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

MEME LE NEW YORK TIMES A REMARQUE!

J'avais commence a surligne mais l'article entier est important, des lors...

Obama’s Ethics Reform Promise Faces Early TestBy PETER BAKER
Published: February 2, 2009


WASHINGTON — During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obama vowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a “new era of responsibility.” What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.

The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists.

President Obama said Monday that he was “absolutely” standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary, and Mr. Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had “no excuse” and wanted to “deeply apologize” for his failure to pay $128,000 in federal taxes.

But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Mr. Obama has proved willing to compromise.

Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.

“This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”

And so in these opening days of the administration, the Obama team finds itself being criticized by bloggers on the left and the right, mocked by television comics and questioned by reporters about whether Mr. Obama is really changing the way Washington works or just changing which political party works it.

Some Republicans saw a double standard. “What would it be like if Hank Paulson had come in without paying his taxes, or any other member of the cabinet?” asked Terry Nelson, a political strategist who worked for President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, referring to Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary. “It would be roundly attacked and roundly criticized.”

Several Democrats, including some who have advised Mr. Obama, said privately that he had only himself to blame for delivering such an uncompromising message as a candidate without recognizing how it would complicate his ability to assemble an administration.

In the campaign, Mr. Obama assailed Washington’s “entire culture” in which “our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” He vowed to “close the revolving door” and “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.”

The language, however, was always more sweeping than the specifics. He spoke of refusing campaign money from lobbyists but took it from the people who hired them. The ethics plan he outlined, and eventually imposed on his administration, did not ban all lobbyists outright but set conditions for their employment and did not cover many who were lobbyists in everything but name.

Mr. Daschle, for instance, is not a registered lobbyist, but he made a handsome living advising clients seeking influence with the government, including some in the health industry. Mr. Obama also gave himself the right to grant waivers in cases he deemed exceptional, most prominently to William J. Lynn III, an ex-Raytheon lobbyist he nominated as deputy defense secretary. Others were lobbyists more than two years ago, and therefore not covered by the Obama rules.

Some who worked as lobbyists have found places in the administration, including Mark Patterson, who represented Goldman Sachs and is now chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. William V. Corr, who lobbied for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has been selected as deputy health and human services secretary.
Obama advisers said that the exceptions were minimal given the thousands to be hired and that appointees would be barred from work on issues they lobbied on in the last two years. The exceptions, they said, were needed for particular skills and experience.

Some advocates said the rules were still more significant than any previously imposed. “This is a direct attack on the culture of Washington and in an extremely powerful way,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an advocacy group.

As for Mr. Daschle and Mr. Geithner, who also failed to pay some taxes, White House officials said the errors should not obscure their records. Mr. Obama “believes that both Secretary Geithner and Secretary-Designate Daschle are the right people for very important jobs,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, “and he does not believe that that will undercut their ability to move forward on an agenda that makes sense for the American people.”

That argument has drawn sharp criticism from left and right. “Is this really the message he wants to convey to voters in just his first month in office, a message that it’s O.K. to break or skirt the law just as long as you’re a good guy with a special skill set?” asked Andy Ostroy, a blogger writing on The Huffington Post, a liberal Web site.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, a liberal magazine, said Mr. Obama should withdraw Mr. Daschle’s nomination to “revive the change brand he campaigned and won on.”

Mr. Obama is running into crosscurrents that bedeviled his predecessors. Jimmy Carter promised a new day in Washington after Watergate but still found top associates caught up in scandal. Bill Clinton promised “the most ethical administration in history” and then endured the most independent counsel investigations in history. Mr. Bush vowed a new era of responsibility only to be accused of selling out to energy and military industries.

Jody Powell, who was Mr. Carter’s press secretary and later founded a prominent lobbying firm, said it was better to establish lofty goals that might not be met than to not have any at all.

“If you set standards, you’re going to fall short on occasion and you’re going to have to compromise on occasion,” Mr. Powell said. “But you’re probably also going to get more done.”

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.

CHANGEment - Qu'en pensez-vous Lawrence ....



========

"Jody Powell, who was Mr. Carter's press secretary and lager founded a prominet lobbying firm, sait it was better to establish lofty goals that might not be met than to not have any at all"

... and she knows whereof she speaks!!!

