³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

The ball is rolling.

Obama's 10th meeting with his top team in the Oval Office last night was not to further debate the strategy, but to set out his decision. He then spoke by video link to the Nato commander in the field, General Stanley McChrystal, and the US ambassador to the region, Karl Eikenberry. As commander-in-chief, President Obama then issued new orders to the US military, detailing the new troop deployments that he wants.

According to the president has been given a first draft of the speech he will make at tomorrow night, and is working on it.

He's called the Russian president and the French president and will talk to Gordon Brown on secure video link at 6pm London time. President Obama will see around 30 members of Congress tomorrow, both Republican and Democrat, to brief them on his decision.

Of course Mr Brown has already made his to the House of Commons setting out his strategic approach. It is all part of the choreography. The idea that the UK has an Afghan strategy separate from that of the US is fanciful.

But after the continual accusation that Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, faithfully followed ex-US President George W Bush's wishes, Mr Brown can't afford to be seen as anything less than an equal partner. The fact that Mr Brown has his day in the House of Commons before President Obama sets out his strategy is part of that.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This week Barack Obama will make a potentially unpopular decision and his supporters are preparing the ground. A report commissioned by John Kerry suggests Obama has to make difficult choices because Bush and his team ducked them.

The president will tell us on Tuesday how many new troops he's going to send to Afghanistan and what changes there will be to his strategy there. He'll be doing it by answering another question: "What are we doing there in the first place?"

His answer is: "To keep the streets of the United States safe from terrorists." His aim is to "dismantle and degrade" al-Qaeda so that it cannot operate successfully from the region.

So it's very convenient that a report has come out suggesting that it's George W Bush's fault that Osama bin Laden is still at large. The report, prepared by staff working for the Democratic majority on the Senate foreign affairs committee, points the finger directly at the previous administration.

It says that when Bin Laden was holed up in Tora Bora he was allowed to escape while "the vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines".

The report says that killing the leader and founder of al-Qaeda wouldn't have got rid of the terrorist threat. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed Bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide," it says.

It directly blames Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. He's thought to have been very wary of increasing American troop numbers for several reasons, among them a firm belief that big troop numbers were a bad thing.

This is not new. Several books on the region, including masterful Descent into Chaos, have made very similar allegations. While there are attacking the suggestion, Rumsfeld has not hit back.

The political context is clear. If Obama has to "finish the job" it is, his supporters will suggest, because others made such a mess of it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It's Black Friday in the USA and it's nothing to do with , but it will be a sign of whether Americans still feel in the red.

To British ears, the phrase "Black Friday" sounds ominous, redolent of financial or some other crisis.

But in America the words don't ring alarm bells, unless you are one of those rare creatures who loathes shopping. is like the British January sales squeezed into one day. The Friday following Thanksgiving is not a public holiday, but few people are at work today. There are five other people on the usually crowded bus this morning and the streets around the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ office are as deserted as some Western ghost town.

But it'll be more like the Gold Rush in the out-of-town malls where bargain hunters turn out in force as stores slash their prices. One couple, who met while queuing for bargains a few years ago, to mark the day.

Consumer confidence is a really important part of any economic recovery, indeed the nickname comes about because it's the day when retailers' figures start to go into the black, into credit. But last year's sales figures were dismally disappointing as the credit crunch bit home.

By the end of the day, shops in the States will have a good feel for the way the economy is heading, but doesn't suggest there'll be great news for America's retailers.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Happy Holiday to all my American readers and hope the rest of you have some reason to give thanks today.

Until I got to the States I hadn't realised just what a big deal this was: bigger than Christmas, without the presents, the carols, baubles, the tree and the nativity, the focus is unashamedly on food and family.

Not for nothing is it also called Turkey Day, a nod no doubt towards its real origin, , the traditional English festival giving thanks for the harvest (and giving a goose to your landlord, which seems sort of the wrong way round).

I've repeatedly seen Thanksgiving called the quintessentially American feast. It is, in more ways than one. The by-word of modern chefs all over the rest of the world is principle "fait simple": keep it simple, let the main ingredients' purity and flavour speak for themselves. In Escoffier's case, through the medium of lots of butter.

In America less is not more, but simply less. Why have one flavour when you can have 50? Every sandwich shop establishes the principle that there's nothing wrong with a chicken sandwich that blue cheese, bacon, mayonnaise, mustard, fried onions and a bit more cheese cannot put right.

Thanksgiving is the ultimate expression of this philosophy. Everywhere I am confronted by a recipes of the wildest, heaviest fantasy - curried creamed onions; glazed sweet potatoes with marshmallow; turkey with oyster gravy (with whole oysters); green beans in mushroom soup sauce; iced cranberry relish with raw onion. Never has a cooking column been so misnamed as the New York Times' "the minimalist" with its suggestion for sliced Brussels sprouts acting as the bread in a sandwich of ham, - each dish an overwhelming cacophony of flavours that crowd together on a single table of sensory overload.

It is perhaps a fitting paean to bounty, and an immigrant mixture of foods and culinary styles. I am not sure what it does to the digestive system.

