The New York Times editorial page: “It was a particular relief to hear him say that “the tide of war is receding” in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But he will need to do a lot more to explain why it is in this country’s strategic interest to stick things out for another three-plus years. And why his drawdown plan has a credible chance of leaving behind an Afghanistan that won’t implode as soon as American troops are gone.” 

The Globe’s editorial page says “Given all the economic, political, and military considerations President Obama had to juggle” his decision “is the least bad option.” But a sound “political strategy” is how success will be measured in Afghanistan, it continues.

Conservative military hawk Bill Kristol: “Why bring home the surge troops by the summer of 2012? It had been widely expected that President Obama would announce the planned removal of some—perhaps even all—of the surge forces by early 2013. No serious person expected a drawdown of all 33,000 troops—one-third of the total force—within about 15 months... Because, one has to conclude, Election Day is November 6, 2012.”

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank: “The policy itself was no triumph, just a split-the-difference compromise between the slower troop withdrawal from Afghanistan sought by the generals and the faster one many congressional Democrats and a majority of the public desired. But Obama packaged it nicely, wrapped it with a bow and declared, perhaps prematurely, that his “surge” in Afghanistan had been a success.”

The New York Times gets the scoop on the troop-level news in President Obama's Afghanistan speech tonight:

President Obama plans to announce Wednesday evening that he will order the withdrawal of 10,000 American troops from Afghanistan this year, and another 20,000 troops, the remainder of the 2009 “surge,” by the end of next summer, according to administration officials and diplomats briefed on the decision.

These troop reductions are both deeper and faster than the recommendations made by Mr. Obama’s military commanders, and they reflect mounting political and economic pressures at home, as the president faces relentless budget pressures and an increasingly restive Congress and American public.

Former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, a member of National War Powers Commission,  said President Obama’s argument that the United States is not engaged in hostilities in Libya “is not supportable. Indeed, it’s a real stretch.”

Just before Hamilton’s appearance on MSNBC’s "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry introduced a bipartisan resolution to authorize the limited use of United States Armed Forces in Libya.

“[Not supporting the mission in Libya] would ignore our real national security interests and help extend the narrative of resentment toward the U.S.,” said the Massachusetts senator.

Regardless, the former Indiana congressman Hamilton says the White House and Congress need to stop arguing over the legality of fighting in Libya and start taking action. "You have, once again, the president and the Congress arguing process [over] 'who has the power to do what?' That's an argument that's gone on for decades if not centuries in this country."

He added that such arguments "divert attention."

Instead of "discussing the...key issue: What the United States should be doing in Libya," Hamilton said, "[We] see this rather arcane legal argument between the White House and the Congress, both of whom have their set talking points."

Hamilton said the United States should focus on protecting the Libyan people rather than ousting Libyan Leader Moammar Khaddafy immediately.

"[When you move] from protecting people to trying to remove Khaddafy, you change the nature of the game, you give Khaddafy no incentive to step down, and you do not really protect the people of Libya."

Though Hamilton said there is a possibility Khaddafy could "eventually" face removal.

President Obama faces a bipartisan challenge in Congress this week over the NATO mission in Libya, a topic that has sparked debate between lawmakers about the president’s ability to use force (over a period of time) without congressional authorization.

In the House this week, members of Congress will vote on a bill proposed by Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich to cut funding for the Libya operation. In the Senate, Sens. John Kerry and John McCain also plan to introduce a Libya resolution, Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Andrea Mitchell today on MSNBC’s "Andrea Mitchell Reports." Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, is one of 10 co-sponsors of the bill.

“You know, this is an age old problem -- does the executive have this authority or not?” Feinstein said. “And I don’t think anything is really solved by having a long discussion over it. Let's just do it.”

As lawmakers continue to dispute U.S. involvement in Libya, congressional leaders are also at odds regarding the July deadline to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Senator Feinstein, who met in person with General David Petraeus last week, said she thinks the president’s decision should be a military-based decision.

“What Gen. Petraeus said is ‘Look, I will give him several options. I may make a recommendation, and then the president will decide,’” Feinstein said.

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum today called President Obama a “paper tiger," accusing him of “appeasing” countries such as Iran.

"[T]he Iranians, they are moving full-scale forward with their nuclear program,” Santorum said on ABC. “They know the president is not going to do anything to stop them. He has been a paper tiger and they are an existential threat to the state of Israel, and the Israelis know it and the Americans know it. And this president has not stepped forward and done anything to stop that threat.”