=======

Avez-vous remarquez que depuis la "signature" de l'acte decidant la fermeture de Guantanamo et le refut du juge d'arreter les proces en cours.... silence ....

Pres. Bush avait bien dit qu'il attendait de voir ce qu'adviendraient les promesses une fois que Barack Obama serait a la Maison Blanche. Il doit sourire maintenant.

Vous me "suivez" toujours?

À la traîne et je comptabilise !

Je me sentais seule tout-a-coup, mais puisque vous etes la, ca va!

Felicitations aux pouilles mouillees qui depuis des annees cajolent les gouvernements iraniens et en particulier a la France qui a su proteger l'ayatollah khomeini aux frais de la princesse.

Iran Puts FIrst Homemade Satellite in Orbit

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has successfully sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit, the country's president announced Tuesday, claiming a significant step in an ambitious space program that has worried many international observers.

The satellite, called Omid, or hope in Farsi, was launched late Monday after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio. State television showed footage of what it said was the nighttime liftoff of the rocket carrying the satellite at an unidentified location in Iran.

The reports were not immediately verified by outside observers. Some Western observers have accused Tehran of exaggerating the capabilities of its space program.

Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One of the worries associated with Iran's fledgling space program is that the same technology used to put satellites into space can also be used to deliver warheads.

The United States and some of its allies suspect Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear program. Iran denies the charge, saying its atomic work is only for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

...

C'est ça : parlons, parlons, si ça nous rassure...

Je n'en sais rien, moi je m'adressais aux poules mouillées...

Ah bon...

====

Comme dirait Alice , mieux vaut en rire de la politique exterieure de l'UE et des US maintenant. Quoi que, quoi que, vous avez remarque que comme pour Guantanamo, on ne parle pas beaucoup de tendre une main ouverte a l'Iran en ce moment non plus.

L'Iran a 10 longueurs d'avance, le gouvernement Obama et celui de l'UE pensent vraiment qu'il va ralentir pour qu'on le rattrape?

Sans doute pourquoi notre nouveau president souhaitait voir, pour le bien de la nation, ce plan vote RAPIDEMENT et de facon non-partisane. Un tour de magie, sommes toutes. Les programmes Democrates auraient ete mis en place sans que personne ne realise ce qui lui etait arrive.

Les Republicains ayant mis le frein et en ayant fait une affaire publique, les Americains mis au courant, ne semblent pas tous d'accord, loin de la.

Stimulus Backers Face Growing Skepticism Over Need for Government Action

A Gallup poll released Tuesday finds a strong majority of Americans want Congress to pass some form of stimulus, but have severe doubts about the measures currently being considered to boost the economy.

FOXNews.com
Tuesday, February 03, 2009

With public opinion turning sour over a big-government economic recovery package, some taxpayer advocates and officials are posing the question that seemed verboten in Washington just a week ago: Who needs a stimulus?
"We don't," said Michael Steele, newly elected Republican National Committee chairman, in an interview with FOXNews.com Tuesday.

Though Republican senators are trying to negotiate an alternative bill with Democrats as debate gets underway in their chamber, the unanimous opposition of the House GOP last week to a $819 billion bill signaled that some lawmakers are prepared to reject a stimulus outright, rather than engage in what appears to be an uphill fight for significantly reduced spending.

Most Americans are now looking for major revisions in the way the government is approaching the recession.
A Gallup poll out Tuesday showed that a majority of Americans want Congress to either reject or make "major changes" to the economic stimulus package on Capitol Hill.

The poll, conducted from Friday through Sunday, found that 75 percent of Americans want Congress to pass some version of the plan. But the survey reflected deepening doubts about the effectiveness of the programs and spending items currently being considered by federal lawmakers. Only 38 percent of those polled favored the existing stimulus proposal, down from a slight majority holding that view in the Jan. 28 Gallup survey.
Thirty-seven percent want major changes and 17 percent reject the plan outright.

"This idea that the public is not excited about this package ... is really having an effect on Capitol Hill," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told FOX News, adding that most of the Senate suffers from a "herd mentality" and is swayed by public opinion.

"There's nothing inevitable about this," said Phil Kerpen, director of policy at Americans for Prosperity. "The American economy is enormously resilient and it's always recovered in the past."
Americans for Prosperity has launched a petition on the Web site called NoStimulus.com to oppose what it calls the "big-government pork-barrel spending bill."