What of course Thanksgiving has going for it, just like Christmas, is annual repetition from an early age. Americans feel very emotional about some of these melanges just because of what they evoke. I am sure that if, once a year, for the first 12 impressionable years of life, you get to cuddle up with the dog in front of an open fire, be spoilt by grandparents, watch lots of TV, go to bed late and happy, and all this is accompanied by jellied eels in cherry custard then this food too would serve as a to rock your heart.

But before you start throwing pumpkin pies, I am not really having a pop at my new home. I just am suspicious of doing it the way it has always been done. As much as the spicy smells of Christmas evoke a very happy childhood for me, I still got so fed up with cooking a traditional Christmas dinner that some years back I revolted. Given that Christmas was the one time that one was excepted to spend time cooking, it seemed (for someone who likes cooking) a bit of a wasted opportunity to spend ages over an essentially boring meal, that no-one else in the family was particularly enthusiastic about either.

So for a couple of years we had Chinese, Thai and Malaysian food and enjoyed it a lot more than turkey and Brussels sprouts.

But I must admit to being rather excited by Thanksgiving. So what to do about my fear of being overwhelmed by all those flavours? It'll be an evening meal as I have to be alert during the day in case pardoned by the president is revealed by Mr Obama's opponents to be an enemy of the state.

But then I will be offering a bit of not so much deconstruction as simple separation - the first course: curried squash and carrots in coconut pumpkin sauce (I must start experimenting as soon as I have filed this) with James Beard's followed by turkey stuffed a la Julia Child with , sweet corn and potatoes - roast or mash, I haven't decided yet - and a British touch to the mix: Yorkshire pudding. Followed by another great American tradition: the guests bring dessert. A very happy Thanksgiving to you all.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

President Obama performed the lighter side of his duties today, pardoning a Turkey called Courage ahead of Thanksgiving.

He seemed in a good mood, joking: "Thanks to the intervention of Malia and Sasha - because I was planning to eat this sucker - Courage will be spared."

"There are certain days that remind me of why I ran for this office: and then there are moments like this when I pardon a turkey and send it to Disneyland," he added, raising a further chuckle.

Next Tuesday will be one of those days when he is reminded of the high seriousness of office, as he announces his new Afghanistan policy before troops at the military academy in West Point.

But where does his environmental policy fit in on this sliding scale? He is for the big meeting on climate change, but will leave before the hard negotiations begin.

The United States will put on the table a proposal to cut carbon emissions by 17% by 2020. think this is pretty unambitious compared to European targets, because it is based on 2005 levels.

Even so, it will be difficult to get this figure - and the cap and trade scheme attached to it - through the Senate. regard it as an assault on American jobs and the American economy, and it certainly won't even be discussed before Copenhagen.

White House officials bridle at the suggestion they are not serious about climate change, and those I have spoken to say in eight months they have made "incredible progress", with historic levels of investment in green technology and new fuel targets. But suggest people here are increasingly cynical about the science and the need for action.

It perhaps says something that the White House made the announcement a day before Thanksgiving. No politicians are around to comment, no press releases come from pressure groups. They're all on their way home to see families.

This is America's busiest day for travel and therefore I suppose carbon emission, in America's year. The news networks aren't making a big deal out of the story either.

The president may regard climate change as a pressing problem, but many Americans don't.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

President Obama has held his ninth and last meeting on strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and after months of deliberating he's ready to make an . We expect it to be a big speech on Tuesday, during TV prime time, which means around 8pm Eastern Standard Time (0100 GMT). He could make it from the Oval Office, or in front of troops.

While some Republicans have criticised the president for dithering, envoy to the region , who had a junior ringside seat during LBJ's critical decisions about Vietnam and was of course deeply involved in Bosnia and Kosovo, said recently that it has been "the most tough, sustained, thoughtful process I have every seen: exactly the way decisions should be made".

By the end of next week comments on the process will give way to debate on the substance, about the decision itself.

If he does decide to increase troop numbers, the reaction from his own party will be all important. Many resent the commitment and the cost, and think the American people are with them.

If the president sets his face against his own most loyal supporters, it could set a tone that make a real difference to his whole administration.

Already one is calling for a new tax on the rich to pay for the war.

A thoughtful piece in argues that Obama should be the first Democratic president to buck the trend and refuse to ramp up a war to appease the right, and another commentator sets out the speech he wishes the president would make ending the war.

He won't do that, but he will be talking about an end game.

The president has repeatedly made the point that this decision is about far more than troop numbers, and he'll be crafting the speech to make sure its not the only headline.

He's also said time and time again that this is not an "open-ended" commitment, and how and when troops will be withdrawn are expected to be a big part of the announcement.

The handover to Afghan police and army could be rolled out region by region.

There is also a suggestion that there will be what have become know in the jargon as "exit ramps", which translates as "slipways" in British English: ways of getting out sooner if the Afghan government doesn't live up to its promises.

The world has been waiting a while for this decision. When it comes it will tell us a lot about this president.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

President Obama is preparing for his first state dinner at the White House, given in honour of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife, Gursharan Kaur.

The guest list and the menu are top secret until tonight but the chef-of-honour is a naturalised American born in Ethiopia and brought up in Sweden, who is a .

