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

475-

Bonsoir Sylvette,

Sorry but nobody is perfect....

Sylvette a écrit:

La, ne vous vexez pas mais il y a erreur sur la personne, je faisais reference a Lawrence (Je n'oserais jamais vous titiller ainsi.)

Ceci dit, je vous trouve excellent (au moins la pluspat du temps) et plein d'humour, sincerement!

Mais non, mais non, ne rougissez pas...

Apres une position mi-figue, mi-raison, une reprise... une continuation de la politique des dernieres annees avec Chavez.

FEBRUARY 23, 2009

U.S. REnews Hard Line on Venezuela

By JOSé DE CORDOBA

U.S. officials are scrambling to assert that the Obama administration hasn't softened U.S. policy toward Venezuela, where President Hugo Chávez recently won a controversial referendum allowing him to run for office as many times as he wants.

Last week, acting State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid surprised some observers when he said that Venezuela's election "was held consistent with democratic principles," though he also mentioned some "troubling reports of intimidation of opponents."



Hugo Chavez

The remarks set off a furor among Venezuelan opposition activists and some commentators because the description of Venezuela's referendum seemed markedly different from the tone set by the Bush administration, which repeatedly voiced worry that Mr. Chávez was undermining Venezuela's democracy.

U.S. officials say they continue to be very concerned about Venezuela, one of the leading suppliers of oil to the U.S.
"The state of health of democracy in Venezuela is not very good," said a State Department official, adding that the U.S. also continued to be concerned that Venezuela's continuing support for Colombia's drug-funded communist guerrillas is undermining democracy in the region. "There's no change in policy," he added.

The strong words from Washington come a week after Mr. Chávez won his bid to scrap term limits.
The electoral process was marked by the massive spending of state resources on the Chávez campaign, where, among other things, the state-dominated media endlessly broadcast Mr. Chávez's message.

As has become usual in Venezuelan campaigns, there were implied threats that thousands of state workers would lose their jobs if they voted against the president.

Police also broke up protest marches by university students calling on Venezuelans to oppose the measure.
In that context, Mr. Duguid's remarks created some controversy. "It wasn't exactly a presidential blessing, but Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez has to be pleased -- and maybe even a little astonished," said an editorial in the Houston Chronicle following the initial State Department comments. "The Obama

State Department has declared that Venezuela's recent referendum on term limits was by and large democratic."
The State Department official said the spokesman's words had been "misinterpreted" by the media. They had little echo in Venezuela; the loquacious Mr. Chávez didn't pick up on them. But the flap indicates how much the world is expecting changes in policies toward traditionally hostile nations under the Obama administration.

It appears little has changed in the U.S.'s testy relationship with Mr. Chávez. Last month, shortly before his inauguration, Mr. Obama, in an interview with the U.S. Spanish-language network Univision, said Mr. Chávez had hindered progress in Latin America, and expressed concern about the Venezuela's ties with Colombia's FARC guerrillas, who are considered a terrorist group by the U.S.

Mr. Chávez, who won some sympathy in Venezuela and elsewhere for regularly attacking George W. Bush, has seemed unsure of how to approach Mr. Obama.

At first Mr. Chávez attacked the president-elect, but lately he has been saying that there could be dialogue between the two.

que representent 800 milliards de dollars?

Imaginiez que vous depensiez 1 million de dollars par jour depuis la naissance de Jesus, jusqu'a l'an 2000, vous auriez depense moins que ne vient de le faire notre Congres..." Video

-----------

O'Reilly - au sujet de la video, du racisme et du plan de relance...

February 23, 2009
Categories: Mitt Romney

Romney writes checks to House Republicans



How fully is Mitt Romney running for the GOP nomination in 2012?
First the condo, now this:

Former Governor Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC today sent $1,000 checks to a group of House Republicans targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for their votes against the wasteful $800 billion stimulus bill.

Said Romney: “What Republicans wanted was a bill to strengthen the economy. What the Democrats passed was a bill to stimulate government. We are committed to helping these courageous Republicans defend their position and fend off political attacks.”

Romney called the President’s stimulus package “a missed opportunity to make this country stronger.” Referring to the 12 House Republicans as the “Undaunted Dozen,” Romney praised them for “standing up for fiscal responsibility and saying no to spending abuse.”

It's a direct investment in GOP goodwill, made at a moment when the other 2012 contenders are grappling with state government woes and their own doubts.

Bill et Al seraient redevenus copains?