The conservative Cato Institute also recently took out a group of ads with a statement, signed by 200 economists, saying they "do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance."

...

Obama Admits 'Mistake' in Handling of Daschle Nomination

President Obama tells FOX News he takes responsibility for the handling of Tom Daschle's Cabinet nomination; he also says he's standing firm on a Feb. 16 deadline for the economic stimulus.


FOXNews.com

Tuesday, February 03, 2009


President Obama admitted he made a "mistake" in his handling of Tom Daschle's Cabinet nomination, telling FOX News on Tuesday that he takes full responsibility for a process that ended in Daschle withdrawing his name amid tax problems.
The president also said in the interview with FOX News that he's standing firm on a Feb. 16 deadline for the multi-billion dollar stimulus bill being debated on Capitol Hill, despite growing concerns that package contains too much unnecessary spending.

Daschle's withdrawal, along with wrangling over the stimulus, made for possibly the rockiest day of Obama's presidency so far. The president said he will learn from the Daschle debacle.

"I consider this a mistake on my part, one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we're not screwing up again," Obama said. "Ultimately I have to take responsibility for a process that resulted in us not having a (health and human services) secretary at a time when people need relief on their health care costs.

"So this is a mistake -- probably not the first one I'm going to be making in this office, but what I'm absolutely committed to doing is fixing it," he said.

...

Est-ce que quelqu'un dans les media osera relever et se moquer comme ca n'aurait pas manque de l'etre s'il s'etait agi de Pres. Bush?

De toute evidence une tres mauvaise journee pour Obama. Plus facile de critiquer que de faire, nul doute.

Certainement un autre sourire pour Bush 43!

A propos de la démission du sénateur Onc' Tom :

Citation :

(...)"So this is a mistake -- probably not the first one I'm going to be making in this office, but what I'm absolutely committed to doing is fixing it," he said.

...

Est-ce que quelqu'un dans les media osera relever et se moquer comme ca n'aurait pas manque de l'etre s'il s'etait agi de Pres. Bush?(...)

Il s'est tenu l'année dernière en Doulce France un entretien télévisée, genre grand-messe, organisé pour la première année de présidence de notre Marmouset Ier ; ce dernier fut soumis pendant plus d'une heure à un petit feu soft de questions de journalistes de la téloche - je veux dire de gens ayant une carte de presse - de tous bords politiques "présumés".

Interrogé sur son approche de certaines questions économico-politiques dont la perception par la fameuse "opinion publique" s'était révélée négative, le Roi des Grenouilles fit un mea culpa inattendu et admit avec la brutale franchise qui le caractérise qu'il avait mal calculé ses coups.

Le lendemain tout ce que les medias de l'info comptent comme tribunes-à-forger-de-l'opinion se firent l'écho de l'humilité présidentielle exprimée en public d'une manière si surprenante que même ses adversaires avaient été momentanément bluffés. Il s'ensuivit que la cote de l'auto-flagellé prit des points de bonus dans les sondages.

Pour Djordjy Marcheur c'était après l'agression de l'Irak peine perdue de vouloir admettre avoir fait des erreurs et suggérer qu'il pourrait en faire d'autres. Le public le savait rien qu'en le regardant. La défiance envers Marcheur était devenue viscérale car une grande partie de la Nation qui avait les yeux ouverts sur le monde constatait navrée qu'il avait porté un coup très dommageable au prestige et au crédit extérieur des E-U. De plus il était desservi en ces temps du règne impitoyable de l'image par la plus formidable "gueule de khôn" de l'aréopage des gouvernants du Globe, privilège désavantageux qu'il pouvait partager avec Bob Mugabe en cette première décennie du XXI° s...

La franchise d'O'Barraka lui sauvera la mise pour ce coup-ci et quelques autres. Après ce sera inéluctablement l'usure inhérente au temps de gouvernance écoulé qui s'installera. Il sera alors toujours propice de le critiquer méchamment ; dans cette hypothèse pourquoi partir à la courre quand la bête est encore vive ? Les WASP auraient-ils perdu ce bon et sûr pragmatisme anglo-saxon ?

1) Apres Gantanamo qu'il affirme ne pas vouloir fermer (bien qu'il ait dit que ce serait un des ses premiers actes pendant toute la campagne), il rechange d'avis le lendemain sous la revolte de la gauche. Depuis, la situation n'a pas change pour les locataires mais le paraphe est en bas du document.