At the weekend I heard him on the radio talking about Thanksgiving as a celebration of America's strength as a country of immigrants, and giving a recipe for collard greens and bok choy in coconut sauce which might go down well with the vegetarian prime minister.

The black-tie dinner is the hottest ticket in town and the Washington Post has already reported on the of previous such events, suggesting to potential guests that formal elegance is better than anything eye-catching.

I am sure the president's attire will be as sober as possible, but the move is politically bold, when America wants to be good friends with both Pakistan and India. It has obvious pitfalls on the brink of an announcement of strategy in Afghanistan.

India has made and this traditionally worries Pakistan. It has been put forward as a strategic reason why some in Pakistan's intelligence service support the Taliban, as a if and when the Americans leave.

The US envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, told a news conference yesterday that the Pakistanis shouldn't read anything into the honour. He said that although it is typically a European leader who gets the first such invitation, "someone has to get the first trip" and Mr Obama decided it should be India. But it should not be read as a diminution of the relationship with Pakistan, he said.

But it is pretty obvious relations with Pakistan will in the less formal part of the visit. If that makes Pakistan nervous, perhaps that is the intention.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Democrats are celebrating their victory in the Senate that allows the healthcare proposals to move forward. But are they so busy focusing on the details of legislation that they have forgotten the fight for the big picture ? Could that be something to do with the president's approval ratings ?

Their campaign group, Organizing for America, has written to supporters warning:

"Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicised, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn. It's dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term 'Death Panels' - and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists. Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform."

They are appealing for money to pay for adverts and events to fight back. But all this looks terribly defensive for a party that has a president who was meant to represent a changing America and capture the changing mood of a nation.

Mr Obama's administration is sometimes accused of never getting out of campaign mode. It seems to me the danger for the Democrats is quite the reverse. They seem to have given up on selling their story, abandoned the attempt to describe their American dream. If I am right, they can expect big losses in next year's elections.

Take just two examples from last week: the new advice on breast cancer and the decision to try the .

before a Senate committee had him exclaiming "I know that we are at war", suggesting that he wasn't going to be pushed around by terrorists, and giving a nod and a wink that if the good senators were worried by the possibility of an acquittal, that wasn't going to happen.

This exemplifies the desperate hole in Democratic strategy. It certainly openly addresses the Republican senators' concerns, but they are hardly going to be swayed. There was no attempt to reflect the rest of the world's rejection of the idea of a war on an abstract noun, no exploration of why the accused seem desperate to be tried in a military tribunal, and no suggestion that American values were better expressed in open trials than .

I hasten to add, I am not taking sides in the argument, but pointing out that the Democrats are fighting back against accusations, not putting the case for their counter-terrorism strategy. Rebuttal may be necessary but it cannot be a strategy for government. It allows battles to take place on the opponents' chosen ground.

A recent report advising women not to test for breast cancer until they were 50 was seized upon by Republicans, not least in Saturday's healthcare debate in the Senate, as evidence of the way government would ration healthcare if allowed the foot-in-the-door of a publicly run insurance scheme.

At the time the story was first reported, there were hints that the committee had been persuaded by the insurance industry to limit expensive testing. Democrats seemed to forget that the president had told them, when he addressed both houses in September that "insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine check-ups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer".

Of course, this would mean new costs for the industry, but they would be greatly reduced if testing started 10 years later than has been the practice. Democrats failed to point out that big business, as much as big government, might have a reason to delay testing, and that the insurance companies' concerns were a little more immediate.
Again, I am not suggesting who is right and who is wrong, but that Democrats aren't bothering to make a case.

This points to a deeper problem. There is little doubt that the Obama administration is widely perceived as extending the role of federal government, while it seems that a majority of Americans dislike and distrust big government. The Democrats don't seem to know how to cope with this.

They could argue that it is a misperception; they could maintain that all government is big government these days; they could argue that big government protects little people. It really doesn't matter too much what their rationale is, as long as they have one. The Democrats have a great communicator as president, but at the moment, they don't seem to have a story to tell.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

on his blog that one thing we bring to the special relationship is a bloody good bite. He is pointing out the history of British actors portraying vampires, most recently in the latest film in the Twilight saga.

Long before I arrived here, I was tickled by the way we are portrayed in popular American media. If a Brit is involved it's a good old British pound to a cent that if not a thinly disguised Mrs Thatcher, he or she is a toff, a con artist, a degenerate, or just someone with horrific teeth. Preferably all three, which could be why we score so highly in portraying vampires.

The vampire genre has rather . Close readers of this blog will know I am at home this week taking care of the children and so I can report that junior sources reveal that Robert Pattinson is exceedingly toothsome.

Vampires, are of course, sexy. In the original Dracula, Jonathan Harker's execution of the vampiric Lucy is either disturbingly Freudian or just plain funny, depending on your taste.

But if we play the undead sharply, Americans can tell the tales.

To me, the American vampire tradition . Lestat, played by Tom Cruise in one film, is based in New Orleans, a city I long to visit and which seems to provide just the right gothic background.

Vampires are, to my mind, highly intelligent, masters of recondite knowledge, meticulous dressers, favouring a rather formal, old-fashioned style. They tend to have an aristocratic bearing and rather cynical detachment.

