Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

U.S. clamps down on banking transactions; terror group finds new funding

By Robert Windrem and Garrett Haake
NBC News
updated 7:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2008
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.

That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.

"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644191

... et il n'est la que depuis 3 jours, et la presse l'adore... imaginez Pres. Bush apres 8 ans de haine mediatique et lui, toujours aussi... cool..

President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question

Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.

"Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.

"Alright, come on" he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."

...

=======

et pourtant: "c'est qu'ils l'aiment"...

The president was quickly saved by a cameraman in the room who called out: “I’d like to say it one more time: ‘Mr. President.’ ”

Leaving the White House

A look at the man who has captured the Bush presidency frame by frame for eight years

Video|Fri, 26 Dec 2008|

By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON-- Election Day 2008 must have been filled with rueful paradoxes for the sitting president. Iraq -- the issue that dominated George W. Bush's presidency for five and a half bitter, controversial years -- is on the verge of a miraculous peace. And yet this accomplishment did little to revive Bush's political standing -- or to prevent his party from relegating him to a silent role.

The achievement is historic. In 2006, Iraq had descended into a sectarian killing spree that only seemed likely to stop when the supply of victims was exhausted. Showing Truman-like stubbornness, Bush pushed to escalate a war that most Americans -- and some at the Pentagon -- had already mentally abandoned.

The result? A Sunni tribal revolt against their al-Qaeda oppressors, an effective campaign against Shiite militias in Baghdad and Basra, and the flight of jihadists from Iraq to less deadly battlefields. In a more stable atmosphere, Iraq's politicians have made dramatic political progress. Iraqi military and police forces have grown in size and effectiveness and now fully control 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces. And in the month before Election Day, American combat deaths matched the lowest of the entire war.
For years, critics of the Iraq War asked the mocking question: "What would victory look like?" If progress continues, it might look something like what we've seen.

But Air Force One -- normally seen swooping into battleground states for rallies during presidential elections -- was mainly parked during this campaign. President Bush appeared with John McCain in public a total of three times -- and appeared in McCain's rhetoric as a foil far more often than that.
This seems to be Bush's current fate: Even success brings no praise. And the reasons probably concern Iraq. The absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the aftermath of the war was a massive blow. The early conduct of the Iraq occupation was terribly ineffective. And hopes that the war had turned a corner -- repeatedly raised by Iraqis voting with purple fingers and approving a constitution -- were dashed too many times, until many Americans became unwilling to believe anymore.

Initial failures in Iraq acted like a solar eclipse, blocking the light on every other achievement. But those achievements, with the eclipse finally passing, are considerable by the measure of any presidency. Because of the passage of Medicare Part D, nearly 10 million low-income seniors are receiving prescription drugs at little or no cost. No Child Left Behind education reform has helped raise the average reading scores of fourth graders to their highest level in 15 years, and narrowed the achievement gap between white and African-American children. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has helped provide treatment for more than 1.7 million people and compassionate care for at least 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children. And the decision to pursue the surge in Iraq will be studied as a model of presidential leadership.

These achievements, it is true, have limited constituencies to praise them. Many conservatives view Medicare, education reform and foreign assistance as heresies. Many liberals refuse to concede Bush's humanity, much less his achievements.

But that humanity is precisely what I will remember. I have seen President Bush show more loyalty than he has been given, more generosity than he has received. I have seen his buoyancy under the weight of malice and his forgiveness of faithless friends. Again and again, I have seen the natural tug of his pride swiftly overcome by a deeper decency -- a decency that is privately engaging and publicly consequential.

Before the G-8 summit in 2005, the White House senior staff overwhelmingly opposed a new initiative to fight malaria in Africa for reasons of cost and ideology -- a measure designed to save hundreds of thousands of lives, mainly of children under 5. In the crucial policy meeting, one person supported it: the president of the United States, shutting off debate with a moral certitude that others have criticized. I saw how this moral framework led him to an immediate identification with the dying African child, the Chinese dissident, the Sudanese former slave, the Burmese women's advocate. It is one reason I will never be cynical about government -- or about President Bush.
For some, this image of Bush is so detached from their own conception that it must be rejected. That is, perhaps, understandable. But it means little to me. Because I have seen the decency of George W. Bush.
michaelgerson@cfr.org

[quote="Sylvette"]

Shansaa a écrit:

Ah, la robe vous interesse donc un peu? Franchement je n'ai pas lu les infos a son sujet, je n'ai donne que ma reaction personnelle a la photo que j'ai vue et on dirait bien des pompons! mais bon

Je serais plutot de votre avis, mais loin de moi le desir de faire des commentaires sur le physique de Michelle Obama, ce que j'essayais de faisais remarquer c'etait que les media souhaitent faire d'elle une sorte de modele a suivre au moins au point de vue vestimentaire (entre nous, elle n'arrive pas a la cheville de JKO et de toutes facons pourquoi les comparer? Or 1) son choix de vetements est personnel, oui, mais pas forcement d'un gout extraordinaire et pas forcement tres seillant 2) certaines des robes qu'ils nous proposent pour "Copier" la nouvelle dame de la Haute Couture n'a rien a voir avec la robe portee par Michelle Obama.

