corrected that with his movement to Kansas. So it’s the right step to take. [...]

For us to lead around the world in the future, we have to take aggressive action and to make sure that action is consistent with our laws and our values and in this particular case, we’ve corrected what I thought was a mistake at Quantico.

“I started off in a mlitary career during the Vietnam era where there was a gap between what we said and what people saw on television from the reporting from Vietnam,” Crowley said, explaining part of his motivation for criticizing Manning’s treatment while a State Department official. “I always was determined that in my government career we would keep that gap as narrow as possible,” he said. Watch it:

“The Pentagon admitted yesterday, sort of,” Crowley said on Twitter today, “that Bradley Manning spent more months in severe confinement at Quantico than was appropriate.”