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

Just days after Hugo Chávez gave President Barack Obama a copy of "Open Veins of Latin America" in Trinidad last week, the English-language version of the book shot to the No. 2 slot on Amazon.com.
AP

Hugo Chávez hands Barack Obama a copy of "Open Veins of Latin America."



Americans seemed to be curious about Mr. Chávez's reading tastes. But in Latin America, "Open Veins" is a well-known rant by Uruguayan Marxist Eduardo Galeano. And it also has another distinction that Mr. Chávez may be less inclined to publicize: It is widely regarded in free-market circles as "the idiot's bible."

The book was tagged with that moniker in the 1996 best seller, "The Manual of the Perfect Latin American Idiot." Penned by three Latin American journalists -- Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Alberto Montaner and Alvaro Vargas Llosa -- the "manual" is a witty assault on the populist, militarist, caudillo mentality that has dominated the region for hundreds of years.

Chapter three is dedicated to explaining the importance of Mr. Galeano's book for the idiot: "For the past quarter century the Latin American idiot has had the notable advantage of having at his disposal a kind of sacred text, a bible filled with all the nonsense that circulates in the cultural atmosphere that the Brazilians call the 'festive left.' Naturally we refer to Open Veins of Latin America."

Open any page of Mr. Galeano's book and you will learn that Latins are losers. Not on their own account, mind you. It's all because Europe and the U.S. (the world's winners) buy raw materials from them and don't pay a fair price. In this way the haves of the world exploit the have-nots. "The history of Latin America's underdevelopment is, as someone has said, an integral part of the history of world capitalism's development."

Mr. Galeano wasn't alone in promoting these ideas back in 1971 when the book came out. "Dependency theory," the economic dogma that drove regional policy for much of the 20th century, operated from the same premise. Its roots are in something called "structural economics," championed by Argentine economist Raúl Prebisch, the first secretary general of the United Nation's Economic Commission for Latin America.

Prebisch argued that Latin American poverty persisted because while rich countries could boost living standards through productivity gains, poor countries exporting only agricultural products and raw materials could not because of excess labor. Thus, they could not build the surplus capital they needed to move up the economic ladder.

These beliefs mixed well with fascism and Marxism. Politicians, whether from the extreme right or left, got behind Prebisch, and a regional policy emerged in favor of subsidization for local industries and protection from international competition. The state took a prominent role in this "import substitution industrialization," fueling corruption and hyperinflation and destroying any hope of rising living standards. By the late 1980s, with Latin America in crisis, Prebisch and his antitrade ideas were thoroughly discredited.

But Mr. Galeano remained an icon of the revolutionary left and a rich source of ideological hatemongering. Chilean novelist Isabel Allende wrote the foreword for the 25th anniversary edition, bemoaning the fact that her cousin Salvador's effort to convert Chile into another Cuba had been thwarted.

Equally amazing was Ms. Allende's praise of Mr. Galeano's "stupendous love of freedom." Of course, not for those engaged in voluntary exchange. Mr. Galeano condemns this guilty group: "The more freedom is extended to business, the more prisons have to be built for those who suffer from that business."

Confused? Novelist Mario Vargas Llosa explains in the foreword for "The Manual of the Perfect Latin American Idiot": "History" for the idiot "is a successful conspiracy of the evil ones against the good, in which they always win and we always lose." In other words, exchange is a zero-sum game. This may sound like parody, but it is precisely Mr. Galeano's reasoning.

In "Forgotten Continent" (2007), Michael Reid, the Americas editor for the Economist, says Mr. Galeano's "history is that of the propagandist, a potent mix of selective truths, exaggeration and falsehood, caricature and conspiracy theory."

The Galeano book was not a present to Mr. Obama, though it was hyped as such. After all it was in Spanish, a language Mr. Obama does not read -- and Cuban and Venezuelan military intelligence surely would have advised Mr. Chávez of that fact. Its purpose was instead a way for the resentful Venezuelan to shove his anticapitalist, anti-American prejudices in Mr. Obama's face before rows of television cameras.