Alors je me dis qu'une fois encore cette folie obama fait ses preuves. Ca ne marche peut-etre pas mais on ne peut pas dire que les media n'essaient pas.

Aucun interet mais comme j'avais l'info sous les yeux et que vous en parliez... C'est tout rien de plus.
Pour le reste, chacun ses gouts. La classe de Jackie Kennedy etait unique et reste inegalee quoiqu'il en soit.

C'est le propre des magazines de mode d'attirer les wannabee en tous genres. Chaque semaine ou presque nous avons droit a l'interminable "Get so and so's look", ce n'est pas nouveau, ca n'a pas ete cree pour Michelle Obama. Maintenant que la presse en profite pour faire vendre du papier c'est certain.

Puisque vous mentionnez Nancy Reagan dans un autre post, je crois tres bien me souvenir qu'elle avait en effet une obsession pour les vetements et qu'elle avait "oublie" d'en rendre pour un montant de pour 3 millions de dollars de l'epoque. Cette anecdote mise a part, la Premiere Dame se doit d'etre bien habillee qu'on aime ou pas les gouts vestimentaires des unes et des autres. Comme Nancy Reagan etait tres mince, tout pouvait lui aller. C'est un enorme avantage. Ca n'a pas ete le cas des suivantes.

Folie Obama ? C'est absolument normal quelque part. On avait besoin d'air, c'est ce que vous avez tant de mal a comprendre et a admettre. Les reactions sont en consequence. Mais ne vous faites pas de souci, même Obama n'est pas parfait , les critiques viendront rapidement.

marieden a écrit:

refaire quelques papiers peints dans 4 pièces, on nous a parlé de 100 000 dollars

ils auraient dû m'appeler, je ne prends pas autant pour faire du papier peint

Bof, c'est pas nouveau les re-peintures et la re-deco tous les 8 ans. Entre ca et depenser 493.000 dollars + 74.000 dollars pour des services en porcelaine dont le deuxieme a usage prive

Puisque vous mentionnez Nancy Reagan dans un autre post, je crois tres bien me souvenir qu'elle avait en effet une obsession pour les vetements et qu'elle avait "oublie" d'en rendre pour un montant de pour 3 millions de dollars de l'epoque.

Il me semble qu'avec les annees votre montant est subi l'inflation. Bien que ce ne soit qu'une evaluation, ce qu'on semble lire un peu partout c'est plutot 1 million, ce n'est deja pas mal.

Ceci dit si l'on considere:

1) In 1981, Newsweek ran a story entitled "Mrs. Reagan's Free Clothes," in which they reported that Nancy Reagan had accepted an unspecified number of gowns on loan from her favorite top designers.

et 2) que la robe qu'elle portait a l'inauguration de son epoux valait $ 10,000,00, pour arriver ne serait-ce qu'a 1 million de dollars, il lui en aurait fallu des vetements!

Les clinton (toujours eux ) sont partis de la Maison Blanche avec un camion plein, vous vous souvenez? Alors qu'ils avaient depuis leur mariage toujours vecus dans des appartements de fonction meubles (la maison du gouverneur par exemple dans l'Arkansas). En revanche, ils s'etaient vus offrir beaucoup de cadeaux pour leurs nouvelles penates...

Voyez-vous les elus Democrates ce sont comme les elus Socialistes en France, ils veulent toujours se faire passer pour des gens comme les autres, simples dans l'ensemble, ils comprennent le peuple, eux, c'est suppose etre leur appeal. L'egalite, la redistribution, la justice sociale etc... (Alors que les elus Republicains comme les elus de la droite en France ont la reputation de n'etre interesses que par l'argent et par la gloire. Ils n'ont eux aucun contact avec le monde reel, souvenez-vous on reprochait a Bush 41 de ne pas connaitre le prix d'un litre de lait... et meme de ne ps aime les brocolis! comme quoi les betises des journalistes n'ont rien de nouveau) Il est evident qu'il n'en est rien, sinon pourquoi faire refaire les appartements prives par un decorateur des stars et ce pendant une periode economique desastreuse, si l'on a bien entendu Barack. Ce reproche avait d'ailleurs etait fait pour la meme raison a Nancy Reagan.

Entre nous, je m'en fiche completement, mais faut tout de meme avoir un minimum de logique.