While sometimes tortured by what they do, they are basically amoral servants of a higher power. Where better to hide than in plain sight, in the upper echelons of the British foreign office ? Get out the garlic, Sir Nigel.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It is rare that news stories are genuinely surprising but I was taken aback when I heard that the , recommending women NOT to get screening for breast cancer until they are 50.

They say that the net benefit from screening women between 40 and 50 is "small" - in other words, some more cancers would be detected but not that many.

"The harms resulting from screening for breast cancer include psychological harms, unnecessary imaging tests and biopsies in women without cancer, and inconvenience due to false-positive screening results."

They add that when it comes to training people to test themselves, the harms are often greater than the benefits. In other words, a few deaths would be prevented by testing, but that is outweighed by the worry caused by misdiagnoses, and in some cases unnecessary surgery.

The reason I am astounded is that while the NHS does not screen women until they are 50, every doctor I know (and admittedly this is anecdotal) seems to advise middle-aged women to "test and test often".

, fearing that in the US this gives insurance companies the excuse they are looking for to decline paying for such tests.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Too many questions, not enough answers, might be a complaint levelled at many pundits, columnists and bloggers. Indeed, David Cunard complained last week that I often end this blog with a question. He asks if I want you to do my work for me. In a word: "Yes". But I make no apologies.

When covering Europe I learnt a lot about countries from the postings of people who know them better than me. I find the replies interesting, and just occasionally surprising and revealing. But it's not just about what is useful for my work. As a dedicated reader of the replies, I enjoy the sense of an evolving conversation, that often takes off, as conversations do, in unexpected directions.

More than that I think questions are essential to a certain type of journalism. It's true the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ style guide says to avoid questions in straight-forward news stories. But I worked on Newsnight for ages and when we asked each other "What's the story?", we didn't mean we were unaware of the central facts of what we were covering but that we wanted to home in on the essential political questions raised by it. You can go too far: in the distant past the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ avoided some news stories which were simply good yarns, because they raised no "ishyoos". But questions and a range of answers are one of the things this blog is about and that's the way it's going to stay.

One question I can't answer is why Squirrelists found his posts blocked. But I certainly hope we haven't lost his (or her) provocative postings for ever.

But there may be fewer postings from me this week, although I will try. For a week only I have been promoted to commander-in-chief, at least in my own home. That is because for family reasons I am taking a few days off to look after my children. So my weighty debates may be whether equality of all citizens is more important than seniority when it comes to bed time or how to fairly share scare resources, like time on the computer.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Those accused of planning the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people in the attacks on 11 September 2001 will be tried a few blocks away from where the twin towers once stood in New York.

Attorney general Eric Holder says that it's a "fundamental tenet" of American justice that a trial takes place where the crime happened. They will face the death penalty.

One of Obama's first acts as president was to sign the order closing Guantanamo Bay.

For opponents around the world, the prison had become a symbol of the Bush administration - representing a disregard for human rights and the international rule of law. For supporters at home, it was equally a symbol, standing for an uncompromising ruthlessness with America's enemies. So this is a significant moment.

One expert on Guantanamo, Ken Gude from the Center for American Progress, told me that it was "the best news we've had for ages. Its exactly the right move".

He said that the military tribunal the accused had faced was a "symbol of Bush era mistakes, second class justice, if not show trials. But now the emphasis can be on their crimes, not whether they will get a fair trial."

Not everyone will agree, including some of the families of the victims of 9/11. I hope to be able to reflect what they say here later in the day.

But the plan to close Guantanamo has not gone smoothly.

The attorney general has repeated today that it was unlikely to be closed by the president's self-imposed deadline of the end of January 2010.

The administration will not abandon the much criticised military tribunals, and indeed Mr Holder announced at his news conference that five people would still be facing trial by military tribunal.

Then there are those prisoners, perhaps around 70 of them, who some say are too dangerous to be released even though they can't be brought to trial.

That of course begs the question why, if there isn't enough evidence to try them, there is enough evidence to make that judgement.

Lt Cdr Rick Federico, the military lawyer representing one of those accused of plotting 9/11, has welcomed the New York trial.

He told me that "we don't pick and choose who gets justice". So I asked him how he felt about the possibility of some never being tried, but never being released either.

"It's extremely difficult. It's most difficult for Americans to wrap our heads around how it is we can have these men in detention for so long and not provide a forum to adjudicate their case."

Update

Some of the families of those who died think this is justice at last.

Adele Welty, whose son was killed in the attacks on 9/11 thinks "it's of the utmost importance that they face a court". And John Leinung says that it's very important to him "that the right people are punished or held to account for what happened on 9/11", when his stepson was killed.

But not Mr and Mrs Santora, whose son Christopher - a firefighter - died in the twin towers. They say the accused should never step foot in America.

Surrounded by pictures of her son, Maureen Santora told the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳:

"They do not belong on American soil. They stood in the court room when we were there (for the military trial). They stood up, praised Allah. They said they were happy to have been part of the planning and they said if they had the opportunity again, they would do it again. So these are not individuals who should be on our soil. We are protected from them, we need to be protected from them. These are very dangerous, I think, diabolic individuals.

that the trial will turn into a circus, and turn his city into a timebomb. He'd rather they were kept in Guantanamo.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

President Obama is turning the screws on Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, demanding that he gets serious about corruption, before the US comes up with any more troops. The US ambassador to Afghanistan has been even more forthright, sending a supposedly secret cable urging against further troop deployments.