Clinton and Gore talk Smart Grid

showInitialOdiogoReadNowFrame (_politico_odiogo_feed_ids, '0', 290, 0);

By ERIKA LOVLEY | 2/23/09 6:20 PM EST

Bill Clinton and Al Gore told a roomful of climate change heavyweights Monday that the nation must push on with a national clean energy Smart Grid — or risk losing the battle on climate change.

Attending an energy summit at Washington’s Newseum, the former president and vice president praised the new Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders for their work on the economic recovery package, saying it would allow the nation to move forward on dealing with climate change by utilizing more renewable energy.

But the two leaders of the last Democratic administration also noted a growing urgency to build the infrastructure that will transport the renewable energy. If construction of more electric transmission lines isn’t jump-started soon, Clinton warned that economic stimulus money for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources would not be fully maximized and the nation’s efforts on global warming would stall.

“We have to maximize the impact of this economic recovery plan,” Clinton said. “I hate to like be a Johnny one note, but the sexiest things to talk about are what we’re going to do with clean energy.”

Gore, now a Nobel Prize-winning climate change advocate, also warned the United States must come to the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December with solid evidence that the nation is moving forward on climate issues. China and other developing countries have indicated that they won’t move forward on climate change unless the United States takes the lead.

...

Full text of President Obama's address

By POLITICO STAFF | 2/24/09 9:19 PM EST

The White House released the full remarks of President Obama’s address to a Joint Session of Congress as prepared for delivery at 9 ET:

Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the First Lady of the United States:

I’ve come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and women in this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the men and women who sent us here.

I know that for many Americans watching right now, the state of our economy is a concern that rises above all others. And rightly so. If you haven’t been personally affected by this recession, you probably know someone who has – a friend; a neighbor; a member of your family. You don’t need to hear another list of statistics to know that our economy is in crisis, because you live it every day. It’s the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It’s the job you thought you’d retire from but now have lost; the business you built your dreams upon that’s now hanging by a thread; the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope. The impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere.

But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this:

We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more.

Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities – as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for. And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like to talk to you about tonight.

It’s an agenda that begins with jobs.

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law

....

Promises, promises: Obama's wish list

showInitialOdiogoReadNowFrame (_politico_odiogo_feed_ids, '0', 290, 0);

By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 2/25/09 1:18 AM EST

President Barack Obama laid out an agenda Tuesday that would do just about everything but cure cancer.

Actually, he promised to try that too.

In the span of his 52-minute speech, Obama pledged to deliver health care to every American, cap carbon pollution, retool the auto industry, overhaul the regulatory system, and claim the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. And that’s only a partial list.

Obama’s first appearance before a joint session of Congress made clear that the worst economic crisis in 70 years won’t shrink his ambitions.

The one thing he didn’t explain – how to pay for it, what is surely trillions in new spending in coming years.
“None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy,” Obama said in the address. “But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward.”

“Everyone in this chamber – Democrats and Republicans – will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me,” Obama said. “But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term challenges.”

Obama then gave a history lesson about trying times when, he said, the “nation responded with bold action and big ideas.” The Civil War led to a rail system that fostered commerce. The Industrial Revolution spawned the public education system. World War II produced the GI Bill, which created “the largest middle-class in history,” he said.

What will the worst economic crisis since World War II bring? This is Obama’s wish-list from Tuesday’s speech:

— National health care coverage within the year.

— Seek a “cure for cancer in our time.”

— Reestablish America as producing the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020.

— Lay “thousands of miles of power lines,” and construct wind turbines and solar panels.

— Expand mass transit.

— Reform the regulatory system

— Pass legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution

— Commit to the goal of a “re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry.”

— Invest in electronic health records and new technology to reduce medical errors.

— Create new incentives for teacher performance

— Expand commitments to charter schools

— Sign legislation on national service authored by Sens. Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch.

— End direct payments to “large agribusinesses that don’t need them.”

— Eliminate no bid contracts in Iraq.

— “Root out waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program.”

— Jettison tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas.

— No new taxes – “not one single dime” – for families that earn less than $250,000 a year.

— Begin debate on overhauling Social Security while creating “tax-free universal savings account for all Americans.”

— Increase the number of soldiers and Marines – and raise their pay and benefits.

— Encourage parental responsibility.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) liked that last promise – in part because it’s free.

“Concentrate on what Obama said about parental invovment in kids education,” Grassley wrote on Twitter shortly after the speech. “I'm going to help him. (Without) spending one penny that will do good.”