=====

Cette anecdote mise a part, la Premiere Dame se doit d'etre bien habillee qu'on aime ou pas les gouts vestimentaires des unes et des autres. Comme Nancy Reagan etait tres mince, tout pouvait lui aller. C'est un enorme avantage. Ca n'a pas ete le cas des suivante.

Barbara Bush etait deja a l'epoque une mamie, elle n'a jamais essaye de se faire passer pour autre chose.

Quant a Laura Bush, qui n'est plus une gamine non plus. Elle est toujours impeccablement vetue. Beaucoup de classe cette dame, sans effort (evidemment pas du tout la meme presentation hollywoodienne que Nancy Reagan.) et pourtant aucun journal n'a jamais souhaite nous faire nous habiller comme elle!!! en nous recommandant des vetements comparables aux siens" a la portee de notre bourse" .

=========

Folie Obama ? C'est absolument normal quelque part. On avait besoin d'air, c'est ce que vous avez tant de mal a comprendre et a admettre.

Mais bien sur que je comprends, que les personnes qui partagent votre avis et vous-meme (le "on" dans votre phrase) souhaitiez un CHANGEment sans doute ni plus ni moins que j'etais heureuse de voir Bill partir de la Maison Blanche (la moi non plus je n'etais pas la seule. De l'air, de l'air c'est exactement ce que nous nous disions. Vous n'etes pourtant pas a baby boomer que vous pensiez etre la premiere a ressentir quelque chose.

Vous voyez, je suis tres comprehensive tout compte fait.

=========

Les reactions sont en consequence. Mais ne vous faites pas de souci, même Obama n'est pas parfait , les critiques viendront rapidement.

Absolument d'accord, c'est meme deja commence.

Il va devoir y faire face pendant 4 ans et si vous avez de la chance pendant 8 ans (nous moins deja... ), mais jamais avec la haine et la hargne que Pres. Bush a subi. C'est deja bien, et pourtant, il semble deja perdre patience si l'on en croit sa vive reaction avec la presse hier. Mais ca va s'arranger ne vous inquietez pas.

Bonne Soiree a plus tard.

Adios, Dubya. Vaya con Dios

Joseph L. Galloway
last updated: January 16, 2009 04:34:51 PM

He's leaving the same way he arrived eight years ago: Clueless and somehow unable to discern up from down, right from left and right from wrong.
GeorgeW. Bush, who famously styled himself as The Decider, said a formal farewell to America in a nationally televised address from that bully
pulpit, the White House.

It was largely a paraphrasing of Frank Sinatra’s rendition of My Way: "Mistakes there've been a few, but too few to mention . . . ."

The eminence gris of his administration, Dick Cheney, was front and center.
The cowboy president from Crawford, Texas, ticked through his many accomplishments and a few small failures, working diligently to write a first draft of history his way.

He kept America safe somehow, even though he's leaving us with two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq where American troops and innocent civilians
continue to die.

The departing president informed us that he created jobs and a vibrant economy for most of his time in office. But who is it who's leaving us an economy in dire straits, with more than 3 million home foreclosures in the past year and more than a million American jobs lost in the same period?

He told his audience how proud he was of those who've borne the brunt of service and sacrifice in his wars, the military and their families, and how proud he was to be their commander-in-chief.
But whose administration was it that pinched every penny when it came to pay raises, increased benefits and medical care for those who're serving today and those who sacrificed for us in the past?

He told us that the mission during his eight long years in power was to spread the light of democracy and freedom to the benighted and downtrodden around the globe.
But who was it that told him the best way to do that was with soldiers, tanks and bombs ? Who counseled this man that the best way to spread freedom and democracy abroad was by trampling on individual rights at home and shredding the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

He belligerently challenged any notion that his actions abroad have damaged our reputation among the nations of the world. Not true, he declared. America is still the shining city on the hill, still a beacon of democracy and freedom. Where did he get that idea?
Never mind that stuff about torturing detainees in Afghanistan, at Guantanamo, in secret foreign prisons operated by the Central Intelligence Agency or in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Never mind that in exit interviews, both our president and our vice president confirmed that they'd personally approved extreme methods of persuading someone to talk, like creating the illusion of drowning by waterboarding them. Never mind that they virtually confessed that they're guilty of war crimes, as defined by international treaties that we've signed and adhered to for decades.

Those were hard decisions, President Bush told us, but he was always ready to make a hard decision. Even a hard, wrong decision.

That was George W. Bush's story, and he's going to stick to it for the rest of his life. His spinmeister Karl Rove will publish his own history of the Bush administration. Then Bush will write his own version. And no doubt Vice President Dick Vader will gin up a book in which everything he writes is a lie, including the a’s, and’s and the’s.