The eighth meeting in the White House situation room was discussing four options on troop numbers, but it seems as if the discussion went back to basics, and focused a great deal on whether the Afghan government was a fit partner.

We're told the president was concerned about timelines: when would Nato forces be able to hand over to the Afghan army, and when would they be able to leave. It's clear he wants any announcement of increased troop numbers to go hand in hand with a clear exit strategy.

There were, we are told, mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government. No wonder. The president was being told by the US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who used to be the top commander in the field there, not to send more troops.

The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ has spoken to an official who confirmed that the ambassador sent at least one cable saying that sending more troops was "not a good idea". The source said that the intervention was seen as "dramatic" and that the man who is now in charge of the military operation, General Stanley McChrystal, was left "fuming" at this outright opposition to his call for 40,000 more troops. If these two hard men in the field are at loggerheads it doesn't bode well for any new strategy.

The says Eikenberry's main concern is that the Afghan Government shows no sign of addressing the concerns that have been repeatedly raised with them, and that sending more troops would increase their dependence on the United States, rather than building up their own forces.

The offical White House statement after the meeting was pretty blunt:

"The president believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open ended. After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time to ensure a successful transition to our Afghan partner."

My translation into even less diplomatic language would be: "We can't send more troops unless Karzai improves, otherwise we'll be there for ever."

The Associated Press version goes a little bit further, saying that Mr Obama has rejected all four options currently on the table:

"President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when US troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government".

But again the core of the objection is about refusing to send more troops unless there is a clear exit strategy, and a responsible Afghan partner.

So a warning to Hamid Karzai to shape up. But is the administration just sending a message, or is it really still in agonies about which direction to take?

Is it a bluff or could the president really send far fewer troops than expected? Sensible caution or more dithering? What do you think?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"America will not let you down, we will take care of our own." President Obama's words are perhaps exactly what you would expect any commander in chief to say.

But he not only makes these remarks ahead of a vital meeting about sending troops to an unpopular war, but against the background of two unpopular wars.

He did not refer to Iraq directly, but to the war that scarred America's soul and divided its people like no other.

He said that in honouring the obligations to those who have fought "we are keeping faith with the ideals of service and sacrifice upon which this republic was founded".

"And if we're honest with ourselves, we will admit there have been times where we, as a nation, have betrayed that sacred trust. Our Vietnam veterans served with great honour, and they often came home greeted not with gratitude or support but with condemnation and neglect. That's something that will never happen again."

The comparison is interesting not just because you can hardly move in this town for .

It is interesting because of Iraq. Such is the reverence for the military in America that even at the height of opposition, there was no suggestion that those who fought there should be regarded as anything less than heroes.

President Obama did not support the Iraq war and campaigned on a promise to bring troops home. But his language could be taken as reassurance to veterans of that war, that they will be honoured whatever the verdict on the politicians who sent them to fight.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The president's morning will begin laying wreaths for Veterans Day; it may end with him very much closer to a decision to send more troops to a foreign war.

He's just come back from honouring the dead at Fort Hood - not killed in a war, but almost certainly killed as a result of wars.

As the ceremony began soldiers wounded in the shooting made their painful way down the steps, on crutches, helped by friends, clutching on to the side of stone steps. It must have been even more difficult for the bereaved, walking past the shrines to the memory of the dead. For each, a pair of boots, a gun, a helmet, and a photograph.

It was a ceremony designed to wring tears. A group of solders at roll call, some shouting their presence, then silence when the names of those who died were called. The last post, or taps, as it is called here, is always moving.

This is a ceremony to emphasise the sorrow of loss and to make some sort of sense out of it with talk of heroism and sacrifice.

The president has to fulfil so many roles. The head of state. Commander-in-chief. And the person who sums up the mood of the nation, and who should strike the right tone. What is called here, somewhat tritely, "healer in chief".

There has been a lot of debate, here and elsewhere, about whether politicians and the media have played down possible religious motives of the killer. The president did not: "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favour.  For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

If the president automatically adopts roles like commander in chief he may also have to automatically adopt a set of values, even when he is talking in part about a war in Iraq, which he did not support. He talked of the military's greatness, the values they were fighting for "to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life". He said no march on a capital, or surrender ceremony would mark military victory in today's wars "in a world of threats that no know borders, their legacy will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that's extended abroad".

This synergy, protecting the homeland by improving the life of foreigners far away, is the logic of Obama's war. The president will again be trying to decide what practical measures can possibly achieve this later today. It is his eighth, possibly last, probably critical, meeting on strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He will have before him four options. There is one that is proposed by General McChrystal, the others aren't being spelt out, but they all include sending more troops. One senior source told the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ that whichever option was chosen, the focus would be on protection and training rather than going out and seeking to kill the Taliban.