Wrong dress for the occasion! mais bon

What OBama really meant

By JIM VANDEHEI & MIKE ALLEN | 2/25/09 12:53 AM EST


President Obama’s maiden speech to Congress was loaded with durable lines, many aimed with precision at specific audiences or political objectives. As is often the case, the most memorable lines were often written with subtlety and delicacy to keep the speech above petty politics and blame-casting.

Here’s a translation of key passages:

“Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long we have not always met these responsibilities – as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or look backwards.” VIDEO

TRANSLATION: He said it precisely to lay blame right on top of George W. Bush. The entire speech was laced with shots, some more obvious than others, at the former administration. They were all harnessed to a single purpose: convince the public that every risk Obama takes or dollar he spends is to clean up the mess Bush either left behind or failed to address.

“It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values.” VIDEO

TRANSLATION: The essence of this message – “don’t listen to that blowhard Rick Santelli over at CNBC.” White House officials privately admit some reckless homeowners could benefit from their rescue package. But they want the public to see the housing rescue package as the best of many bad options for keeping property values from tanking further. They know they will lose the fight if the plan is seen as a sop to the undeserving.

“I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you — I get it.” VIDEO

TRANSLATION: This was all about trying to prevent a populist backlash to the growing number of reckless Americans getting taxpayer bailouts. It was the chief aim of the speech. Again and again, Obama took shots at the risk-taking bankers, automakers and homebuyers. Obama wants to make sure the general public sees him as on their side – not on the side of undeserving folks who might get government money.
“You should also know that the money you've deposited in banks across the country is safe; your insurance is secure; you can rely on the continued operation of our financial system.” VIDEO

TRANSLATION: This was Obama’s way of saying don’t take his recent doom and gloom language too darn seriously. Things are bad – but not devastatingly so. Bill Clinton said the president should be talking more optimistically about the country’s can-do spirit, and a big goal of the speech was to dial up the Obama version of hope. This was a start.

...

Obama Needs a "not To Do" list

The global economic crisis is exposing
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.


Wall Street Journal

Put away childish things, President Obama said during his inauguration. He couldn't have found a theme more suited to the moment. The preoccupations that he and most politicians are used to running on, and that still characterize too many of his administration's utterances, are being exposed in the global economic disaster as the soppy indulgences they always were.
Dan Renaldo/NBC NewsWire via AP Images




Put away the global warming panic. Mankind's contribution to rising CO2 levels raises serious questions, but the tens of billions poured into climate science have, by now, added up only to a negative finding. We don't really have the slightest idea how an increase in the atmosphere's component of CO2 is impacting our climate, though the most plausible indication is that the impact is too small to untangle from natural variability.

In any case, has Mr. Obama taken a gander at collapsing industrial production numbers around the world? He's going to get a big reduction in CO2 output whether he wants it or not. Nor will the public be moved to make costly, material changes in its energy habits, especially if the recent global cooling trend continues. What we'll get instead is already depressingly clear: climate pork, or lucrative favors for lobbying interests in the name of global warming that have no impact on global warming.

Put away the "energy independence" conceit. This notion, a favorite of Tojo and Hitler, was debunked by Churchill, who reasoned that true energy security came from a diversity of suppliers, not the foolish pursuit of self-sufficiency.

We only hurt our own cause by blocking development of our own resources and closing our markets to biofuel producers in the Southern Hemisphere. Let's grow up. Through all the ups and downs of oil prices, the U.S. has been able to buy all it wants, even from countries that wish us dead. We are a bigger buyer of oil than any country is a supplier of it. We've had the whip hand all along.

Put away Ponzi welfarism. The day is gone when politicians could have hoped to have begun and ended their careers before the public ever faced the implosion of redistribution programs that depend on the workforce growing faster than the retired population.

Put away the idea that more government control is the cure for health care. We already bribe, through supremely asinine tax policy, the most affluent, capable consumers on the planet not to use their smarts to make sure the system returns value for money.

Let's fix this -- by eliminating the tax subsidy for employer-provided health insurance. Then it might actually become economically feasible to subsidize health care for the needy.
Put away class warfare tax politics: Only a flatter, less distorting tax code is compatible with the kind of growth needed to get us out of the debt mess without inflation.

We already levy punitive tax rates on bank deposits, at a time when households need to build up savings and banks need deposits. Now Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on small business, on investment, and on the incomes of the most productive job creators. Is he crazy?

Like a subprime borrower who hasn't gotten the news yet, now is not the time to go deeper into debt to build a third Jacuzzi. Our politicians need to address an accumulation of past excesses before sponsoring new ones.