Indeed, the Israeli news website Ynetnews has reported that “the Iranian regime is closer than ever before to creating a nuclear bomb, according to RAND Corporation researcher Gregory S. Jones” In fact, at its current pace, Tehran could have enough enriched uranium to make its first bomb within two months, according to Jones’ report. Jones goes on to argue that nothing short of military occupation can stop this nuclear development.

After years of frayed relations between Iran and the George W. Bush White House, Obama devoted his energy in 2009 to engaging Iran diplomatically. But when Tehran rejected an offer for an interim solution -- under which it would ship some uranium out of the country for enrichment -- Obama imposed strict sanctions against Iran, with the help of the United Nations.

Obama has recently vowed to “keep up the pressure” on Tehran to prevent its obtaining nuclear weapons.

The White House today said that President Obama will make a decision about the size of the troop withdrawal in Afghanistan “fairly soon,” and he will base it on “conditions on the ground.” White House officials also said the troop drawdown will begin in July, as originally planned.
 
The announcement comes on the heels of a New York Times article, which reported: 

President Obama’s national security team is contemplating troop reductions that would be steeper than those discussed even a few weeks ago.

Administration officials reacted by saying Obama is planning a “real drawdown” of U.S. forces. However, according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, the specifics have not been worked out. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed Carney’s remarks saying, “We have absolutely not made specific decisions, because we’re still gathering our best assessment.”
 
The president today held his monthly meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan with his national security team. During the meeting, Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- via video -- briefed the president on his recent trip to Afghanistan. Over the weekend, Gates met with troops and called for a “modest” drawdown adding: “I’d leave the shooters till last.”
 
In 2009, Obama ordered 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, and also promised to begin a drawdown this July. He also stated that all combat troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2014, a timetable which is still in place, according to Carney. 
 
The president has been under increasing pressure on Afghanistan for a number of reasons: The war has been expensive, costing America an estimated $2 billion per week; some polls show it losin public support; and there is a collective sense that, after Osama Bin Laden’s death, it is time to turn the corner. 
 
Overall, there seems to be a growing fatigue for combat operations among both Democrats and Republicans. Last Friday, the House overwhelmingly issued a rebuke of Obama's Libya policy. On Monday, five U.S. troops were killed in Iraq during a rocket attack -- several months before the proposed departure of all U.S. troops from that country. Still, some military officials have expressed concern that an accelerated drawdown in Afghanistan could undermine security gains in the region. 
 
Obama will discuss the matter with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday (via videoconference). There are currently U.S. 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.

The House just voted down a resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that would have required the U.S. to pull out of Libya within 15 days.

Voting for the non-binding resolution were 148 House members -- including 87 Republicans -- while 265 members voted against it. One Republican who voted for the measure: potential presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

Earlier, by a 268-145 vote, the House passed a non-binding resolution on Libya by House Speaker John Boehner, which asserted that the Obama administration must provide Congress information about the mission there.

In light of House Republicans meeting Thursday afternoon to discuss a strategy to end U.S. involvement in Libya, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said progress has been made, while also defending the United States' lack of action in response to the rise of violence in Syria.

"NATO is clearly in charge, as it should be, and the president adroitly allowed us to set the stage but then to give responsibility to NATO" Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) said.

He added, "It looks as if Khaddafy's hold is weakening,"citing the recent defection of Shokri Ghanem, Libya's top official in the oil and gas sector.

When asked about the United States' lack of response to Syrian violence, Reed said it is important to remember that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faces a much different situation when dealing with Syria because with Libya, the United States had the "political support of the United Nations and of the Arab League." 

Since the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League have not provided their support for taking greater action in Syria, "it's a hard to pull the international forces together," said the senator.

Forcing out Syria's President Basher al-Assad is unlikely, according to Reed, because "we didn't force out the Tunisian leader. We didn't force out Mubarak." Rather, it was the conditions on the ground that forced Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down.

Though the United States may not play a role in the ouster of President Assad, Reed is hopeful the Syrian president will step down.

The series of uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt was "a truly popular and unpredictable sequence of events. And those events seem to be moving against Assad at this point," the senator stated.

At a time when the United States is involved militarily in Libya (in a limited way), and as Congress considers a resolution stipulating that the U.S. withdraw from the country, another Middle East/North African nation is drawing more attention.

Today, the London Guardian reported that the violence in Yemen has become, in the words of British diplomats, “worse than Libya.”

In Yemen, tribal warfare, al Qaeda forces, and pro and anti-government groups rage on – and there are indications that the strife will only escalate. Dozens of Yemini citizens were killed today as President Saleh’s troops clashed with the gunmen of a powerful tribal leader. While President Saleh has taken conciliatory measures (such as a promise to step down after his term ends in 2013), many are skeptical that he will not follow through on them and continue to protest.

As the BBC reports, Yemen suffers from 35% unemployment and 45% poverty. Meanwhile, as the New York Times says, "a remarkably high proportion of citizens are armed" in Yemen, and "the potential for strife is difficult to overstate."

It looks like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is not only holding up the extension of controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that expire at midnight on Friday morning; he's also ruining Memorial Day vacation plans. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attacked Paul on the Senate floor this afternoon, saying if Paul thinks this is a “badge of courage” to hold up the Patriot Act vote, “that’s a mistake” and “the clock is ticking. The ball is in his court”

Paul answered Reid on the floor. "I'm here to discuss and debate the constitutionality of the Patriot Act... Can we not have a debate on a higher plane? A debate over whether or not there should be some constitutional protections, some constitutional procedure?" Paul wants to introduce and debate multiple amendments including one that would exempt certain firearm records from being obtained using the authority provided in the Patriot Act. 

The Senate back-and-forth that has been taking place on this for the last few days caused House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to announce a change in the House schedule. He took to the House floor to break the news to his 431 colleagues that since the Senate may not be able to vote on the bill until early Friday morning, members would need to stick around and get the bill passed before leaving town.

Currently, it looks like the Senate will file cloture on the extension tomorrow morning, which would trigger the need for 30 hours of debate. On non-controversial bills, the 30 hours is often waived, but Paul seems to be sticking to his guns, insisting on the full 30 hours of debate. So, as of now, the House wouldn't be able to get started on passing the bill until some time Friday morning.

The three controversial provisions that are set to sunset Friday include the government's authorization for roving electronic surveillance, the ability to obtain orders from a special court for "any tangible thing" related to terrorism, and surveillance orders for "lone wolf" terrorists who are not formally connected with a terrorist organization. 

If things continue on the current path, those three provisions would sunset, though probably for no more than a day. According to Justice Department contacts, this situation is less than desirable. It would force some of the current surveillance to cease until the president could sign the extension. 

Rep. "Dutch" Ruppersberger (D-MD), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he worried about not having these tools in place, even briefly, if the country were attacked.  "I think it's so important that we don't go through Memorial Day weekend without the resources and the tools to be able to deal with that provision of the law," the congressman said. 

And Reid said, “The inability to reach an agreement has serious consequences. At midnight tomorrow, the Patriot Act will expire. Unless the senator from Kentucky stops standing in the way, our law enforcement will no longer be able to use some of the most critical tools they need to counter terrorists and combat terrorism. If they cannot use these tools –- tools that identify and track terrorist suspects –- it could have dire consequences for our national security.”

Another issue hampering the extension is that President Obama has to physically sign the bill. Once it gets through both chambers, it either has to be flown to the president in Europe or be waiting for him when he gets back to the U.S. 

In an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, part of which aired on "Nightly News" last night, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stressed that he and the Obama administration agree on more issues that not when it comes to Middle East peace.

"We can have some disagreements, but we agree on a lot more than meets the eye," he said

On Netanyahu's disagreement with President Obama that the 1967 borders, with land swaps, should serve as the basis for negotiations, the prime minister told Mitchell: "I was talking about something that he actually spelled out in the subsequent speech that he gave, that Israel cannot go back to the '67 lines, because those lines are indefensible.  Israel would be nine miles wide. That's half the width of the Washington Beltway. We couldn't defend ourselves there... [I]f you listened to his statement the next day, he said that the line would be different from the 1967 line. And I think that was an important emphasis on the president's part."

Below is the transcript of the entire interview, which will air on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" beginning at 1:00 pm ET.

ANDREA MITCHELL, HOST:  Welcome, Prime Minister. Thank you very much for joining us.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER:  It's good to be with you.

MITCHELL:  Welcome, Prime Minister. Thank you very much for joining us. You...

NETANYAHU:  Thank you, Andrea. It's good to be with you again.

MITCHELL:  You gave a very powerful speech to a joint meeting of Congress and had a very excited, warm reception.  But at the same time, President Obama has said to you that they -- you cannot afford any more delay, that with all of the upheavals, the changes in the Arab world, that Israel is at risk of being isolated, of being left behind.

What do you say to the president?

NETANYAHU:  Well, I think the president shares with me, and I share with him, the desire to move the peace process forward.  And I said in Congress that there's one way to move this thing forward.  President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has to do what I did two years ago. Two years ago, I spoke to my people and I said I will accept a Palestinian state.

I think the president -- President Abbas has to say these same six words to his people, I will accept the Jewish state.  You know what, I'll give him a break, five words -- I accept the Jewish state.  Because I think if he says that, then that will move the process forward. People will say, OK, we have a real peace partner, and for real peace, we're willing to move and move quickly.

MITCHELL:  Prime Minister, the Palestinians have already said that what you said today in Congress, they have said that your speech was a declaration of war...

NETANYAHU:  (INAUDIBLE).

MITCHELL:  -- because, from their perspective, you ruled out any division of Jerusalem, you are keeping the West Bank, you're not negotiating on refugees.  They call that a declaration of war.

Does that leave you and the Palestinians completely at odds, stalemated?

NETANYAHU:  I think that's unfortunate, because I -- and I think you could see from the reaction of both houses of -- both sides of the -- of the aisle and both houses of Congress, people were excited.

You know why?

Because I said the truth.  Because deep down, I mean the reason we don't have peace is the Palestinians have refused to accept a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state.

I agreed to do that.  I said to my people, I'm willing to do it.  The Palestinian leaders should be asked to say these simple words -- I will accept a Jewish state.  Believe me, he says that, all the walls, all the fences, all the problems will be swept aside and we can negotiate a real peace.  I want to have a real peace with somebody who will make peace with me.  I don't want to give him a state for him to continue the battle against Israel.

MITCHELL:  But the Congress (ph)...

NETANYAHU:  I want this conflict to be ended.

MITCHELL:  With all due respect, you, in effect, had home court advantage with the United States Congress.  You have a long record.  You are a great politician.  You know every button to push with Americans, Democrats and Republicans.

But that's not the world.  The wider world is in upheaval.

Isn't Israel at risk of being isolated, of the U.N. taking action in September to declare a Palestinian state?

That's what President Obama and his aides said that they were trying to avert.

NETANYAHU:  Well, the president, indeed, said some important things. First, he said it's not going to be achieved -- peace will be achieved not by an imposition by the U.N., it has to be negotiated by the two parties who are willing to accept each other's statehood.  And that's what I said today in Congress and that's why I think I got his very strong reception.

The world is changing.  We want to make sure that when we make peace, we not only have somebody who will recognize us, but that we know that we have a secure border to defend ourselves, not only to defend the peace, but to defend ourselves if peace unravels.

And I think that we are seeing what is happening in Syria, we're seeing what is happening in other places, in Egypt.  We don't even know whether our peace partners will be there tomorrow.  I mean, really tomorrow, not in a -- an abstract notion.

So when we say we want mutual recognition and defensible borders for Israel, there's really the meat and potatoes of peace.  That's what I said today in Congress.  I was absolutely gratified by the really universal positive response there, because I think these are the right elements for peace, and especially in a changing world.  In a changing world, in an uncertain world, we have to have anchors of security and recognition to fortify the peace.

MITCHELL:  Prime Minister, there was a moment in the Oval Office on Friday.  You and the president of the United States and so many of your early (ph) supporters, friends of Israel, said that you were lecturing him, that it went too far.  You disagree about borders, you did not like what he did, but, in fact, what he said was implicit in what previous presidents have said, they just haven't said it as explicitly and that you shouldn't be lecturing, taking such a hard line with the president of the United States.

In retrospect, do you think you went too far?

NETANYAHU:  Well, I'm sorry it was interpreted that way, because that wasn't my intention. I wasn't lecturing anyone.  I was speaking about the basic things that Israel requires to have peace and security and survival.  I'm the leader of an old nation.  The president said a great nation.  I said he is the leader of a great nation, the American people.
And I have the greatest respect for America and for the office of the presidency.

Believe me, I spent my high school years in Philadelphia.  I visited the Liberty Bell many times.  America is a great nation.  And I have complete respect for it and for its president.

I was speaking about those things that the Palestinians have to accept -- a Jewish state, the fact that the refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel.  We're not going to accept the great grandchildren of Palestinian refugees.  It's crazy.

Some -- everybody knows it.  And I think it's time to say it.  And I think wouldn't want Hamas.  And the president said as much...

MITCHELL:  Well, he agrees with you about Hamas.

NETANYAHU:  I think it was very important...

MITCHELL:  But why do you think...

NETANYAHU:  -- the things that he said.

MITCHELL:  Why do you think he disagrees with you about the borders? He believes that with land swaps that Israel can be well defended, going back to the 1967 borders.

What is it that divides you and Barack Obama?

Why do you think that he has a different vision of what is required for Israel's security?

You don't think that he wants Israel to not be able to defend itself.

NETANYAHU:  Absolutely not.  I think he's committed to the -- Israel's security.  He's said as much and we are cooperating in security areas in ways that the public doesn't know, in many ways.

And I also appreciated the fact that he spoke about the ironclad commitment to Israel's security, not only before the Israel-America lobby, but before the -- the Arab world twice.  And I think that's important.

I was talking about something that he actually spelled out in the subsequent speech that he gave, that Israel cannot go back to the '67 lines, because those lines are indefensible.  Israel would be nine miles wide.  That's half the width of the Washington Beltway.  We couldn't defend ourselves there.

And -- and I was glad that the president emphasized this point, that we're not going back...

MITCHELL:  But he hasn't backed down.

NETANYAHU:  -- to the June 4, 1967 (INAUDIBLE)...

MITCHELL:  He still thinks that those borders can be defended with appropriate land swaps.

NETANYAHU:  Well, if you listened to his statement the next day, he said that the line would be different from the 1967 line.  And I think that was an important emphasis on the president's part.

MITCHELL:  Why were you so angry when you first heard about what he said?

NETANYAHU:  Well...

MITCHELL:  Issuing a statement before you even got on your plane?

NETANYAHU:  Well, I issued the statement.  It gives our positions.  I haven't changed my positions.  It's not a question of anger.  Usually, you don't make decisions in -- in an emotional state.  I don't do it.  I didn't do it this time.

I reiterated our positions.  I have to make sure that Israel can defend itself.  You know, we don't have, we have this tiny country.  I said yesterday or today in the Congress to Vice President Biden, an old friend, I said -- I said it's bigger than Delaware, but that's about it.

So we have to have solid security arrangements.  Israel has to be able to defend itself to defend the peace.  And to defend its life.  And I think the president agrees with that.

MITCHELL:  And what about your conversation with Hillary Clinton, finally?

There are reports that it was as a very contentious, argumentative conversation, when you called her the day before the president's speech, trying to get him to change his -- his speech and not make that reference to the borders.

NETANYAHU:  You know, I've been in diplomacy a long time.  I've been around for some 30 years.  You can't deal with reports of conversations. You have to deal with the substance. I had a -- a very good conversation with the president a couple of hours.  This is the seventh time we were meeting.  We have a lot of time together.

MITCHELL:  And Hillary?

NETANYAHU:  And with Hillary Clinton just as much, I think even more. So what we say privately is something we keep private.  But the important thing, I thought, was that the president made some important statements.  And I appreciated it, that the Palestinians will have to recognize a Jewish state, that Hamas, a terrorist organization bent on dest -- on our destruction, is not a partner, that Israel must maintain its defensible borders and that peace will not be imposed.  It will have to be negotiated between the parties.

I think there's a lot of room for agreement.  We can have some disagreements, but we agree on a lot more than meets the eye.

MITCHELL:  With that, we'll have to leave it there.

Prime Minister, thank you so much. Safe travels.

NETANYAHU:  Thank you, Andrea.

It's good to be with you.

MITCHELL:  You, too.

NETANYAHU:  Thank you.

President Obama stopped by the CIA this afternoon to personally thank the analysts who helped tracked down Osama bin Laden, praising the agency for piecing together the intelligence that led to the world’s most wanted man.

Speaking to nearly 1,000 analysts and employees, the president said: “After I directed that getting bin Laden be the priority, you hunkered down even more, building on years of painstaking work; pulling together, in some cases, the slenderest of intelligence streams, running those threads to ground until you found that courier and you tracked him to that compound.”

President Obama told the audience that even though officers and analysts of the highly-secretive CIA don’t get “headlines” or “ticker-tape parades,” that they go about their work with “incredible diligence and dedication every single day.” 

The mission couldn’t have been a success, he said, without the seamless coordination across all of the nation’s intelligence agencies along with the U.S. military. A CIA spokesperson pointed out that the president’s remarks were being broadcast to all 17 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community.

Obama described the work that led to bin Laden as “one of the greatest intelligence successes in American history.” And the president said intel professionals “are going to be inspired by your achievement for generations to come.”

But the president was most appreciative for something they didn’t do: talk about the operation to track down the al Qaeda mastermind.

Obama explained, “[W]e did something really remarkable in Washington -- we kept it a secret.” 

Before addressing the crowd in the lobby of the original headquarters building at the Langley, VA complex, the president met behind closed doors with 60 analysts from various intelligence agents who were involved in the bin Laden operation. According to a CIA spokesperson, “He wanted to thank them personally for the work they’ve done over the last 10 years… Some of them have been looking for bin Laden much longer.”

As he met with his top national security team to analyze what was merely circumstantial evidence about that compound in Abbottabad, Obama said he went ahead with the raid because he had faith in the military and intelligence community.

“I put my bet on you. And now the whole world knows that that faith in you was justified,” he said.