2) Apres la main tendue vers l'Iran et la demande de celui-ci en reponse d'une presentation d'excuse par les US, silence avec ce pays

3) Apres avoir assure vouloir nettoyer Washington: il nomme AU TRESOR un homme qui trouve comme raison de n'avoir pas paye tous ses impots, ne pas avoir compris la loi.

4) Apres avoir critique l'utilisation de lobbyists dans un gouvernement tout au long de la campagne, a) il en prend a bord b) le plus notoire, Daschle, n'est meme pas inscrit sur la liste alors qu'entre autres, il avait demande a de l'equipe de transition d'engager les services de son associe - grand supporter financier du Parti Democrate.

* Daschle, un des Senateurs Democrates les plus importants avaient perdu son siege aux elections de 2006

Apres avoir nomme Daschle comme candidat, avoir appuye sa candidature jusqu'a hier car il etait l'homme de la situation, il reconnait avoir fait une erreur d'appreciation au sujet de la reaction des Americains face au fait que Daschle n'avait pas paye pour "plus de $ 100,000" d'impots (restons dans le vague c'est mieux) oas qu'il n'aurait pas du soutenir Daschle des qu'il avait ete mis au courant mais qu'il s'etait trompe quant a la reaction de ses electeurs.

Maintenant donc, (et je me demande si je n'ai pas oublie quelque chose d'autre) son plan de relance, pas de moindre importance:

5) Apres avoir soutenu et demande a l'opposition d'etre de gentils petits Republicains patriotes (apres tout, "Il a gagne" dit-il et il a les atouts) en donnant rapidement leur accord au plan Democrate propose par Pelosi (vous vous souvenez qu'elle nous avait dit travailler en Novembre sur un truc qui allait nous redresser, ben ca devait etre ca!) et que les Republicains de la Maison aient vote "NON" en bloc accompagnes par 11 elus Democrates (des courageux qui, dans le colimateur de Nancy, vont souffrir comme l'a deja annonce un aide de ses aides), annonce avant-hier je crois qu'il travaillera avec les Republicains pour alleger le plan (Remarquez, ca c'est tres bien quoi que si c'etait vraiment le meilleur des plans mais bon, enfin c'est ce qu'on appelle la negociation). Pendant ce temps: le mot d'ordre est ACHETEZ AMERICAIN; or ce matin, je lis qu'Obama va "assouplir" le plan ACHETEZ AMERICAIN au vu des rappels a l'ordre des Europeens lance hier. (en anglais)

Alors je me dis, de deux choses l'une:

Ou bien notre nouveau president prend des decisions sans avoir vraiment reflechi aux problemes et aux consequences, ou bien, il change d'avis sous la pression exterieure. Je me demande ce qui est le plus grave. Mais bon il est nouveau et s'il pensait pouvoir solutionner tous les problemes, comme Pres. Bush lui avait dit, il s'apercoit qu'etre a la Maison Blanche offre une autre perspective. Donnons lui donc un peu de temps.

Ah je savais bien qu'il y avait autre chose:

6) la transparence! Promise pendant toute la campagne, le plan a ete concocte par Nancy et mis aux voix sans que les Americains sachent ce qu'il contenait (360 pages sauf erreur!). Depuis que les Republicains en ont fait connaitre les grandes lignes, la majorite des Americains est contre, selon les resultats de sondage que j'ai postes hier)

Alors ?

La, je reconnais qu'Hillary avait raison lorsqu'elle disait qu'il ne serait pas pret des premier jour. Dans un sens c'est peut-etre la meilleure chose pour les Republicains, car Hillary, j'en suis convaincue, aurait fait des Etats Unis un pays socialiste en rien de temps. Obama y parviendra peut-etre mais l'opposition s'est apercue qu'elle n'etait a pres tout pas si faible que ca et qu'avec le soutien de la majorite des Americains elle pourra limiter les degats. (car les Americains ne sont pas socialistes dans l'ame!)

(En passant, j'ai l'impression que le GOP a beaucoup d'avoir chance de voir Michael Steel)

je relevais de la grammaire de la phrase (il est evident que Barack Obama etait sous stress), pas a ses plates excuses d'avoir mal calcule la reaction des gens.