Mr. Obama came to office without a conspicuous vision other than "bipartisanship" and a belief in the beneficent influence on America and the world of seeing a black man exercising the powers of the presidency. He wields his party's shibboleths like one who sees them mainly as levers for delivering the goods. His ideas about the exercise of politics, in fact, may be accurately reflected in the recent stimulus bill -- in office you supply the wish lists of those who put you there.

His will be a fascinating presidency to watch, not least because of his inexperience, his intellectual agility, and the crisis in which he finds himself. But his presidency will get really interesting in a year or two, or six months -- whenever he finally realizes that everything he thought he wanted to do is irrelevant. He'll then have to adapt an agenda for the world as it is, in which many childish things no longer have a place.

And, by the way, he kids himself if he believes he will be allowed, like FDR, to preside over a depression without being politically blamed for it. The public is different now -- the world is different -- and he will own the "Obama depression" sooner than he thinks.

Apres une nouvelle relance deja passee a la Maison des Representants de $ 410 Millions (et hop...)

...

The same people who drove the economy into the ditch are now complaining about the size of the tow truck," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., pointing out the large increase in deficits that President George W. Bush and GOP-controlled Congresses amassed.

...

Ah bon? Nancy n'etait pas assise au centre de l'hemicycle les deux dernieres annees? Et Frank n'etait pas en charge de Freddy et Fanny? Les directives de ces organisations n'avaient pas ete donnees du temps au Clinton etait a la Maison Blanche? Si Bush 43 aurait du insister pour que des modifications soient apportees, il l'a reconnu lui-meme, il a egalement dit avoir evoque le probleme avec le Congres a plusieurs occasions, sans que celui-ci veuille y apporter la moindre attention. Alors il me semble il me semble que si tout le monde veut lacher la patate chaude, tout le monde l'a tenue a un moment ou un autre.

Quant a NNP qui repete a s'assiete avoir "herite" du probleme", il ne peut pas dire n'avoir pas ete au courant, puisque tout a explose en octobre avant les elections. A ce moment, il avait toutes les solutions et "ESPOIR" aidant, il allait remettre le pays sur les rails. Il faut arreter!

==========

Obama Seeks $ 634M over 10 Years to Revamp Health Care System

A senior administration official says President Obama's budget calls for financing the overhaul by trimming Medicare spending and limiting tax deductions for upper-income earners.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

President Obama wants a significant "down payment" for overhauling the health care system: $634 billion over 10 years.

A senior administration official says Obama's budget calls for financing the overhaul by trimming Medicare spending and limiting tax deductions for upper-income earners. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget won't be released until Thursday.

About 48 million Americans are uninsured, according to recent estimates. The cost of guaranteeing coverage for all could easily exceed $1 trillion over 10 years.

Obama has asked Congress for health reform this year, but senior members of both political parties say they are concerned about the cost.

C'est simple comme tout gouvernement socialistes, avec les impots et les taxes. C'est pour le bien du peuple.

Il est toujours la.. (au-dessus de l'epaule goche de NNP)

Combat Role Likely for Some U.S. Forces After Pullout From Iraq

President Obama plans to announce his withdrawal strategy as early as Friday and is expected to choose a compromise 19-month withdrawal plan that leaves behind as many as 50,000 troops for cleanup and protection operations.
AP

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Some of the U.S. forces likely to remain in Iraq after President Obama fulfills his pledge to withdraw combat troops would still have a combat role fighting suspected terrorists, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Obama plans to announce his withdrawal strategy as early as Friday. He is expected to choose a compromise 19-month withdrawal plan that leaves behind as many as 50,000 troops for cleanup and protection operations.

Although most of the fighting forces would be withdrawn within 18 months, some of those units could be in Iraq for years to come. A prior agreement forged by the Bush administration with Iraqi officials requires removal of all U.S. forces by 2012.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that a holdover, or "residual," force would number in the tens of thousands.

His spokesman said Wednesday that assuming there is such a force, it would have three primary functions: Training and helping Iraqi forces; protecting Americans and U.S. assets in Iraq and limited counterterrorism operations in which Iraqi forces would take the lead.

"I think a limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. "By and large you're talking about people who we would classify as enablers, support troops."

Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war, and pledged to do so in 16 months. The withdrawal timetable he is expected to approve would stretch over 19 months, counting from Inauguration Day. That means more than 100,000 troops would leave over the coming 18 months.

The pullout would free up troops and resources for the war in Afghanistan, where Obama has said the threat to national security remains high.

...