There's a sense that a decision isn't far away. An announcement may be a different matter. I may be proved wrong later today, but it seems unlikely it will come before the president travels to the Far East, unlikely to be made while he is abroad - and that means we still have nine days or longer to wait.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The FBI is defending itself against accusations that it should have spotted that the man accused of the Fort Hood shootings had contacts with an advocate of terrorism. and have reported that Nidal Malik Hasan had a series of e-mail contacts with an imam who preaches violent jihad and has links to al-Qaeda. is an American citizen who now lives in Yemen. After the shootings he wrote on his website, now not accessible, that Hasan was "a hero" and asked of the shootings "How can anyone doubt the virtue of what has been done?"

Now the FBI won't confirm the two men had been in touch but they do say that Major Hasan came to the attention of a joint terrorism task force because of e-mail contacts with an unnamed individual. They say that there were between 10 and 20 e-mails, and they were consistent with the major's research (he is a psychiatrist) or of a social nature or were seeking religious guidence. A senior official said they raised no "red flag" and their "general tenor was benign".

They say there is no indication that the major was part of any broader terrorist plot. The senate committee on homeland security will hold an investigation into . This is bound to depend on philosophical, political and legal definitions of "terrorism" and well as medical ones of sanity. Some will feel that is hardly the point.

If a soldier, a Muslim unhappy about waging war on other Muslims, gets in touch with a man well-known for advocating terrorism, shouldn't that "raise a red flag"? What do you think?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The president's in the House of Representatives is understandable. It suggests the endgame is on.

But it is not going to become law as it stands. It doesn't stand a prayer of passing in the Senate. Joe Lieberman, who is an independent with a habit of flirting with both parties, to prevent anything with a public option getting through.

To British eyes, this focus on the public option seems a little odd. It would just mean one government-run - but not government-funded - insurance scheme among many others. Some Republicans fear it is the thin end of the wedge and would lead, horror of horrors, to something like our National Health Service.

Of course to many of us Brits, the cry "keep government out of health care" just sounds a little kooky, on a par with "keep government out of defending the nation" or "keep government out of building roads". In Britain one of the main things the government does, one of the main reason people pay taxes, is for health care, so naturally the revulsion at it in the States seems a little strange.

In the USA, people fear this would lead to rationing of health care, which is how came about over the summer. Someone who wrote in to my last post on healthcare pointed that taxpayer-funded healthcare gives governments the excuse they wanted to pontificate about smoking or drinking. This is true, although government here does pretty well on the pontification and restriction front without what is called "socialised medicine".

But I think in the debate between all the different systems of health care one vital point is missed. Whether they are left, right or centre, they are becoming unsustainably expensive. It is after all the cost of the American system that leads many to conclude it needs radical overhaul.

At the debate's heart are two points. The number of people who don't have insurance, because they can't or don't want afford it. And the industry's reluctance to pay out for those with serious conditions. Private or public, it is a scarce resource, and that is what leads to rationing.

Some years ago, a UK government-sponsored report into the NHS said that it was a potential 'black hole" for spending. This is the depressing truth, born of amazing advances in medicine. People in the West live to have very expensive treatment for cancer and heart disease because they no longer routinely die of measles or TB. The longer we live, the more we need to spend on medical treatment. I don't see how any commercial or political fix can deal with this hard fact.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As the 24-hour news channels reported , they struggled with a single question.

Some were circumspect in their speculation; others were less so. And the crux was this: who was responsible?

Was this the work of a lone madman? Or of a terrorist? Or of several terrorists?

I am sure the question was asked in the White House and that it was foremost in most viewers' minds.

It was certainly foremost in mine - for professional reasons. Random shootings are not my province, whereas terrorism and events that touch the soul of a nation for months to come are.

The truth is of course cloudy. was clearly a Muslim, but there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives.

He may or may not have posted something on the internet defending suicide bombers. But he also appears to have been traumatised by the idea of being sent to a combat zone.

Still, people will speculate - as I am doing. Life may become more uncomfortable for his innocent co-religionists, a regrettable consequence of any such attack.

We search for certainty and for answers. Some will go down blind alleys: reports of his "religious attire", for example, may turn out to be a red herring. There will be a demand for answers about how he got private handguns onto a military base. In a state where people love their guns and their right to carry them, it may be a fairly pointless inquiry. In any case, it can't be hard for a solider to get his hands on a gun.

A lot of us wondered how he managed to shoot forty or so people with two guns. I imagine the truth may be that although his victims were soldiers, few of them were armed.

But for some, nothing less than a conspiracy will do as an explanation. On the website of a respected newspaper, I see one poster has blamed Barack Obama, whom he calls "that Marxist thug". It's not that it's hard to follow the logic; it's that there isn't any.

Still, searching for patterns and for answers is part of what it is to be human. I loathe cliche, but perhaps, for once, this is a "senseless tragedy", devoid of deeper meaning.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

"The greatest threat to freedom that I have seen," that's how the leader of the Republican opposition in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, described the Democrats' health care plan to a mass demonstration on Capitol Hill.

Apparently the big organisations that represent and do not agree.

The president greeted their backing for the bill with some relief. He said of one of them, the AARP:

"They're endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it. They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them. So I want everybody to remember that the next time you hear the same tired arguments to the contrary from the insurance companies and their lobbyists."

It wouldn't cut much ice with the thousands of demonstrators outside chanting "kill the bill, kill the bill" and carrying placards with pictures of a red hand with the legend "Hands off my health care".