Yet, unwittingly, Mr. Chávez's gag gift served another purpose. If there has been any doubt about how he has run his oil-rich country into the ground during a decade of booming petroleum prices, the mystery is now solved. Mr. Galeano's book is Mr. Chávez's bible.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

FOX News est la chaine la plus suivie Point Barre dirait une ancienne participante. Elle (la chaine) fait parfois plus d'audimat que toutes les autres combinees) evidemment ca n'est pas pour plaire aux media de gauche, d'ou, entre autres, cette petite mise-au-point par l'hote de "On the record" (ancienne CNN, d'ailleurs...)

---------

April 27, 2009
Greta slams NY Times reporter

Earlier, I linked to Bill Carter's piece on CNN's prime-time slump, where the NY Times reporter wrote the following about the 10 p.m. slot:

"The change [CNN president Jon] Klein made at 10 is CNN’s best story. Anderson Cooper, who began a newscast at that hour, has been a success. He was winning there until recently being overtaken by Greta Van Susteren on Fox.

Mr. Klein said that CNN had focused on 10 p.m. as an hour “where we could win.”

Van Susteren, on her Fox News blog, called that line "a lie at worst -- and sloppy reporting at best."

I don’t know if New York Times “is in bed” with CNN or the other way around. But you all know, I will stand up for our team at ON THE RECORD at 10pm when anyone gets it wrong about us. The more falsehoods get repeated, the more likely they are thought to be true (and they go “viral” on the internet and already has) so it is imperative to simply set the record straight. FACTS! Our staff on ON THE RECORD at 10pm deserve that the truth - FACTS - be written about them - including their accomplishments. No sugarcoating — just the FACTS.

The way this paragraph is written - see below - conveys a thought that is just plain wrong. Even “sugar coating” when it is designed to give the wrong impression is a lie.

Here is the fact: ON THE RECORD at 10pm is #1 at that time slot for 7 straight years no matter how much the New York Times and CNN wish it were not.

=====

O'Reilly vient de feter ses 100 mois a la premiere place dans le creneau de 20h (heure de la cote est)

2 remarques

the idiot's bible
...
c'est pas un pléonasme ?


et pour dire si fox est plus regardé, dans un sens c'est "normal"
en principe on a plus de chances d'avoir de l'information sur un média d'opposition au gouvernement
par exemple en france, si on veut de l'info, inutile de regarder tf1 ou france2

Elle n'etait pas si mal la photo en plus.......

AIR FORCE ONE


No matter where in the world the President travels, if he flies in an Air Force jet, the plane is called Air Force One. Technically, Air Force One is the call sign of any Air Force aircraft carrying the President. In practice, however, Air Force One is used to refer to one of two highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft, which carry the tail codes
28000 and 29000. The Air Force designation for the aircraft is VC-25A.

Air Force One is one of the most recognizable symbols of the presidency, spawning countless references not just in American culture but across the world. Emblazoned with the words “United States of America,” the American flag, and the Seal of the President of the United States, it is an undeniable presence wherever it flies or docks.
Capable of refueling midair, Air Force One has unlimited range and can carry the President wherever he needs to travel. The onboard electronics are hardened to protect against an electromagnetic pulse, and Air Force One is equipped with advanced secure communications equipment, allowing the aircraft to function as a mobile command center in the event of an attack on the United States.

Inside, the President and his travel companions enjoy 4,000 square feet of floor space on three levels, including an extensive suite for the President that features a
large office, lavatory, and conference room. Air Force One includes a medical suite that can function as an operating room, and a doctor is permanently on board. The plane’s two food preparation galleys can feed 100 people at a time. Air Force One also has quarters for those who accompany the President, including senior advisors, Secret Service
officers, traveling press, and other guests. Several cargo planes typically fly ahead of Air Force One to provide the President with services needed in remote locations.