Some historians are already prepared to judge the Bush presidency as the worst in more than two centuries, to judge him worse than all 42 previous presidents. The rest will come to the same judgment in the years ahead.

People say I shouldn't be so hard on our president. That surely I could find something nice to say about him and those who've aided and abetted him, all those as-yet unindicted co-conspirators.

All right.
It's nice to see you leaving the White House at long last, Mr. President. It's nice to think of you hiding out in deserved oblivion under some expensive rock in Texas.
Adios, Dubya. Vaya con Dios.

C'est exactement ca!

C'est a Shansaa que vous parlez la ou a moi?

Parce que je n'ai pas vote pour Barack et je ne prie absolument pas devant sa statue, mais alors pas du tout! (vous etes certain de lire mes messages?

Ceci dit je suis une fois de plus d'accord avec votre analyse 257 concernant les choix de Barack Obama par rapport aux promesses de son programme de campagne et je comprends que la gauche ne soit pas heureuse de certains d'entre eux.

¥_zed_¥ a écrit:

Sylvette a écrit:

C'est a Shansaa que vous parlez la ou a moi?

Parce que je n'ai pas vote pour Barack et je ne prie absolument pas devant sa statue, mais alors pas du tout! (vous etes certain de lire mes messages?

Ceci dit je suis une fois de plus d'accord avec votre analyse 257 concernant les choix de Barack Obama par rapport aux promesses de son programme de campagne et je comprends que la gauche ne soit pas heureuse de certains d'entre eux.

Je parle a ceux qui font de Barack le nouveau prophète, car, selon moi, l'incroyable est déjà fait, un noir a la maison blanche. Pour le reste, je n'ai aucunes attentes.

Beaucoup comme moi ne voient pas de prophete et n'attendent pas de miracle non plus, la grande bouffee d'air etant le depart de Bush.
Un President qui respecterait un peu plus les institutions et les libertes individuelles et une orientation differente de la politique a l'exterieur, ce serait deja beaucoup. S'il arrivait a faire passer le concept d'une couverture sociale pour les millions d'Americains qui n'ont rien, ce serait encore mieux. On verra au fur et a mesure s'il tient ses engagements.

Certains de ses choix (garder des homme de l'adminisration precedente) ne me plaisent pas particulierement c'est vrai, mais j'attends de voir ce qu'il va en faire. S'ils les utilise a sa sauce a lui, pourquoi pas ?. Si il les suit aveuglement, je passe dans l'opposition

¥_zed_¥ a écrit:

Nous avons quelques ressemblaces, ne sommes nous pas Américains?

La foi de l'humain n'est que trop souvant basé sur l'histoire de l'humanité, a défaut...

Oui M'sieur !

Shansaa a écrit:

¥_zed_¥ a écrit:

Sylvette a écrit:

C'est a Shansaa que vous parlez la ou a moi?

Parce que je n'ai pas vote pour Barack et je ne prie absolument pas devant sa statue, mais alors pas du tout! (vous etes certain de lire mes messages?

Ceci dit je suis une fois de plus d'accord avec votre analyse 257 concernant les choix de Barack Obama par rapport aux promesses de son programme de campagne et je comprends que la gauche ne soit pas heureuse de certains d'entre eux.

Je parle a ceux qui font de Barack le nouveau prophète, car, selon moi, l'incroyable est déjà fait, un noir a la maison blanche. Pour le reste, je n'ai aucunes attentes.

Beaucoup comme moi ne voient pas de prophete et n'attendent pas de miracle non plus, la grande bouffee d'air etant le depart de Bush.
Un President qui respecterait un peu plus les institutions et les libertes individuelles et une orientation differente de la politique a l'exterieur, ce serait deja beaucoup. S'il arrivait a faire passer le concept d'une couverture sociale pour les millions d'Americains qui n'ont rien, ce serait encore mieux. On verra au fur et a mesure s'il tient ses engagements.

Certains de ses choix (garder des homme de l'adminisration precedente) ne me plaisent pas particulierement c'est vrai, mais j'attends de voir ce qu'il va en faire. S'ils les utilise a sa sauce a lui, pourquoi pas ?. Si il les suit aveuglement, je passe dans l'opposition

Je corrige sinon on va me reprocher je ne sais quoi : la grande bouffee d'air etant le depart des Neo conservateurs Republicains.

Beaucoup comme moi ne voient pas de prophete et n'attendent pas de miracle non plus, la grande bouffee d'air etant le depart de Bush.


Mais il y a du Clinton dans les parrages.

Un président n'est jamais plus que les milliardaires.

Je corrige sinon on va me reprocher je ne sais quoi : la grande bouffee d'air etant le depart des Neo conservateurs Republicains.

