The crux of the article isn't that we shouldn't be trying to give aid to Afghanistan or that it's a hopeless proposition, but that it's been done badly. It shouldn't a shock that conservative philosophy has had the same results in Afghanistan as in Iraq. Conservatism is a political solvent, destroying everything it's poured on. The key flaw in all Bush's efforts has been a refusal to grant resources to people who aren't private contractors and aren't connected. Not just in Iraq and Afghanistan as the writer pointed out, but residents of the Gulf Coast have been mostly excluded from reconstruction efforts there. Just like in Afghanistan, Bush could have hired locals to build for themselves, earn a living while doing it, maybe learning skills that would serve them the rest of their working lives.

So let's not cut off aid, but let's trust people. Distribute it widely instead of to a few who will almost be bound to be crooked. Besides, at this point, wouldn't we all say we owe the Afghans? Cash with monitoring but few strings seems like a better risk at this point. I think Obama is smart enough to realize more troops might buy a bit more time, but that's all.

When Pete Seeger is singing to and in in honor of a president, the world has turned upside down. We have a whole lot of rebuilding to do, but the storm is over.

Center-right country my a@@.

I noted Joan's mention of the Tuskegee Airman getting more attention than the entertainment celebrities. Rebecca Traister mentioned Jimmy Carter getting more applause than Oprah. I have been to political events where celebrities were warmly welcomed, but the enthusiasm is for politicians. Politics has become cool.

...it's already time for Geithner to spends more time with his family.

but I'm not really sure what to say. Even with a Democrat in office, I expected the Bush holdovers to put up enough of a fight that we would have a slog to ban torture. I contented myself with knowing that at least advocates for human rights would be on offense instead of defense. Wow.

One of my first thoughts, like another commented, was that what was undone with a pen stroke could be redone. However, I offer some comforting thoughts. First, Obama's order implements the law rather than ignoring or twisting it, and that gives it a stronger legal basis than the orders Obama undid. Second, Congress seems likely to give Obama what he wants , so there could be codification of Obama's order in statute beyond existing statutes.

Third, it helps to say "thanks" and "we have your back" to politicians who try to do the right thing, so we should send Obama some positive messages and tell Congress to make sure the law matches Obama's order.

I recently read of Taliban attacks in Pakistan being launched from bases in Afghanistan. Sorry, no success digging up a link, but I am sure I don't have that backwards. We delude ourselves thinking that jut hitting bases in Pakistan is enough. The Taliban have grabbed a big territory including both sides of the border.

Our attention has been on Iraq, but I could see history deciding that Iraq was the sidelight to the real Bush disaster in southwest Asia.

When I read this, my first thought was that scene in Pee Wee's Big Adventure where he has some bicycle accident in front of witnesses, and says like he believes it, "I meant to do that." It's amazing how much effort conservatives are putting into claiming Obama is pretty much just like them. I think we've seen over these first two days that he isn't.

When we said you had to fix the world in your first week, WE WERE KIDDING.

Seriously, it's good to tell elected officials when they do well, not just when they screw up. I couldn't be more pleased these first days.

Minnesota catches it for taking time to recount over 2.9 million votes. I don't care who becomes the next senator from New York, but I can't help noticing that this drags on and on when there's only one vote.

I think the key part of the article was left out of the post. Obama refuted a common conservative talking point about people who don't pay taxes:

"The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.

Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan as “welfare.”"

It's amazing how Republicans can't figure out the that the problem is their conservative policies. They argue anti-discrimination laws violate the free market or constitute big government intrusion, but they don't seek a better way to solve the problem. If one side's solution to your problem has flaws but at least that side's trying, while the other side argues the government shouldn't be trying the offered solution but won't do anything about the problem, which side do you pick?