I think this signifies a failure on Clinton's part. Throughout the campaign you couldn't swing a dead horse without hearing her carp about how we need "preconditions" before entering into negotiations with non-compliant countries. In this case, she fell short of getting Israel to agree to a pretty important ( to the Palestinians/region/world community) precondition. Without full cooperation on this one very important issue peace talks will inevitably be impotent. She is posturing. "Not backing down to Palestinian pressure" is code for the other guy (Israel) won't back down to me so I gotta look tough on someone. This is absolutely backpedaling, like every other Secty. of State before her she is letting Israel get away with simply ignoring U.S. mandates and rewarding them with all that "free propaganda" she hated so much during the campaign. All I gotta say is #epicClintonFail.  View

I actually somewhat agree with John Hannity in that last clip. We should TRY to be as objective as we can as a nation--showing preference to one side is only going to hurt us at this point. Now, obviously under the Bush admin, there was a huge preference given towards Israel over Palestine. So, I do think the U.S. needs to show sensitivity in its dealings and perhaps try to repair any damages caused by the Palestine exclusions. Still, ideally, this country does not want to alienate either one but rather work with both of them. Sadly, that is the most difficult step.  View

The Karzai administration is known for its systemic corruption and this election and the dubious pull out of Abdullah Abdullah only serve to underscore that fact. The U.S. has to put an end to our bad habit of destabilizing countries only to ultimately back corrupt leaders. This is why they say democracy is our most dangerous export.  View

Is the dollar getting any stronger? I want to see what third-party economists outside of the U.S. are saying.  View

That's the whole point,the CEO's didn't lead the company into abyss they tanked just like the rest of the U.S. Why were they rewarded at our exspense?with no restrictions?the American taxpayer has many.  View

It probably won't help the U.S. troops in Afghanistan to have a fresh bunch of fighters cross the border.  View

It's rather depressing that voting controversies are such recurring phenomena in Afghanistan. Just when we think--and certainly, when the Afghan people think--the country is putting its first foot forward, something weird like this happens. Still, it's not absolutely terrible as long as there is no huge runoff or violence. I hate to say it because I certainly do not want the U.S. to send more troops, but we might have to for the time-being unless the two men (Karzai and Abdullah) can strike a deal.  View

It is relatively inexpensive to launch terrorist attacks, so the U.S. effort to cut off donations ultimately will not curb the problem. As long as they have enough money to secure necessary resources, terrorists operations can continue. I think stopping terrorism comes down to a conversation of the economic growth of the Middle East as a whole. Alleviating poverty is the way to alleviate terrorism. Give people options.  View

What scares me is that they are a nuclear power and the amount of anti-Pakastan government militia that control the tribal regions of the north in recent years and months have slowly but surely getting closer and closer to the souh and the capitol! I pray that the U.S. have a plan in place to make certain that these Taliban  View

Yes, the Taliban read the papers too. I'm sure they put two and two together and realized what the stipulations attached to the U.S.'s aid package means for terrorist cells operating in the region. So now that the Pakistanis have been wholly bought by Uncle Sam, why not add them to the list of targets. Looks like doing business with America is bad for national health.  View