One man told the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ that it was "terrible". "They just want to take over everything. They want everyone to join the public option."

A woman said it was "abominable" and "unconstitutional", because the bill was too difficult to understand and people had not had time to read it. She said it was the responsibility of the churches and communities to look after those who couldn't afford healthcare, not the state.

The House of Representatives expects to have a bill passed by Saturday, which would be nowhere near the end of the affair, but the end game is that much nearer.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

When I moved to Washington around four months ago, the front cover of a local magazine proclaimed 30 reasons to live in DC.

Number one was: our new neighbour is cool. It had a picture of Barack Obama in red shorts.

He and the first lady are still cool. The walls of the White House are adorned with some serious art, bubba rock isn't banned, but the White House now hosts poetry slams and R&B and Latin bands.

Michelle grows her own veg and persuades kids it's hip to go organic.

For millions of Americans, particularly black Americans, they are an inspiration.

But as far as the media and political classes are concerned, he's the man who fell to earth. And even to many supporters the answer to "can we do it?" is "well, we certainly hope so".

He's a curious mixture. On the one hand, coolly, even coldly intellectual, trying not to show exasperation with the childish demand of voters for results now, this instant.

On the other, he loves the limelight of campaigning. You see a different, more relaxed Obama when he is in front of a crowd shouting "we love you" and he answers, "I love you, too" - doing his little shuffle and slipping into folksy idiom.

It's probably because it's easier than governing. And he has made mistakes. The biggest over health care.

Bill Clinton tried to write the bill while he was in the White House and it got shot to pieces.

He has let the politicians on Capitol Hill have their protracted say. The result is a confusion of competing plans with different price tags.

He will get a lot of advice following last night's elections, and some of it, like , pretty sound.

But if I was a presidential adviser, I would be more worried about .

I've talked to lots of voters who are anxious about what will happen to their health care.

They don't know. No one knows. No one can know.

Those who want to brand any outcome as costly big government interference easily fill the vacuum.

Pictures of Obama, hand on chin, in the White House situation room listening to four-star generals and CIA chiefs and ambassadors, show him looking thoughtful.

He's done 20 hours of thoughtful, and there still isn't an Afghan strategy.

Now we are being told not to expect a decision until the end of the month.

It's a rare example of government at the very highest level looking very seriously at a complex issue from all the angles.

It's also an example of why it doesn't happen very often. It looks like dithering in a world that values action over reflection.

His team talk constantly about the need to rise above the 24-hour media. Their frustration with voters who want a microwave government - it's not as good, but at least it's quick - and their anger at the media, who they say are stuck in a narrative arc of decline and fall is understandable.

But like any contact sport, politics is more about blocking the blows and making feints than practicing perfect punches.

To paraphrase Enoch Powell, it's a bit like a sailor wanting to rise above the sea. And the days when Obama could walk on water are over.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The turkey hunters I talked to yesterday hoped for a Republican revival and they certainly appear to have got one. As expected Republican Bob McDonnell is Virginia's next governor. Perhaps more surprisingly Chris Christie took New Jersey, even though the sitting Governor John Corzine spent millions of his own money on the campaign.

It's an unhappy anniversary present for Barack Obama, who took Virginia in the election a year ago today.

Some say these elections don't matter. And they are right that . But they do point to the mood in the United States. The president's allies in the liberal wing of the Democrat party think he's moving too slowly. Conservatives are furious he's gone too far. Many of both parties are reserving judgment. But of course voters can't do that, they have to make a choice.

The huntsmen I met in Virginia are a patient lot, waiting for deer or turkey that seem understandably reluctant to turn up. Sometimes they will spend all night sitting in a tree, or lying in the long grass. I don't quite go to those lengths, but sometime I feel like I, too, am hunting a rare, or perhaps even mythic, beast.

The people I want to hear from are those who voted for President Obama but have lost faith, even changed sides. After all, they will be the key to next year's mid-term elections and - looking further ahead - to whether Obama gets a second term.

Jenny, who lives in a trailer home with her husband and two little children on the outskirt of Roanoke, is one of them. Thirteen months ago, my colleague and predecessor Justin Webb interviewed them.

They said they had always been Republicans, but because of the economy, they were going to vote for Obama. They're still living in the trailer, but have scrimped and saved and are excited about moving into a house just around the corner very soon.

Jenny told me she not only voted for Obama last November, she also lost her job. And she's disillusioned with the president.

"He made everything sound good like he was just going to make everything great. And it's just not, the economy has become way worse and I would just like him to walk in my shoes for 24 hours and see how he does it."

She described what he's doing as "horrible" and thinks his plans for "equal health care" are wrong.

It's notoriously unwise to make judgements on a series of random vox pops, but whenever I am out and about, I try to ask people about this - often without a microphone or camera stuck under their nose. And I think the switcher is a pretty rare beast, if a very important one.

Exit polling in both New Jersey and Virginia indicates that a majority of those who voted thought the president is doing a good job. But asking my questions I do get a sense that they are holding the faith, rather than applauding achievements. Turnout is really important: the people at the heart of last year's Obama surge, blacks and those under 30, stayed away from the polls in droves.