Comme le depart de clinton fut une boufee d'air! maintenant la pollution est de retour...

Mais bon, ce mouvement tous les 8 ans ou presque ca maintient l'equilibre, alors je ne me plains pas trop.

Nous serons patients.

Terrorist Who Plotted Attack on New York City to Be Released

Saturday, January 24, 2009




AP
Khalid Duhham Al-Jawary in 2007.

NEW YORK — In 1973, a young terrorist named Khalid Duhham Al-Jawary entered the United States and quickly began plotting an audacious attack in New York City.

He built three powerful bombs — bombs powerful enough to kill, maim and destroy — and put them in rental cars scattered around town, near Israeli targets.

The plot failed. The explosive devices did not detonate, and Al-Jawary fled the country, escaping prosecution for nearly two decades — until he was convicted of terrorism charges in Brooklyn and sentenced to 30 years in federal penitentiary.

But his time is up.

In less than a month, the 63-year-old Al-Jawary is expected to be released. He will likely be deported; where to is anybody's guess. The shadowy figure had so many aliases it's almost impossible to know which country is his true homeland.
...Terrorist

Les Democrates ont raison en tout, les REpublicains doivent donc voter "oui" a tout ce qu'ils proposent s'ils veulent etre de bons petits Americains a la facon Democrate. Inversement, les Republicains ayant toujours tort, il est normal que les Democrates aient bloque a peu pres tout ce que Pres. Bush ait propose. Ben voyons.

Obama Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done

Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.




Last updated: 4:16 pm
January 24, 2009
By NY Post

FOXNews.com

Friday, January 23, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."*
That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.
While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."
The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.

"We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly," Obama said during the meeting.

Republicans say the $825 billion price tag is too big a burden for a nation crippled by debt and that it doesn't do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

"You know, I'm concerned about the size of the package. And I'm concerned about some of the spending that's in there, [about] ... how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives," House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said. "How does that stimulate the economy?"

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: "There was a lot of agreement in that room about the notion that we're facing an economic crisis unlike we've seen in quite some time ... that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets."

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing.

"The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas," he said.

"He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas."

Delays in Cabinet Nominations Demonstrate GOP Resolve

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama chose his cabinet nominees with record speed, but since his inauguration the process of securing their Senate confirmation and building his government has slowed markedly.

By the end of his first full day in office, President Bill Clinton had all but one cabinet nominee in office, even after a very rocky transition. President George W. Bush also had all but one cabinet member confirmed by the end of January 2001, despite the protracted Florida recount following the November election.

This time, Mr. Obama will start his second week without Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services or Commerce secretaries, not to mention an attorney general to head the Justice Department. By the end of next week, Senate aides say the president may have only secured two more cabinet confirmations: Timothy Geithner at Treasury and Eric Holder at Justice.

Since President Jimmy Carter's first term, only President George H.W. Bush has had more problems than Mr. Obama on this front -- and the current president's issues have arisen after what is widely considered a smooth, quick and organized transition.

To White House aides, such comparisons are irrelevant. Mr. Obama's cabinet picks have run into some exceptional speed bumps -- for instance, a Senate Finance Committee overwhelmed by its legislative work on a record-breaking economic-stimulus plan. None of his nominees are in serious trouble or have forced the president to burn through political capital as Mr. Clinton did for Attorney General-nominee Zoe Baird, George H.W. Bush spent for Defense Department pick John Tower or his son did with John Ashcroft.

Besides, aides say, it is the speed with which the nominees were picked that counts. Mr. Geithner has been at work on economic policy since the Monday after Thanksgiving, even if his confirmation has been hung up over his past failure to pay some payroll taxes on time, they note.

But historians and Senate aides say there is more at work here. In part, Mr. Obama's lag might be evidence of some hubris from a transition that started with great pride and perhaps a little too much speed.
"It may be a bit of plain old arrogance or overconfidence," said Paul Light, a New York University expert on presidential transitions. "They're really smart people, but they seem to be underestimating the political impacts of fairly familiar problems."

Perhaps more importantly, the slow process could be a sign that the shrunken Republican Party -- with its core of determined conservatives intact -- won't be a pushover for the new president.
"We're always going to exercise our prerogatives," said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). "We want to make sure we're part of the process."

But former Sen. Tom Daschle hasn't even been scheduled for a confirmation hearing as Health and Human Services secretary, a key position as Mr. Obama tackles health care in the budget due next month. Democratic Finance Committee aides say the holdup is in part because the committee has been hashing out the tax provisions of a stimulus package likely to exceed $825 billion. They are also working on the Senate's version of an expanded State Children's Health Insurance Program.

