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

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.

266 a 273

Un peu de Pepto Bismol ?

Pour deux raisons, Les Bush-Haters n'ont rien laisse et puis, je me sens parfaitement bien. Apres une bonne soiree au restaurant hier soir, j'ai eu envie de surfer les informations en rentrant, tres interessant... et j'ai fait partager pour ceux que ca interesse.

Les Republicains suggerent a Nancy Pelosi de prendre les locataires de Guantanamo dans son district. Elle refuse.

Pelosi Shrugs off Alcatraz as Possible Terror Detention Facility

Republicans opposing an Obama administration order to close Guantanamo Bay prison facility within a year suggest sending terror detainees to House Speaker Pelosi's district.

Jimmy Carter's freelance diplomacy has put him at odds with his successors, but could he help President Obama?


FOXNews.com

Sunday, January 25, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday shrugged off Republican suggestions that the federal government reopen Alcatraz prison in her San Francisco district to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
President Obama this week signed an executive order calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo within the year. Republican Rep. Bill Young then suggested to White House counsel Greg Craig that the prisoners who could not be released back to their home countries or sent to a third country be put up in "the Rock," the famous military installation and prison that closed down in 1963 and is now part of the National Park Service.
Asked whether that was a serious proposal, Pelosi said, "It is -- no."

"Perhaps he's not visited Alcatraz," Pelosi said of Young while displaying little sense of humor. "Alcatraz is a tourist attraction. It's a prison that is now sort of like a -- it's a national park."
That explanation didn't stop House Minority Leader John Boehner from repeating the suggestion on Sunday, making that point that closing down Guantanamo by year's end may not be the best plan considering the recidivism rate of terrorist detainees is about 12 percent.

"If liberals believe they ought to go, maybe we ought to open Alcatraz," Boehner, R-Ohio, told NBC "Meet the Press." Being reminded that Alcatraz is a national park, Boehner responded, "It's very secure."

...

Pres. Obama avait assure que les lobbyists et legislateurs n'auraient pas acces aux 825 milliards de dollars pour des projets prives. Il semble qu'ils aient trouve un moyen de contourner l'interdiction.

Interest groups may still find ways to funnel money to pet projects

updated 11:57 a.m. ET Jan. 25, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.

They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.

The projects run the gamut: a Metrolink station that needs building in Placentia, Calif.; a stretch of beach in Sandy Hook, N.J., that could really use some more sand; a water park in Miami.

There are thousands of projects like those that once would have been gotten money upfront but now are left to scramble for dollars at the back end of the process as "ready to go" jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.

Shadowy lobbying effortThe result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out.

"'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender," said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. "It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."

sur le territoire des Etats Unis pour le Jihad

[quote="Sylvette"]Pres. Obama avait assure que les lobbyists et legislateurs n'auraient pas acces aux 825 milliards de dollars pour des projets prives. Il semble qu'ils aient trouve un moyen de contourner l'interdiction.

Interest groups may still find ways to funnel money to pet projects

updated 11:57 a.m. ET Jan. 25, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's ban on earmarks in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill doesn't mean interest groups, lobbyists and lawmakers won't be able to funnel money to pet projects.

They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.


Bonjour Sylvette

Si c'est le cas, j'espere tout a fait que l'administration fera ce qu'il faut et qu'elle ne confiera pas la gestion des fonds a n'imorte qui, le n'importe qui etant
aussi certains elus.

Indeed, some lawmakers hearing from local
groups say they're doing their own lobbying of governors and state and
local officials who could have say-so over the funds.
"I've
talked to my governor and suggested some things I think are important
in our area," said Republican Rep. C.W. Bill Young, who represents St.
Petersburg, Fla. "He knows what the needs are."

Il se trouve que c'est le premier exemple qui etait la mais j'en aurais autant au service des democrates.

Sylvette a écrit:

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.

Evidemment, quand on a des dettes...

Sauf que le protocole de Kyoto allait bien bien au dela des voitures... Quand on est responsable de 25% de la pollution mondiale a soi tout seul, on se doit de faire quelques efforts. On aurait peut etre du proposer certains amenagements au traite de Kyoto au lieu de subordonner sa signature a des exigences par rapport a l'Inde.
Tout le monde y aurait gagne, y compris nos enfants et (vos) petits enfants et les futurs miens.... dans quelques annees.