Iraq's Year of Living Dangerously
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Published: February 25, 2009

Washington

THE Iraq war isn’t over. And while President Obama’s apparent decision to withdraw the bulk of American troops by August 2010 is not necessarily a mistake, it cannot be carried out rigidly. If all continues to go well, it should be eminently feasible; if not,the administration will have to show the strategic wisdom to slow down as needed to deal with problems.

Having just returned from a trip to the country arranged by the top American commander there, Gen. Ray Odierno, we agree that Iraq continues to make tremendous strides, thanks to American assistance and, increasingly, the efforts of Iraqi politicians and security forces. But both those ready to dust off the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner and declare victory and those who continue to see Iraq as an inherent disaster that must simply be abandoned have to realize that continued American involvement will be crucial for several more years.

Young democracies are fragile entities. Political scientists generally agree that achieving a peaceful and credible second round of elections is critical in putting a new democracy on a path toward stability, because such elections test whether the country can accomplish a nonviolent transfer of power.

Iraq is holding its second round of real elections this year. It just concluded extremely successful provincial votes, and national parliamentary elections are to follow. Iraq’s calendar this year is also jam-packed with other important political events. If the United States can help the Iraqis secure even modestly positive outcomes for these events, we will have gone a long way toward realizing our goals of sustainable stability in Iraq and bringing most of our troops home next year.

Iraq is no longer convulsed by the chaos, sectarianism and terrorism that were driving it into all-out civil war in 2006. To be sure, friction remains, most notably in the ethnically diverse city of Mosul in the north, where coalition forces have only recently been reinforced to the point where they can conduct the kind of counterinsurgency campaign that secured the rest of the country. Unfortunately, they are racing against the clock to do so, since the recently signed security agreement between Baghdad and Washington requires American combat forces to leave Iraq’s cities by June 30.
But the main challenge now is that some key political players, strengthened by Iraq’s enormous recent progress, are less interested in moving their country forward than in using every tool at their disposal to put themselves in advantageous positions after the American withdrawal. Worse still, some — perhaps many — are doing so by exploiting the immaturity of the political process and the ambiguities in Iraq’s constitution.

Iraq has several important challenges that could strain its political system over the next year. They include the return of up to four million displaced people to their homes; the release of thousands of people detained by coalition forces, some of them surely dangerous; the continued search for permanent jobs for the largely Sunni Sons of Iraq, whose actions against the insurgents in Anbar Province were a key to the success of the “surge”; falling oil prices that will hamper the government’s ability to pay its workers; and the more general tasks of increasing oil exports, employment and the quality of life for Iraqis.

Perhaps the most vivid demonstration of the problems Iraq faces is the enormous tension brewing between the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, led by Massoud Barzani, and the central government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. During the years of warfare between Sunni and Shiite Arabs, the Kurdish issue lay dormant. But now it has roared back to the forefront. Nearly everyone we spoke with in the area this month — Kurds, Arabs, Americans and others — described the situation as explosive and the enmity between Mr. Barzani and Prime Minister Maliki as ferocious.

...

In the end, it is up to the Iraqis to make their nation peaceful and productive — we should not baby-sit Iraq through all of its problems as a young democracy. But it faces one last crucially tense period in the coming 12 to 18 months. American interests argue strongly for using all the leverage we have gained among Iraqis during six years of intense partnership to help Iraq through its “year of transitions” — then we can bring our troops home quickly, but responsibly.

Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

Ca y est, vous m'avez abandonnee???

Si ce n'est que ce dernier message (489), je pense qu'il vous interessera.

Obama's Straw Men

Why does he routinely ascribe to opponents views they don't espouse?

By KARL ROVE

President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity.

Mr. Obama also said that America's economic difficulties resulted when "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market." Who gutted which regulations?

Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?

Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd's threat to filibuster Mr. Bush's needed reforms.

Even in an ostensibly nonpartisan speech marking Lincoln's 200th birthday, Mr. Obama used a straw-man argument, decrying "a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges."

Whose philosophy is this? Many Americans justifiably believe that government is too big and often acts in counterproductive ways. But that's a far cry from believing that in "every" case government is the problem or that government should be "dismantled" root and branch. Who -- other than an anarchist -- "constantly rejects any common endeavor" like building levees, roads or bridges?

During his news conference on Feb. 9, Mr. Obama decried an unnamed faction in the congressional stimulus debate as "a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing."

Who were these sincere do-nothings? Every House Republican voted for an alternative stimulus plan, evidence that they wanted to do something. Every Senate Republican -- with the exception of Judd Gregg, who'd just withdrawn his nomination to be Mr. Obama's Commerce secretary and therefore voted "present" -- voted for alternative stimulus proposals.