But Democratic leadership aides acknowledge more-thorny problems as well, as Republican Finance Committee aides pore over Mr. Daschle's tax returns, business ties and his connection to an education-loan provider being investigated by the committee.

Republicans are holding up the confirmation of Hilda Solis as labor secretary, saying she hasn't been forthcoming on her views about key policy matters, particularly legislation that would ease union organizing.

Ms. Solis firmly backed the bill as a House member, and Mr. Obama favors at least the concept. But Republicans strongly oppose it and are pushing for an answer in writing to gauge how important the bill would be for the Labor Department. So far, Ms. Solis has been cagey by refusing to directly answer such questions.

The hold-up with Ms. Solis is just silly, Democrats said. The president's position favoring the so-called Employee Free Choice Act -- which would allow workers to gain collective bargaining rights by signing cards rather than secret balloting -- is well known. Republicans simply want to flog her, White House aides contend.
But Mr. Stewart, the McConnell aide, said Republicans are merely demanding that Democrats show the same due diligence they demanded of the Senate when Mr. Bush was president.

"Democrats for the past eight years have screamed about oversight and transparency, and now they want to put through some of these people without a hearing," he said. "You have to live by what you called for in the last administration."

Commerce secretary -- never a particularly controversial cabinet post -- may be the last one filled in the Obama administration. The initial nominee, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, withdrew his name from consideration after a federal probe of contracting in his state moved into the governor's office. And Mr. Obama has yet to announce a new nominee.

The Commerce glitch is one misstep White House aides do acknowledge making. The investigation into the Richardson administration was public record well before the governor was tapped by Mr. Obama. But Obama aides say Mr. Richardson didn't divulge just how close the probe was getting to the governor's office.

The choice of a successor at Commerce has been slow. One potential candidate, former Time Warner Inc. Chief Executive Richard Parsons, effectively took himself out of the running this week when he was named the new chairman of Citigroup Inc. Congressional Democrats say Symantec Corp. Chief Executive John W. Thompson has made the rounds on Capitol Hill, as have others.

... il est bon de placer celui-ci:

• JANUARY 24, 2009
  

Marines Propose Iraq Withdrawal, Shift to Afghanistan in '09

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Marine Corps is proposing to completely withdraw from Iraq later this year and shift 20,000 Marines to Afghanistan, boosting the Obama administration's plan to devote significant new resources to the Afghan war.

U.S. Department of Defense

Marines patrol in Afghanistan's Helmand province in December.




Gen. James Conway, the top Marine commander, said Friday that the combat portion of the Iraq war was effectively over. "The time is right for Marines in general terms to leave Iraq," he told reporters. "A building fight taking place in another locale -- that's really where Marines need to be."

On Friday, U.S.-fired missiles killed 18 people on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border, in the first attacks on the militant stronghold since President Barack Obama took office. The strikes from unmanned CIA planes confirm that Mr. Obama, as expected, is continuing the Bush Administration's attacks in the ungoverned tribal regions.

The Bush administration had devoted the vast bulk of the nation's military resources to the war in Iraq. Mr. Obama has made clear that he sees Afghanistan as a higher priority, and has promised to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

La verite est que depuis bientot une annee, une partie des troupes a ete transferee d'Iraq en Afghanistan et que d'autres troupes ont ete envoyees directement des Etats Unis en Afghanistan.

...

"The president has been quite clear that the mission is to responsibly draw down and end our active combat role [in Iraq]," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday. "He wants to put more emphasis on Afghanistan and deal with the problems ... and the challenges that we face in Afghanistan."

...

Pas certaine que des Liberaux apprecient mais bon...

Quand Pres. Bush pour des raisons economiques n'avait pas accepte de signer le traite de Kyoto. Ce lui fut reprocher, comme quoi quand on est president on est oblige de faire des choix quelque peu forces.

By STEPHEN POWER

Washington-- The state of California and the automobile industry are pressing the Obama administration to decide whether states may impose their own limits on autos' greenhouse-gas emissions, an issue that pits President Barack Obama's allies in the labor and environmental movements against one another.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama's first full day in office, California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger formally asked the president to let California enforce a 2002 state law that its officials estimate would require that vehicles achieve the equivalent of 35 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2017 -- three years earlier than a 2007 federal law would require. The California standard doesn't set a mileage target, but rather a target for auto makers to cut new vehicles' greenhouse-gas emissions by 30% from 2002 levels.

Gearing up to fight California's request is the National Automobile Dealers Association, which is holding its annual convention this weekend in New Orleans, an event expected to draw 25,000 attendees and feature appearances by former presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The group has prepared a report warning that the California law would impose "a costly and unnecessary burden on an industry already reeling" from the worst year of U.S. vehicle sales in more than a decade.

...