Obama putting quick stamp on environmental policy

By John M. Broder and Peter Baker - IHT
Monday, January 26, 2009


WASHINGTON:
President Barack Obama planned to direct federal regulators Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said.
The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.

Obama stops short of ordering the agencies to reverse the Bush administration policy, but they are widely expected to do so.

Once they act, automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court.

Obama will use the announcement to bolster the impression of a sharp break from the Bush era on all fronts, following his decisions last week to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; tighten limits on interrogation tactics by Central Intelligence Agency officers; order plans to withdraw combat forces from Iraq; and reverse
President George W. Bush's financing restrictions on groups that promote or provide abortion overseas, administration officials said.
Beyond acting on the California emissions law, officials said Sunday, Obama was to announce that he was moving forward with nationwide regulations requiring the automobile industry to increase fuel efficiency standards to comply with a 2007 law, rules that the
Bush administration decided at the last minute not to issue. He also planned to order federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly, and to highlight the elements in his economic plan intended to create jobs around renewable energy.
The announcements are intended to kick off a week of efforts to get the economic stimulus plan through Congress. The White House hoped the Senate would confirm Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary on Monday, and Obama planned to travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to meet with both Senate and House Republican caucuses and lobby for his stimulus package. Obama's aides expect the House to vote on its plan on Wednesday.

But the centerpiece of Monday's scheduled announcement was Obama's directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to begin work immediately on granting California a waiver, under the Clean Air Act, which allows the state, a longtime leader in air quality matters, to set standards for automobile emissions stricter than the national rules.
California has already won numerous waivers for controls on emissions that cause smog, as opposed to global warming.

The Bush administration denied the waiver in late 2007, saying that recently enacted federal mileage rules made the action unnecessary and that allowing California and the 13 other states the right to set their own pollution rules would result in an unenforceable patchwork of environmental law.The auto companies had advocated a denial, saying a waiver would require them to produce two sets of vehicles, one to meet the strict California standard and another that could be sold in the remaining states.

The Bush administration's environmental agency director, Stephen Johnson, echoed the automakers' claims in denying California's
application, ignoring the near-unanimous advice of agency lawyers and scientists that the waiver be granted. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, wrote to Obama last week asking him to swiftly reconsider Bush's decision. The head of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, also wrote to the new director of the environmental agency, Lisa Jackson, asking for a quick reversal of the Bush policy. Nichols said Sunday night that she had not been formally notified that Obama intended to move toward granting the waiver. But she said, "Assuming that it is favorable to our request, we're delighted that the president is acting so quickly to reverse one of the worst decisions by the Bush administration and to get the EPA back on track."
Jackson indicated in her confirmation hearing this month that she would "aggressively" review California's application. The environmental agency has granted California such waivers dozens of times over the past 40 years.
The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable. The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon, or 14.8 kilometers per liter,
from the current average of 27 miles per gallon.
The emissions standards are part of an ambitious California plan to reduce emissions of the gases that are blamed for the heating of the atmosphere. Automotive emissions account for more than one-fifth of all such greenhouse gases.

California was joined in its plea by 13 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington. Three other states have indicated they plan to adopt the California standard. Together they account for about half of the American market for cars and light trucks.
Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the car makers would prefer a single national standard and needed time to develop new fuel-sipping models. "Applying California standards to several different states would create a complex, confusing and very difficult situation for manufacturers," he
said last week in anticipation of the Obama administration's announcement.
Obama wants to use the Monday event to promote the environmental and energy elements of his economic plan, aides said. According to a report released by the White House this weekend, the plan is intended to double renewable energy generating capacity over three years, which would be enough to power six million American homes.
It would also pay for 3,000 miles, or 4,800 kilometers, of new or modernized transmission lines as part of a new national electric grid as well as 40 million "smart meters," which provide instant readouts of electricity uses, on American homes. The money would also help refurbish two million homes and 75 percent of federal building space to
better guard against the weather and conserve enough energy to save low-income families $350 a year and the federal government $2 billion a year, the report said.
The White House also said that Obama wanted to start a "clean energy finance initiative" to leverage $100 million in private sector investments over the next three years through loan guarantees and other financial support.
The Clean Air Act allows California to seek a waiver from federal rules if it can demonstrate that its own regulations are more stringent, and needed to address its air pollution problems. California's trend-setting air resources board has done this successfully more than 50 times. Other states can adhere to either the California or the federal standard.
Felicity Barringer contributed reporting from Palo Alto, California.