Then there's Mr. Obama's description of the Bush-era tax cuts. "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy," he explained in his Tuesday speech, after earlier saying, "tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems -- especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few."

The Bush tax cuts were not targeted to "the wealthiest few." Everyone who paid federal income taxes received a tax cut, with the largest percentage of reductions going to those at the bottom. Last year, a family of four making $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 because of the Bush tax cuts. The tax code became more progressive as the share paid by the top 10% increased to 46.4% from 46% -- and the nation experienced 52 straight months of job growth after the cuts took effect. And since when is giving back some of what people pay in taxes "transferring wealth?"

In his inaugural address -- which was generally graceful toward the opposition -- Mr. Obama proclaimed, "We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." Which Republican ran against him on fear, conflict and discord?

Mr. Obama portrays himself as a nonideological, bipartisan voice of reason. Everyone resorts to straw men occasionally, but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling. Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas.
It was said that Lincoln crafted his arguments in "resonant words that enriched the political dialogue of his age." Mr. Obama's straw men aren't enriching the dialogue of our age. They are cheapening it. Mr. Obama should stop employing them.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Sylvette a écrit:

Ca y est, vous m'avez abandonnee???

Si ce n'est que ce dernier message (489), je pense qu'il vous interessera.

Mais je vous suis... très dévoué, comment pouvez-vous imaginer le contraire, c'est insoutenable !

(C'est très intéressant et totalement imprégné de bon sens, donc je marque mon accord, même si je n'enlève pas mes chaussures pour montrer mes jolis orteils en éventail à chaque coup ! )

C'est bien, Biloulou , c'est bien alooooors.

====

Tiens encore!! c'est un puits sans fond c't'affaire! A tout point de vue!

Nous savons a quel point nos amis Democrates reprochaient a Pres. Bush ses depenses pour la guerre en Iraq. La, ecoutons bien, mais je ne pense pas que nous entendions grand chose.

Obama seeks $ 200 billion for war spending
From Mike Mount
CNN Pentagon Reporter

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will ask Congress for more than $200 billion to fund U.S. war efforts for the next year and a half, according to defense officials.

The request will be for $75.5 billion for 2009 to cover the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan this year and an additional $130 billion for the rest of fiscal 2009, according to the sources.

War spending for 2010 will be part of the president's overall defense funding request, which is expected to be announced Thursday.

The money will be in addition to $534 billion for the U.S. Defense Department's other expenditures, which the president is expected to request from Congress.

Congress gave the Pentagon $65.9 billion for the first half of fiscal 2009.

====

CHAAAR-LYYYY

Si vous le voulez, je vous le donne! Gratis!

Meme en re-instituant la dime et la gabelle, il ne trouvera pas assez!

Senate Democrats Surprised by Obama Plan to Leave Up to 50,000 Troops in Iraq

Senate Democrats want to hear an explanation from the White House as to why up to 50,000 troops would stay behind in Iraq.


By Trish Turner

FOXNews.com

Thursday, February 26, 2009


Senate Democrats expressed discontent Thursday with plans from the Pentagon to leave a residual force of up to 50,000 troops in Iraq, even as the military pursues a substantial drawdown.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters that he is heading to the White House later in the day to hear an explanation.

...

l'administration precedente. Une reponse commence a se faire connaitre.

Former Bush AIde Blasts Obama for Budget Criticism

President Bush's former spokesman calls the Obama administration's claims of fiscal responsibility the "height of audacity."

By Mike Emanuel

FOXNews.com

Thursday, February 26, 2009


A former aide to President George W. Bush is defending the former president's budget proposals as a war of words erupts over how to manage massive government financing.

On the day President Obama and his team released a budget outline for fiscal year 2010, former Bush Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said the $3.55 trillion spending plan is over the top.
"Trying to mask huge spending increases under the cloak of 'fiscal responsibility' is the height of audacity," Fratto told FOX News on Thursday.

Fratto also took issue with Obama's criticisms of the way the Bush budgets were offered.
The Obama administration is selling its budget as "an open and honest accounting."

"For too long, our budget has not told the whole truth about how precious tax dollars are spent," Obama told reporters on Thursday.

He also criticized the the way the Bush administration budgeted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by submitting supplemental spending requests to Congress.

"And that kind of dishonest accounting is not how you run your family budgets at home; it's not how your government should run its budgets, either," said Obama.

Obama has included in his spending request $130 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on top of the $534 billion to fund the Defense Department.

Fratto said the Bush administration had good reason to separate the supplementals from the annual budget.
"Putting temporary war spending in supplemental budgets was done to avoid permanently baking those appropriations into the Defense Department's baseline budget. That's good budgeting, not a 'gimmick,'" Fratto said.
"Our budgets were honest, open and transparent. Every dime spent was presented, debated, voted on and counted," he added.

Enfin bon... c'est adresse au Congres, ils n'ont pas zose le faire directement a NNP!

de NNP. Plus que supportrices d'ailleurs, elles ont tout fait pour le faire elire de concert avec les media. Elles sont financees par des personnes comme Soros*.

Le message: les Republicains, le GOP sont une force obstructionniste. Mais en realite, les Democrates n'ont absolument pas besoin des voix a la Maison des Representants et 2 ou 3 suffisent au Senat. Ils les ont d'ailleurs obtenues pour le plan de relance No.1

Les Republicains sont supposes voter "OUI" pour montrer leur bon vouloir, qu'ils soient ou non d'accord avec les differents plans proposes, sinon tous une partie, ainsi un fosse pourra etre creuse entre les supporters et les opposants de NNP!

C'est deja le cas avec les gouverneurs qui acceptent ou non l'argent du plan de relance.

Evidemment, cette propagande couvre toutes les bases politiques a court (maintenant), a moyen (2010: les elections legislatives, au miveau de l'etat et des communautes locales) et a plus long terme (2012: meme chose + les presidentielles). Si jamais les plans de relance, les trillions de dollars utilises etaient le coup fatal a l'economie americaine, les Democrates expliqueraient que les Republicains ont fait douter les Americains et ont cause un manque d'engouement de leur part. Si l'economie se remettait, les Democrates expliqueraient que c'etait leur etait du a eux et a eux seulement.

Nous sommes dans une situation politique triste et grave, mais... c'est interessant

Rush, GOP root for failure

By JONATHAN MARTIN | 2/26/09 9:22 PM EST

A pair of liberal groups are launching an ad campaign Friday portraying Republicans as an obstructionist party beholden to Rush Limbaugh.

The commercial, paid for by Americans United for Change and AFSCME, shows a series of GOP congressional leaders saying "no" to President Obama's stimulus plan and, more broadly, his effort to revive the economy.

=======

«L'homme qui fit sauter la banque d'Angleterre»

En 1992, alors que l'Angleterre s'enfonçait dans une crise économique, il sembla clair à Soros que la situation de la livre sterling était intenable.

La livre sterling à cette période était dans un régime de change lié : le Système Monétaire Européen (SME). Ce système induisait premièrement une valeur presque fixe de la livre (relativement aux autres monnaies européennes), celle-ci, en raison de la crise, était devenue trop élevée; et deuxièmement le niveau des taux d'intérêts, calquant ceux-ci de fait sur ceux de la Bundesbank. Ce système est l'ancêtre de l'Euro. L'Allemagne avait besoin de taux d'intérêts élevés, l'Angleterre de taux faibles. Soros paria sur le fait que la Banque d'Angleterre ne pourrait résister à plus de pression sur sa monnaie et qu'elle serait forcée de sortir la livre du SME. Ceci provoquerait en particulier une chute importante de la valeur de la livre. Aujourd'hui, l'Euro interdit par nature ceci, c'est l'une des raisons qui a appuyé l'idée d'une monnaie unique.

Le 16septembre1992 (mercredi noir), Soros vendit à découvert 10 milliards de livres, pariant donc à la baisse sur cette monnaie. Il provoqua, par cette opération, une pression telle sur la livre que la Banque d'Angleterre sortit sa devise du Système Monétaire Européen.

La plus-value qu'en aurait tiré Soros serait d'environ 1,1 milliard de dollars. Il fut surnommé pour cela « l'homme qui fit sauter la Banque d'Angleterre ». Durant la crise financière asiatique de 1997, dans des circonstances similaires, le premier ministre malais de l'époque Mahathir bin Mohamad accusa Soros de spéculer sur le ringgit.

A l'inverse, il se trompa dans d'autres circonstances et reperdit des montants importants dans la spéculation contre d'autres monnaies.

L'homme a ses paradoxes. En quarante ans, George Soros accumule une fortune estimée à 7,2 milliards de dollars en 2004, selon le classement du magazine Forbes (24^e fortune des États-Unis)^[1]. Il reconnaît pourtant que le système financier actuel est néfaste pour le développement des pays les plus pauvres.