A decision in favor of the request would clear the way for more than a dozen other states to enforce laws they modeled on California's. But it also would risk antagonizing the United Auto Workers, which has complained that the law unfairly discriminates against companies whose product mix is skewed toward pickup trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans -- which guzzle a lot of gas. A spokesman for the union, which helped Mr. Obama clinch Ohio and Michigan in last fall's presidential contest, didn't respond to requests for comment on California's request.


Evidemment, quand on a des dettes...

Timothy Geithner's tax oversights drew most of the media attention at his confirmation hearing, but the biggest news is the Treasury Secretary-designate's testimony Thursday that he'll ratchet up one of the Bush Administration's worst habits: China currency bashing.
AP




In a written submission to the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Geithner said the Obama Administration "believes that China is manipulating its currency." He says he wants Treasury to make "the fact-based case that market exchange rates are a central ingredient to healthy and sustained growth." The dollar promptly fell and gold jumped $40 on the news.

We're not sure what Mr. Geithner means by "market exchange rates," given that the supply of any modern currency is set by a monopoly known as the central bank. When Mr. Geithner says China is "manipulating" its currency, what investors around the world hear is that he really wants Beijing to restrain the number of yuan in circulation and increase its value vis-a-vis the dollar. That's a call for a dollar devaluation to help U.S. exporters.

This would seem to be an especially crazy time to undermine the dollar, given that the Treasury will have to issue some $2 trillion to $3 trillion in new dollar debt in the next couple of years. A stronger yuan would also contribute to Chinese deflation and slower growth, which would only mean a deeper world recession. Even the Bush Treasury never formally declared China to be a currency "manipulator" in its periodic reports to Congress. If the Obama Treasury is now going to take that step, hold on to those gold bars. We're in for an even scarier ride than the Fun Slide of the last few months.

JANUARY 24, 2009

Blowhards



The fabulous debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound.


For all the hype about the Bush Administration's oil-and-gas energy bias, one of its last official acts was to give the go-ahead to what could be America's first offshore wind farm -- thus enraging more than a few self-deputized environmentalists. Such are the ironies of the wilderness of mirrors known as the Cape Wind project.
For the last seven years and counting, the green entrepreneur Jim Gordon has been trying to build a fleet of wind turbines in federal waters near the upscale seascapes of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The site seemed ideal, given the stiff ocean breezes and the eco-friendly politics in Massachusetts. The company says its 130 towers could meet 75% of the region's electricity needs and reduce carbon emissions by some 734,000 tons every year.

The sort of people who can afford to use "summer" as a verb are in favor of all that. Completely in favor, really. But they did want to raise one quibble. Unfortunately, the wind farm would create "visual pollution" in Nantucket Sound, particularly the parts within sight of their beachfront vacation homes.
Mr. Gordon went ahead anyway, and the opposition rose to gale force. Supposedly the wind farm will lead to everything from the disruption of seabird habitats to "desecrating ancient American Native burial sites," in the words of Glenn Wattley, the head of an antiwind outfit funded by the likes of Bunny Mellon. But what really upsets these well-to-do Don Quixotes is the thought of looking at windmills that would appear about as tall on the horizon as the thumbnail at the end of your outstretched arm.

Then there is the political saga, with the Kennedy family as the Hyannis Port Sopranos, supplying the muscle. While Ted Kennedy was castigating President Bush for destroying the environment, the Senator was working furiously behind the Congressional scenes to kill Cape Wind. He even had the inspiration of getting former GOP colleague Ted Stevens of Alaska to slip wording into a spending bill that would have handed a veto to then-Governor Mitt Romney, another aesthetically minded opponent. Robert Kennedy Jr., a Time magazine "hero of the planet," tried to get the Sound designated as a national marine sanctuary to bar development.

Incredibly enough, this political sabotage has so far failed. And last week the Interior Department issued its long-awaited regulatory study, mostly finding "negligible" environmental impact -- apart from a "moderate" impact on the scenery. If the Obama Administration signs off, construction could begin next year.

Mr. Kennedy blustered that the report was rushed out: amusing, considering it runs to 2,800 pages. Bill Delahunt, the windy Cape Democrat, also denounced the action as "a $2 billion project that depends on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling power costs for the region."

Good to see the Congressman now recognizes the limitations of green tech, such as its tendency to boost consumer electricity prices -- but his makeover as taxpayer champion is a bit belated. Green energy has been on the subsidy take for years, including in 2005 when Mr. Delahunt was calling for "an Apollo project for alternative energy sources, for hybrid engines, for biodiesel, for wind and solar and everything else." The reality is that all such projects are only commercially viable because of political patronage.

Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf ran the numbers and found that the effective tax rate for wind is minus-163.8%. In other words, every dollar a wind firm spends is subsidized to the tune of 64 cents from the government. The Energy Information Administration estimates that wind receives $23.37 in government benefits per megawatt hour -- compared to, say, 44 cents for coal. Despite these taxpayer crutches, wind only provides a little under 1% of U.S. net electric generation.

We'd prefer an energy policy that allows markets to shape the sources that predominate -- which would almost certainly put Cape Wind out of business. But President Obama seems determined to unload even more subsidies on green developers as he seeks to boost renewables to 10% of the U.S. electricity mix by the end of his first term and 25% by 2025; their share today is about 9% (5.8% of which is hydropower).

We wouldn't be surprised to see the President's green future wrestled to the ground by the likes of Mr. Delahunt, the Kennedys and other anticarbon Democrats. Environmentalists love the idea of milking Mother Nature for power, but they hate the hardware needed to make it work: huge windmills, acres of solar panels, high-voltage transmission lines to connect them to the places where people live. Of course, they still totally, absolutely, wholeheartedly support green energy -- as long as it gets built where someone else goes yachting.

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 23, 2009; Page A15

Fascinating speech. It was so rhetorically flat, so lacking in rhythm and cadence, one almost has to believe he did it on purpose. Best not to dazzle on Opening Day. Otherwise, they'll expect magic all the time.

The most striking characteristic of Barack Obama is not his nimble mind, engaging manner or wide-ranging intellectual curiosity. It's the absence of neediness. He's Bill Clinton, master politician, but without the hunger.
Clinton craves your adulation (the source of all his troubles). Obama will take it, but he can leave it, too. He is astonishingly self-contained. He gives what he must to advance his goals, his programs, his ambitions. But no more. He has no need to.

Which seems to me the only way to understand the mediocrity of his inaugural address. The language lacked lyricism. The content had neither arc nor theme: no narrative trajectory like Lincoln's second inaugural; no central idea, as was (to take a lesser example) universal freedom in Bush's second inaugural.

This is odd because Obama is so clearly capable of more. But he decisively left behind the candidate who made audiences swoon and the impressionable faint. And that left the million-plus on the Mall, while unshakably euphoric about the moment, let down and puzzled by the speech. He'd given them nothing to cheer or chant, nothing to sing.
Candidate Obama had promised the moon. In soaring cadences, he described a world laid waste by Bush, a world that President Obama would redeem -- bringing boundless hope and universal health, receding oceans and a healing planet.

But now that Obama was president, the redeemer was withholding, the tone newly sober, even dour. The world was still in Bushian ruin, marked by "fear . . . conflict . . . discord . . . petty grievances and false promises . . . recriminations and worn-out dogmas." But no more the prospect of magical restoration. In a stunning exercise in lowered expectations, Obama offered not quite blood, sweat and tears, but responsibility, work, sacrifice and service.
When candidate Obama said "it's not about me, it's about you," that was sheer chicanery. But now he means it, because he really cannot part the waters. Hence his admonition to rely not on the "skill or vision of those in high office," but on "We the People."

On the issue of race, he was even more withholding, and admirably so. He understood that his very presence was enough to mark the monumentality of the moment. Words would be superfluous -- as introducer Dianne Feinstein was apparently unaware -- and he gave it very few.

This was surprising, given that the announced theme of the inaugural -- "a new birth of freedom" -- invited grandiose comparison to Lincoln. Yet in the inaugural address, Obama abandoned the conceit. He allowed that "a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath." When he followed that with "So let us mark this day with remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled," you were sure he would trace the journey back to Lincoln and the Second (post-Gettysburg) Republic or to King and the civil rights revolution.

But Obama didn't. Remarkably, he instead reached back -- over King and Lincoln -- to George Washington. He rooted the values he cherishes most (and wants us to renew) in the Founders, in the First Republic, the slave-tainted one (as our schoolchildren are incessantly reminded) that had to await Lincoln for its cleansing.

Obama's unapologetic celebration of Washington and the Founders of the original imperfect union was a declaration of his own emancipation from -- or better, transcendence of -- the civil rights movement. The old warrior Joseph Lowery prayed for the day when "white will embrace what is right." Not Obama. By connecting himself in this historic address to Washington rather than Lincoln the liberator, Obama was legitimizing the full sweep of American history without annotation or mental reservation. If we ever have a post-racial future, this moment will mark its beginning.

Obama did this in prose, not his usual poetry. And he buried it in an otherwise undistinguished speech marred by a foreign policy section featuring the mushy internationalism of his still-bizarre Berlin adventure.

Perhaps that was just a bone to appease the faithful he had otherwise left hungry. We have no way of knowing. A complicated man, this new president. Opaque, contradictory and subtle. And that's just day one.