Sauf que le protocole de Kyoto allait bien bien au dela des voitures...

ooooh... vous croyez? Ca ne change rien au fait qu'une fois a la Maison Blanche, un president soit oblige de faire parfois ce qu'il n'avait jamais prevu de faire.

Quand on est responsable de 25% de la pollution mondiale a soi tout seul, on se doit de faire quelques efforts. On aurait peut etre du proposer certains amenagements au traite de Kyoto au lieu de subordonner sa signature a des exigences par rapport a l'Inde.
Tout le monde y aurait gagne, y compris nos enfants et (vos) petits enfants et les futurs miens.... dans quelques annees.

Kyoto etait voue au desastre qu'il est finalement devenu. En passant, Clinton n'etait pas chaud pour le signer non plus, mais bon, ca les Democrates n'aiment pas qu'on le rappelle et Pres. Bush avait mis sur pied un programme tres interessant qui bien evidemment n'a trouve aucun support aupres des Democrates, puisqu'il est bien connu que l'environnement et les couvertures sociales soient leur turf!

Mais la, BIloulou est le specialiste a ce sujet. S'il a un peu de temps, il vous repondra peut-etre...

Car je dois y aller....

Citation :

Sauf que le protocole de Kyoto allait bien bien au dela des voitures...

ooooh...
vous croyez? Ca ne change rien au fait qu'une fois a la Maison Blanche,
un president soit oblige de faire parfois ce qu'il n'avait jamais prevu
de faire.

Non evidemment et heureusement. Mais il ya aussi des presidents qui ont un agenda avant
d'etre a la Maison Blanche et qui quelques que soient les circonstances
et la betise de cet agenda, eh bien ils persistent sans ecouter ce
qu'on leur dit.

Citation :

Kyoto
etait voue au desastre qu'il est finalement devenu. En passant, Clinton
n'etait pas chaud pour le signer non plus, mais bon, ca les Democrates
n'aiment pas qu'on le rappelle
et Pres. Bush avait mis sur pied un programme tres interessant qui bien
evidemment n'a trouve aucun support aupres des Democrates, puisqu'il
est bien connu que l'environnement et les couvertures sociales soient
leur turf!

Le protocole de Kyoto est tres imparfait, je ne dirai pas desastre,
mais il fallait bien commencer quelque part. Les buts fixes tels quels
ne m'ont pas semble realisables, mais cela n'empechait pas de discuter
et c'est ce que je reproche a votre ex-Pres.
Son programe tres interessant, lequel ? Vous parlez du programme de
reduction de la consommation d'essence sur 10 ans ou de la modification
du Clean air Act rejetee par l'EPA ?

President Obama a mis fin a la guerre contre la terreur d'un trait de stylo.

Faudra peut-etre qu'ils previennent les terroristes, je me demande s'ils sont au courant.

3 photgraphes parlent des photos faites avec Bush. La plupart sont des
photo-ops bien reglees meme si elles donnent des airs de spontaneite. Ces 3 sont plus veritablement spontanees et en deviennent plus interessantes.

Le reste ici : http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall/?8ty&emc=ty

ERROL MORRIS: And the crying baby? This photograph was widely reprinted?



U.S. President George W. Bush hands back a crying baby that was handed to him from the crowd as he arrived for an outdoor dinner with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Trinwillershagen, Germany, July 13, 2006.
REUTERS/Jim Bourg (GERMANY)

JIM BOURG: That is one of my most controversial pictures that I shot myself. And one of my pictures that’s gotten the most attention. Bush supporters and Bush detractors seem to love it almost equally. People who support the president see it as a humorous and endearing moment, and detractors of the president and critics of
the president see it as a very negative image. But, once again, it’s one of those moments where it was very quick, it was just an instantaneous reaction to the baby screaming and crying and I was lucky enough to capture the moment and it got very extensive publication overseas. It was not published extensively in the United States for some reason.


ERROL MORRIS: So let’s go on to the tearsTears run from the eyes of President George W. Bush during a ceremony in honor of Medal of Honor winner Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham in the East room of the White House in Washington, January 11, 2007. Cpl. Dunham was killed when he jumped on a grenade to save fellow members of his
Marine patrol while serving in Iraq. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

JIM BOURG: O.K., so the tears. Similar to the baby picture, you know, beloved by his supporters and much used by his detractors. It wasn’t often that you saw George Bush become emotional and cry in the course of his presidency and as far as I remember, this was the first time that anyone saw him shed tears specifically related
to casualties and the events in Iraq. It was also not published very much at all in the United States for whatever reason, and I don’t know how to interpret that. I’m not sure I want to try to interpret that, but it’s a very interesting thing to me.

ERROL MORRIS: Do you feel as a result of covering him that you got a feeling for him or got to know him in some sense?

JIM BOURG: Considering that I have two pictures in here, I didn’t really cover him personally as much as you might think. Being the supervisor here and the editor in charge of the White House photographers, I’m not at the White House day in and day out. I tend to drop in for bigger events and not be there on a day-to-day basis. You
will be very interested to read what my photographers have to say on our Reuters photographers blog on Reuters.com about covering President
George W. Bush and about covering the White House. Some of them absolutely have gotten to know him personally and gotten to know him far better than I would claim to. There are a few of them who are on a first name basis with him, who he would call by name or by nickname as is his usual thing. But not nearly as much as his father. His father had a very, very unique and strong relationship with the still photographers. His father had a real attachment to, a real kinship with or a real appreciation for the still photographers. And that’s not something that we’ve ever felt as much from his son. His father knew every still photographer by name, and would inquire about their wives and children. He interacted with them more extensively than any other president we’ve seen in recent decades. That’s not as true with this President Bush, with George W. Bush.


ERROL MORRIS: So the picture of him walking back towards the Oval Office you picked? President George W. Bush walks back to the Oval Office after making remarks on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at the White House in Washington March 13, 2008. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)

JIM BOURG: I could have picked a lot of pictures that have a similar tone to them in the last nine months. For whatever reason, he has allowed himself to be to be seen in this context quite a few times. Some of them are really quite compelling pictures of the president appearing alone and in some cases a setting and a stance and a manner that was very somber. It is striking to see the president of the United States heading back into the Oval Office alone. Once again, we don’t try to go too deeply into over-analyzing them, but a compelling picture is a compelling picture.

By PATRICK O'CONNOR & JONATHAN MARTIN | 1/27/09 10:08 AM EST Updated: 1/27/09 11:46 AM EST

President Barack Obama is coming to the Capitol this afternoon to curry favor with congressional Republicans. But it appears GOP leaders have already made up their minds to oppose his $825 billion stimulus plan.

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion. Boehner told members that he's voting against the stimulus, and Cantor told the assembled Republicans that there wasn't any reason for them to support the measure, according to another person in the room. Cantor and his whip team are going to urge GOP members to oppose it.

In a nod to the president, Boehner did point out that this is the third time that Obama has met with Republican leaders, compared with the zero meetings they've held with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a now-familiar refrain from Republicans in the House. But Obama’s diplomacy clearly isn’t buying any votes yet.

This pre-meeting bluster should dampen the mood for an early afternoon meeting with the president, who is making the trek to hear Republicans’ input on the legislation before Wednesday's vote. Once Obama is done with House Republicans, he will cross the Capitol to join the Senate Republican Conference lunch to pitch them on the stimulus.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on NBC's "Today" show Tuesday morning that Democrats in Congress are "drifting away" from Obama's preferred stimulus plan, which was supposed to include 40 percent tax cuts and be free of earmarks.

“Listening to what he said he wanted, we think we may be closer to that, oddly enough, than the Democratic majority, which seems to be pulling in the direction of fewer tax — less tax relief and things like fixing up the [National] Mall. You know, most people don't think that's the way we ought to spend stimulus money,” McConnell said.

..

mais qui est pourtant a la tete du Comite des Services Financiers, grand ami des clinton que Bill avait place en charge de Fanny Mae et de Freddy Mac, celui dont la politique de pret a mener au desastre que l'on sait continue sur sa lancee. Une banque Noire par son intermediaire a recu 12 millions de dollars alors qu'elle avait fait l'objet de plaintes officielles. Il trouvait que laisser la seule banque noire faire faillite n'etait pas une bonne idee...

ABSOLUMENT INVRAISSEMBLABLE! Frank continue comme si de rien n'etait.

Barbey Frank helped controversial black-owned bank gain money
By Jay Fitzgerald
Friday, January 23, 2009 - Updated 4d 18h ago
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank yesterday defended helping Boston’s OneUnited Bank land $12 million in federal funding, despite regulatory complaints its executives were getting “excessive” pay and even a Porshe for its CEO.

Frank, head of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, acknowledged that last fall he inserted into the government’s $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program bill specific language to help OneUnited, New England’s only black-owned bank.

He also said he contacted someone at the Treasury Department about OneUnited’s application for emergency TARP funds, though he insisted he never asked Treasury to bend any rules on behalf of OneUnited.
...

Barney Keller, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Republican Party, said he wasn’t surprised by Frank’s action.
“Rep. Frank’s motives on the committee have always been politics first, people second, which is exactly how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place,” Keller said. “I hope he at least gets to test-drive the Porsche.”

...

=====

Barney Franck lors d'un passage au Factor avec O'Reilly chez FOX News

...

ne faiblit pas avec son depart de la Maison Blanche.

Rep. Conyers (qui a l'epoque avait pris fait et cause pour Clinton accuse de parjure - fait prouve, la) mene la charge pour amener Pres. Bush devant les tribunaux pour crimes de guerre.

Obama avait dit etre contre cette initiative, mais il est tres silencieux a ce sujet.

O'Reilly dans cette video reprend les sondages Rasmussen, le meilleur sondeur depuis plusieurs annees, qui montre que la pluspart des Americains pensent que Pres. Bush n'a pas commis de crimes de guerre et que 70% pensent que ce serait une tres mauvaise idee pour le pays.

La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid apparemment et la haine l'assaisonne pour lui donner du piquant.

9 am: Obama receives a daily briefing in the oval office.

9.30 am: Obama receives the economic daily briefing in the oval office.

10 am: Obama meets with his senior advisors.

10.30 am: Obama meets with business leaders to discuss the impact of the dwindling economy on businesses and workers and to rally support for the stimulus package.

11.15 am: Obama makes remarks on the economy in the East Room.

1.30 pm: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gives a briefing.

3.30: Obama meets with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Service Chiefs at the Pentagon. More...
The meeting is part of a series designed to illustrate a comprehensive view of the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On ne doit pas tout nous dire, sinon, ca semble un peu leger

The case for doing nothing
By EAMON JAVERS & JIM VANDEHEI | 1/28/09 4:15 AM EST

Most of Washington has reached quick consensus: Government must do something big to shock the economy, and it should cost between $800 billion and $900 billion.

But dissident economists and investment professionals offer a much different take: Most of Washington is dead wrong.

Instead of fighting over what should go in the economic stimulus bill, pitting infrastructure spending against tax cuts and contractors against contraceptives, they say lawmakers should be fighting against the very idea of any economic stimulus at all. Call them the Do-Nothing Crowd.

“The economy was too big. It was all phantom wealth borrowed from abroad,” says Andrew Schiff, an investment consultant at Euro Pacific Capital and a card-carrying member of the stand-tall-against-the-stimulus lobby. “All this stimulus money is geared toward getting consumers spending and borrowing again. But spending and borrowing were the problem in the first place.”

Washington has a habit of passing legislation in a crisis and suffering from morning-after regrets — the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and last year’s original bank bailout plan come to mind. So we thought it would be wise to air the views of the naysayers toward Washington’s latest consensus approach.

...
The case for doing nothing

qui ne devrait pas comporte de passe-droits (c'etait la promesse de notre president) est bourre de ce que les Democrates ont voulu depuis 40 ans.

a 40-Year Wish List

You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
AP




We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.
Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."




Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.
This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group.

As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

Absolutely!

Celle des Democrates devrait passer mais celle-ci a son importance

House Republicans Push Counter-Proposal on Stimulus

An economic stimulus bill pushed by Republicans in the House would shift focus entirely from spending to tax relief.



FOXNews.com

Wednesday, January 28, 2009





Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., left, House Minority Leader John Boehner, center, and Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., right, walk to make a statement on the economy in Washington Tuesday. (AP Photo)


Far from rolling over, House Republican leaders are trying to win concessions from President Obama over the massive economic stimulus package and have proffered a bill of their own to put on the negotiating table.

The counter-package would shift focus entirely from spending to tax relief. Though a full House vote on the Democratic package is expected in a matter of hours and President Obama said he's confident it will pass, GOP lawmakers are hoping their substitute proposal at least influences the final product.

In a brief session with reporters Wednesday, Republicans panned the $825 billion proposal under consideration as a "non-stimulus" bill chock full of gift-wrapped spending items.

"People are recognizing very quickly that's it's not one, stimulative, and two, it's full of all sorts of things that are sort of favorite political projects of the Democrat majority," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

"If government spending was going to get us out of this mess, we'd have been out a long time ago, because that's all we've been doing," said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. "This is not going to work. That's why we've got a bill we think will work."

Their bill, called the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009, promises a host of tax-cutting measures. It includes a 5 percent "across the board" income tax cut; an increase in the child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000; a freeze on capital gains and dividends tax rates at 15 percent; and a number of other measures targeted toward businesses.

The Republicans authoring the alternative bill did not have an estimate for the cost of their counter-proposal, but Price said so far the bill has 65 co-sponsors.

...

C'est positif pour le nouveau president americain, et tout et tout

Le Texte:

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that he welcomes the kind of change U.S. President Barack Obama offered in an interview with an Arab-language television network.



Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seen Tuesday, said of the U.S. "We will listen carefully to their words."

"If changes happens, we will welcome such an endeavor," Ahmadinejad told a crowd of thousands in a speech broadcast on national television from the western region of Khermenshah.

"We welcome change, but providing change is fundamental and is in the correct direction."

In Tuesday's interview with Al-Arabiya, Obama said his administration will offer a hand of friendship to the Muslim world.

"My job ... is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama said. "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

Obama addressed Iran specifically, prefacing his remarks with "Iranian people are a great people," but adding "Iran has acted in ways that are not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region."

He listed the U.S. objects to Iran's "threats to Israel, pursuit of a nuclear weapon ... and support of terrorist groups in the past." Still, Obama said, "I do think it is important to talk to Iran" about differences.

Ahmadinejad said the United States has a lot to apologize for, beginning with a 1953 coup engineered by British and U.S. intelligence services that returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power, and continuing with the Iran-Iraq war and America's opposition to Iran's nuclear program.

"If certain parties want to bring about change, change entails for them to apologize to the Iranian people and try to make amends for their blackened history, their past record, the atrocities they have committed against the Iranian people," Ahmadinejad said.

He also called on the United States to end its support of Israel. Obama said in his interview that the U.S. will continue to be a strong ally with Israel. Watch how the Arab world is reacting to Obama's overtures »

Ahmadinejad said Iran will keep a watchful eye on the new U.S. administration.

"We ... will remain patient for their comments and we will listen carefully to their words and we will monitor their actions," he said.

In his run for the White House, Obama pledged to improve ties with the Muslim world, draw down U.S. troops in Iraq and close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

"If countries, like Iran, are willing to unclench their fists," the U.S. will extend a hand of friendship, Obama said in the interview, reiterating a line from his inaugural address.

Alors en effet Ahmadinejad welcomes Obama's offer of change.....