Air Force One is maintained and operated by the Presidential Airlift Group, part of the White House Military Office. The Airlift Group was founded in 1944 as the Presidential Pilot Office at the direction of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. For the next 20 years, various propeller driven aircraft served the President. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy became the first President to fly in his own jet aircraft, a modified Boeing 707. Over the years, several other jet aircraft have been used, with the first of the current aircraft being delivered in 1990 during the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Date ......................Presidential Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove

04/30/2009	+2	34%	32%	54%	45%
04/29/2009	+4	35%	31%	55%	43%
04/28/2009	+5	36%	31%	56%	43%
04/27/2009	+5	35%	30%	55%	44%
04/26/2009	+3	35%	32%	54%	45%
04/25/2009	+5	36%	31%	56%	43%
04/24/2009	+5	36%	31%	55%	44%
04/23/2009	+6	37%	31%	55%	44%
04/22/2009	+2	34%	32%	54%	46%

........

01/21/2009

+28

44%

16%

65%

30%

Pourvu que Jean-Luc lise le "754" de Sanshaa, ça lui donnera peut-être des idées... et puis, avec les puissants moyens financiers de Sa Magesté...

(C'est toujours mieux qu'un aéroplane en tétra-brik de récupération compactée, hein ?)

j'ai decide de me sacrifier...

Au cas ou l'Europe n'en aurait pas entendu parle (difficile de savoir pourquoi mais les media parlent peu des problemes qu'a Barack Obama a s'exprimer sans teleprompteur. Evidemment lorsqu'il s'agissait de ridiculiser Pres. Bush, ils etaient plus loquaces, mais bon... )

Oui, bon, peu à peu l'imagination cède la place à la réalité... le temps d'un rêve... (l'magination au pouvoir, oui, mais pour combien de temps ?)

Prompteurs made in China ?

Tout-a-fait possible!

avocat chasseur d'ambulance qui entre autres se permettait des coupes de cheveux a 400.00 dollars la coupe (enfin bon, pas vraiment avec son argent), qui s'est offert une maison de 10,400 pieds carres et qui s'est vu succomber aux charmes de sa photographe attitree alors que son epouse combattait le cancer, John Edwards donc, voit ses comptes de campagne electorale verifies. La raison? deja $ 100,000.00 auraient ete transferes sur les comptes de la societe de la jeune femme (avec il partagerait un enfant). La classe quoi, et la encore, une boufee d'air pur.


A federal investigation John Edwards' Use of Campaign Funds

A federal investigation is under way into whether funds from John Edwards' presidential campaign were used inappropriately, the former North Carolina senator acknowledged Sunday.
AP
Sunday, May 03, 2009


RALEIGH, N.C. -- Failed presidential candidate John Edwards, whose political action committee paid more than $100,000 to his mistress' company, acknowledged Sunday that federal investigators were looking into how he handled his campaign funds.

But the former North Carolina senator said he was confident no money was used improperly.

Edwards' political action committee has been under scrutiny for making payments to a woman with whom he had an affair. Edwards admitted the affair with Rielle Hunter in August after months of denying tabloid reports about the relationship.

"I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly," Edwards said in the statement. "However, I know that it is the role of government to ensure that this is true. We have made available to the United States both the people and the information necessary to help them get the issue resolved efficiently and in a timely matter."
Edwards' statement was first reported by The News Observer of Raleigh.

His political action committee paid Hunter's firm $100,000 for video production in a four-month span in 2006, and then paid an additional $14,086.50 on April 1, 2007. At the time, the PAC only had $7,932.95 in cash on hand, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

That same day, according to the records, Edwards' presidential campaign paid the PAC $14,034.61 for what is listed as a "furniture purchase."

U.S. Attorney George Holding has declined to comment and said he won't confirm or deny an investigation.
Willfully converting money from a political action committee for personal is a federal crime.

The furniture money was one of just five contributions to the political action committee between April 1 to June 30, 2007. The other four occurred on June 30, the last day of the reporting period, including a $3,000 contribution from the wife of Edwards' finance chairman, