Author: Andrew Sullivan

He seems to have crumbled under the pressure, but the statement is truly weird:

Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true. I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize.

"Not completely true." Discuss. And what exactly was "not completely true"? He sounds like a dissident in a show-trial. I have, sadly, no idea of the reasons for this somewhat out-of-the-blue statement. Is he trying to win Bristol back? Is he trying to gain more reliable access to his son? Or is he just trying to create a better atmosphere for the rearing of Tripp?

I suspect, for what it's worth, that the Palins have used their real weapon against him – his love for Bristol and his kid – to coerce him back into line. For the record, nothing he said struck me as in any way far-fetched. And until he tells us what exactly wasn't "completely true", there's not much more to say.

Oh, and he was awesome on Kathy Griffin.

Is it going up?

From here. Adam Serwer analyzes:

Deportations in 2010 and 2009 were higher than at any time during the Bush administration — something that has to be viewed within the context of a declining undocumented immigrant population.Of course, when Bush wanted to press immigration reform, both Kyl and McCain were on board. Now they're attacking Obama for lax enforcement, even though he's taken a harder line on deportations than Bush ever did.

Felix Salmon takes a hard look at BP's oil-skimming exaggerations.

Sargent fleshes out his argument. He sees a short-term advantage:

Poll after poll shows that majorities think the GOP is more interested in obstructing the Obama/Dem agenda than in reaching a good faith compromise. Yet amid all the gridlock Congress's overall approval is at historic lows, and the generalized anti-incumbent fervor is expected to hurt Dems in the midterms. Indeed, in recent months the GOP has tied or bested Dems in the generic Congressional matchup. Republicans will argue that this shows that the public wants the GOP to stall the Dem agenda. But I think something else is going on: People don't seem aware that the GOP, in addition to wanting to obstruct the Obama/Dem agenda, is successfully doing so…

Douthat answers Millman's query:

The point of a counterinsurgency campaign… isn’t to crush the Taliban once and for all. It’s to create an environment in which they feel like they could be crushed, and to turn those security gains to political ends. Whereas so long as the Taliban’s leaders and fellow travelers are convinced that they’ve all but won the war, any “orderly entry” into government that they negotiate is likely to end in disaster — for our interests, and for Afghanistan.

(Cartoon via Joyner)

While urging "strategic patience" in the Middle East, Ryan Crocker writes that "disengagement from Pakistan and Afghanistan after the Soviet retreat in 1989 ultimately gave al-Qaeda the space to plan the 9/11 attacks." Greg Scoblete begs to differ:

Can Crocker, or anyone – offer a remotely plausible scenario which sees the U.S. "engaged" in Afghanistan in the 1980s that prevents the rise of al Qaeda internationally? Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan until 1996. As we're learning now, the problem in Afghanistan isn't American engagement or lack thereof, it's Pakistan's regional interests. Maybe there was a magical formula available to the U.S. in the 1980s that changes Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan so that it didn't use the country as a dumping ground for the ISI's fundamentalists. But I doubt it.

Because targeting marijuana gives police departments access to federal anti-drug money. Mike Meno sighs:

As we’ve stated many times before, marijuana eradication programs are not only horribly ineffective at reducing the supply of marijuana, but even worse, they force law enforcement to commit massive amounts of resources and manpower to marijuana offenses at the expense of much more serious crimes. That’s why it’s so insane for the federal government to encourage and reward this type of misallocation. As the Journal article points out, California police departments are expected to lose $100 million in state funding this year, presumably leading even more departments to take up the eradication cause.

Today on the Dish, Andrew sided with Steele against Obama's war in Afghanistan and spotlighted the extremely small number of enemies there. The president was already beating Bush on the budget and his healthcare bill was growing in popularity. Cameron stood tall against torture and the mayor of London stood up for marriage equality. A gay man was slaughtered in Uganda.

In economic coverage, Hale Stewart showed how the recession has been good to business owners, Brad DeLong pushed for another stimulus, Adam Ozimek weighed the pros and cons, and Howard Gleckman took a turn at the question of unemployment benefits and laziness. Josh Green explained how pot propositions help Democrats on the ballot. Thiessen posed as a tea-partier, Larison voted nay on a Palin nomination, and NRO nominated her for RNC chair. Another big dose of Trig talk here.

Looking abroad, the American public continued to diverge with Israelis over the flotilla, Beinart went to bat for Karl Eikenberry and gave a pep talk to Obama on Israeli discontent, settlers tightened the screws on Bibi, Andrew highlighted how US taxpayers fund the settlements, and the IDF got down to Ke$ha.

In media coverage, new details emerged over Weigel-gate, Chris Beam profiled a humble David Brooks, Chait offered his take, Greenwald defended Nazi comparisons, Howard Kurtz outed personal emails again, and Prince proclaimed the end of the Internet. Readers wondered whether to pray for an atheist and sounded off on the evolutionary case against monogamy. Hilarious tech video here and a funny video on "faggots" here.  MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

— C.B.