These results will give Republicans a sense of enthusiasm, of momentum and may demoralise some Democrats. It may make some, up for election next year, nervous about supporting bold policies, like the public option in healthcare.

To use a New Labour phrase, Obama is in that tricky post-euphoria, pre-delivery phase.

It's even trickier if people feel deliverance never comes.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Aubrey Newman, dressed in camouflage from head to toe, his rifle by his side, is squeaking diligently. He's using two small gadgets hung around his neck, which appear to work on the principle of a finger nail on a blackboard, to reproduce the call of a wild turkey.

It's a beautiful day to be sitting underneath the trees in the hot autumn sunshine of the Roanoke valley in Virginia. Even if no shots are fired, and no turkeys answer the call, staring out at the woods turning gold, red and orange is reward enough.

Aubrey and his cousin Leon have already voted by post in the election to choose a new governor for the state of Virginia. They knew they would be out in the woods on election day. But they are confident that their man, the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, will get the job. They're probably right: it's certainly what the polls suggest.

Virginia went Democratic - voted Obama - last year but, on the anniversary of that victory, looks set to return to the Republicans. The Newman cousins insist that it's the start of a Republican revival. Neither of them voted for Obama but they both tell me they are disappointed with the president.

Leon says: "I don't think he's done anything for me and I don't think he's done much for the country. This health care package, it's certainly not going to do anything for the retired people, it's certainly going to cost us money."

Aubrey is even more forthright: "I don't like some of the things our president has proposed. I have never believed in socialism and it looks like we're going into socialism."

This is not the only test for the president today. There is another governor's race in New Jersey and a congressional election in New York. The results will be taken by some as a referendum on President Obama's first nine months in office.

It is certainly a good opportunity to look at how he is seen, a year after that momentous election - and if his party does badly in some or all of the contests, it will be taken as a portent by many.

But a number of words of caution. Virginia is contrary, and since the 1970s has elected a governor of a different political hue to the one in the White House.

Not even Reagan at his most popular bucked this tendency. Much will depend on turnout, at a time when the Democrats have had a big victory and are exhausted.

Then, these are not British by-elections. People are not choosing representatives but rulers, who can raise or lower their taxes. So the candidates and local issues really do matter. And one candidate seems way ahead.

"Go Bob, Go Bob, GO!" Supporters shout with enthusiasm as the dapper and neatly coiffured figure of Republican contender Bob McDonnell emerges from Roanoke airport to a small but enthusiastic crowd. Commentators are pretty much united that he's the better candidate with a better campaign. The Democrat Creigh Deeds started negative and never really took off.

But if this is about how to run Virginia, it is striking how much McDonnell talks about national issues. It's true someone in his campaign team mentions the need to re-open restrooms along a certain highway, and he praises the virtues of education and off-shore drilling. But his main message is:

"We know Virginians are hurting and there's an economic down but we don't believe the answer is more big government taxes and programmes. That's not the secret to turning this economy round, it's more limited government and free enterprise and private sector solutions to allow people to use their God-given talents to pursue the American dream. That's how we turn this economy around."

That he mentions he is the National Rifle Association-endorsed candidate probably doesn't do any harm with the men in camouflage turning up for a coffee or coke at the Old Mill Country Store, after a hard morning's turkey or deer hunting. Most are planning to vote Republican.

But Shirley Naday, filling up her car at the store, voted for Obama last year and she shares their worries about the president. She tells me: "In the beginning I was for him and I thought he was going to do a great job. But I don't know now, don't know if he's going to do anything. He's kind of disappointed me."

I, of course, find some who are enthusiastic about the president even in this very conservative part of the state but here are some of my general thoughts. Many just don't know what is going on over healthcare, and what it will mean. Many worry about government spending, particularly if they are are not seeing results. Republicans have their tails up while some of Obama's supporters are waiting nervously for things to get better and so may stay at home rather than vote.

But more when we know the results tomorrow.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The White House has repeatedly stressed the need for a "legitimate" partner in Afghanistan. What we don't know is what happens if they don't get one.

What President Obama needs to make a decision on future strategy is clarity,

This breaks down into two parts - perceptions and practicalities.

Everybody in the administration from Obama downwards has put emphasis on the need for any government to be legitimate in the eyes of the Afghan people. No doubt they do want that. But what they really mean is that it must be legitimate in the eyes of the American people, if they are going to be asked to make further commitments to the country. Today's muddle hardly helps any eventual victor look more legitimate.

That's the perception. The practicality is even tougher. Those in the administration who argue against sending many more troops are not dong it because they have some super-effective alternative strategy. They just worry that the Afghan government isn't up to it. "It" being the necessary components of a counter-insurgency strategy: fighting corruption, providing people with effective services and building up a strong and effective military.

To some that means a government where President Karzai has the support of at least some of his rivals, a government of all the talents.

If not, can they somehow circumvent Kabul? Can they do deals on a regional basis? Can they get more people they trust in the administration. Not easy.

The other day President Obama sounded personally frustrated when he told an election rally in Virginia that he was busy mopping up a mess others had left. All they could do, he said, was criticise the way he was holding the broom.

Someone's just tipped another pile of muck on the floor.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?