La Video - FOX News

... mais de temps a autres, je placerai ici une video tiree d'emissions televisees preparees par des commentateurs de la politique de notre nouveau president. J'annonce tout de suite ne pas etre d'accord sur tous les arguments ni toujours avec l'humour utilise, qui parfois ne sont ni plus impartiaux ni de meilleur gout que ce qui etaient proposes par les organes de presse liberaux mettant Pres. Bush au pilori, mais bon... A l'epoque ca en derangerait peu chez les Democrates.

Le President ayant attaque personnellement Rush Limbaugh, il me semble juste de presenter ce qui derange la gauche. J'espere n'offusquer personne.

Pour commencer:

Sean Hannity qui fait partie (apres Rush Limbaugh) de ceux qu'il faut faire taire (il a pour le moment une emission de radio et une chez FOX News)

Aujourd'hui: Le changement de vision entre le Candidat Obama et le president Obama concernant l'emploi de lobyists dans un gouvernement - Aussi, son interview sur la chaine arabe - Puis, la biographie d'un detenu a Gantanamo - enfin le Rechauffement climatique et Al Gore.

More giant steps toward government health care.

The more we dig into the pile of spending and tax favors known as the "stimulus bill," the more amazing discoveries we make. Namely, Democrats have apparently decided that the way to gun the economy is to spend even more on health care.

This is notable because if there has been one truly bipartisan idea in Washington, it's that the U.S. as a whole spends too much on health care. President Obama has been talking up entitlement reform as a way to free up the money for his other social priorities. But it turns out that Congress is using the stimulus as cover for a massive expansion of federal entitlements.

Only the bill's $20 billion or so devoted to electronic health records can be reasonably called an investment. More typical is the $87 billion that will go to Medicaid, which -- silly us -- we underestimated by about $6 billion in our stimulus editorial yesterday. This pot of money will be used to blow out the federal matching rate by 4.9 percentage points across the board. Medicaid is nominally a joint state-federal program, but the feds pick up 57% of the Medicaid bill on average and are willing to go as high as 82% in some states. In other words, Democrats want to bail out the states that make unaffordable health-care promises and haven't tried to control costs. This latest rescue will give Governors more incentive to do so, given that the more they spend, the more Congress pays.

...

Let's cut taxes, as I want, and spend more, as Obama would like.

By RUSH LIMBAUGH

There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.
Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.
Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

ABSO-LUTELY!

In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done.



This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

Military Judge Refuses to Halt Trial of USS Cole Bombing Suspect

Military Judge James Pohl has refused the Obama administration's order to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen.

FOXNews.com
Thursday, January 29, 2009

A military judge has refused the Obama administration's request to delay the arraignment of Abu al-Nashiri, the accused planner of the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen, FOX News learned Thursday.

Judge James Pohl's ruling throws a wrench in President Obama's plans to suspend the military tribunal process for 120 days while the administration reviews how to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within the year.

Pohl's decision is striking because two other military judges in a Sept. 11 conspiracy case and in the case of Canadian Al Qaeda operative Omar Khadr agreed to suspend proceedings in accordance with Obama's recent executive order, which put a hold on all military tribunals.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday that Pohl would soon be told to comply with Obama's executive order.

"All I can really tell you is that this department will be in full compliance with the president's executive order," Morrell said at a news briefing. "There is no ifs, ands or buts about that."

"The president has signed an executive order and that sort of puts all this on hold as we go about and review a number of things related to Gitmo, our detention operations, our interrogation procedures," he continued.

"And so, while that executive order is in force and effect, trust me that there will be no proceedings continuing down at Gitmo with military commissions," he added.

Al-Nashiri's arraignment is scheduled for Feb. 9 at Guantanamo Bay. A Defense Department spokesman said the only thing now that can stop the court appearance from going forward is a withdrawal of the charges without prejudice by Judge Susan Crawford, head of the convening authority that oversees the entire process at Guantanamo.

If the charges are dropped without prejudice, new charges could be brought in another venue, possibly a military court martial or criminal court.

The October 2000 attack on the USS Cole killed 17 service members and injured 50 others.

FOX News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.Military Judge Refuses