Quant a votre comparaison de Pres. Bush a Mugabe, c'est vraiment du n'importe quoi, mais chacun a droit a ses opinions.

Citation :

(...) (En passant, j'ai l'impression que le GOP a beaucoup d'avoir chance de voir Michael Steel)

Qui est ce personnage ? Peut-être s'agit-il de M. Michael Steele né le 19 octobre 1958 à Andrew Air Force Base dans le comté du Prince Georges (Maryland) et dont la demi-sœur fut un temps mariée au gros taré Mike Tyson ?
Si c'est de lui dont on parle il faut se dire que, contrairement à ceux qui n'en ont que deux, ce gars a trois e dans son blaze. Encore un avocat et catholique romain en plus ! Chef du Parti Républicain. Où donc va l'Amérique !? Va-t-elle manger son pain noir ?

En fait il avait perdu son siege senatorial en 2004

Mauvais debut de journee?

Citation :

(..) Quant a votre comparaison de Pres. Bush a Mugabe, c'est vraiment du n'importe quoi, mais chacun a droit a ses opinions.

Je parlais des lignes de faciès pas d'une étude idéologique comparative. J'ai eu un professeur de dessin qui était un as de la caricature. Son remarquable enseignement me sert à croquer des "gueules" qui sortent de l'ordinaire. Je sais bien que ce pauvre Bob ne fut jamais alcoolique, ça n'a pas marqué son visage, mais il est loin d'être bôgosse et ouvert à la démocratie. Et Marcheur c'est l'archétype du dummy de service pour un caricaturiste et il n'est pas un dictateur ; ni lui ni sa maman ne l'ont voulu, mais il a une GDK ! Et il l'aurait eu même s'il avait été le plus adulé et capable des misters présidents.

Le dessein intelligent des GDK c'est justement de ne pas être très intelligents à travers les dessins. C'est sûrement la Nature qui est coupable.

Rebonjour à vous, Chère Sylvette.



Vous me lisez trop vite, vous oubliez que la déconne peut cacher des trucs sérieux au énième degré. L'avoir à l'esprit sous la main évite bien des fâcheries.

Sylvette en 355 a écrit:

Felicitations aux pouilles mouillees qui depuis des annees cajolent les gouvernements iraniens et en particulier a la France qui a su proteger l'ayatollah khomeini aux frais de la princesse.

Iran Puts FIrst Homemade Satellite in Orbit

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has successfully sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit, the country's president announced Tuesday, claiming a significant step in an ambitious space program that has worried many international observers.

The satellite, called Omid, or hope in Farsi, was launched late Monday after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio. State television showed footage of what it said was the nighttime liftoff of the rocket carrying the satellite at an unidentified location in Iran.

The reports were not immediately verified by outside observers. Some Western observers have accused Tehran of exaggerating the capabilities of its space program.

Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One of the worries associated with Iran's fledgling space program is that the same technology used to put satellites into space can also be used to deliver warheads.

The United States and some of its allies suspect Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear program. Iran denies the charge, saying its atomic work is only for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

...

Une vidéo secrète nous révèle les détails cachés de la technologie spatiale iranienne.



Soyez particulièrement attentifs à partir de la 30ème seconde !

... tout avait ete fait et dit pour ridiculiser Pres. Bush apparemment je faisais erreur moi aussi.

Au sujet de l'alcooliseme je pourrais rapeller l'usage de drogues par Barack Obama, . (je pourrais meme rappeler les regles imposees uax agents federaux pour obtention de "security clearance", mais bon, ca serait mesquin)

Ceci dit, je croyais que Bush 43 n'etait plus president qu'Obama l'etait lui. N'est-ce pas ses actions que nous devrions jugees? Il me semble que si.

Une derniere note: Si Pres. Bush etait si bete et que Notre Nouveau President est si intelligent, comment ce fait-il que ce dernier commence a suivre a plusieurs egards la politique de Bush 43 (entouka, c'est ainsi que c'est vu: j'en prends a temoin, la caricature (puisque vous les aimez) que Re a postee sur son fil 2009. C'est vous qui parliez de l'image americaine a l'exterieur des US, non?)

Israel, on ne peut plus compter que sur elle maintenant. A moins que NNP (Notre Nouveau President) et les dirigeants de l'U.E. prennent rapidement une dose de realite.

peut-etre "a la Putin", oui.