Je rappelle egalement qu'en s'enrichissant a l'occasion de la chute de la livre, nombreux sont les Britanniques "moyens" qui ont eux tout perdu. Il ne s'agissait pas la de concupiscence la part d'un financier, meme pas d'un mauvais calcul de la part de banque, mais bien d'une decision deliberee de desequilibree une devise afin d'en tirer profit aux depends de l'economie d'un pays et de ses ressortissants.

Voila qui soutient moveon.org et... NNP!

Obama: The CliffsNotes

Decoding the president

Any high-school kid with a set of CliffsNotes knows Moby Dick is so much more than just a whale. Any American watching the new administration might wish for a similar study guide.
Martin Kozlowski

Thirty-nine days, one press conference, one congressional address, and one budget into this presidency, Barack Obama is finding his groove. Out of the early chaos has emerged an administration with a set of talking points. The president is now honing these explanations of what went wrong, and how he will make it right.
Yet, as with any complex character, what Mr. Obama says isn't always what he means. (Even Melville would've found Washington a bit deep.) So here's a handy guide to the larger meaning beneath Mr. Obama's more frequent lines. Hang it on the fridge for easy reference.

- "We are not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin."

Translation: Blame Republicans, and tax cuts.

Mr. Obama inherited a deficit, though it wasn't caused by letting Americans keep more of their paychecks. It was caused by a need to rebuild the military to fight two wars (at least one of which he supported), and by that worn-out old idea known as spending, which lost the GOP its majority, and which Mr. Obama is now touting as economic elixir.
He also inherited a recession, though no economist with an IQ above 60 would suggest tax cuts caused the housing bubble. That came courtesy of easy money and loose lending standards, the latter of which Congress encouraged. Presumably, if tax cuts were responsible for the deficit and the recession, Mr. Obama wouldn't be constantly boasting that he wants tax cuts for 95% of Americans.

The wider goal is to vaguely link everything conservative with everything gone wrong, the better to present liberal ideas as a cure. Besides, it's useful to have a GOP to keep blaming, if the cure doesn't work.

Tiens, tiens

- It's time to "make hard choices to bring our deficit down."

Translation: Hello, higher taxes.

The thing about cutting deficits is that there are only two choices, one hard for politicians, the other hard for Americans. Government can reduce spending, or government can raise taxes. Mr. Obama made clear with yesterday's budget he has no intention of cutting back. So the hard part now falls to Americans, who are being told they have a patriotic duty to their children to pay more, and cover Washington's costs.

- "The only way to fully restore America's economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world."

Translation: Big government. President Obama loves the word "invest." (He used a form of it 11 times in his congressional address on Tuesday.) It sounds so modern and free market, and, most important, not like what it really is -- "spending." The administration is aware that the deficit is now the story. Thus Mr. Obama's suggestion that blowing out hundreds of billions for health care, energy and education somehow isn't Washington as usual -- but will instead yield American riches down the road.

Of course, no country has ever made good on such a promise. Washington, D.C.'s return on investment for investing $14,000 a year per student is a 40% high-school dropout rate. Government can create industries, though only those, like corn ethanol, that can't cut it without perpetual government aid. We're still waiting for Medicare to turn a profit. Nevertheless, investment is a catchy term. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently described her giant $410 billion 2009 omnibus spending bill as a similar "investment." Never mind that it contains 8,500 earmarks and the largest increase in discretionary spending since Jimmy Carter.

- "We need to make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy."

Translation: Your utility bills are going up.

Electricity from solar power costs, about, 15 cents per kilowatt hour. Electricity from natural gas costs, about, four cents. The only way to make solar power "profitable" is to further subsidize it down to the price of natural gas, or to make natural gas as expensive as solar. Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade plan does the latter, placing a tax on fossil fuels, which companies pass along to consumers. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) reminded Congress on Wednesday that its most recent climate bill, Lieberman-Warner, would have cost Americans $6.7 trillion. Fortunately for the president, he will not have to include that sum in his new, more transparent, budget.

- "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime."

Translation: For now.

The president's budget proves he intends to tax the top 2% of earners at effective rates much higher than under Bill Clinton. Still, even if he taxed 100% of this group's income, it wouldn't come close to covering his budget costs. Nor will winding down Iraq. If Mr. Obama is committed to his agenda, much less his deficit reduction, the middle class will have to give it up.

At least he didn't say "read my lips."

(reference a Bush 41 qui avait promis de ne pas augmenter les impots et l'avait fait)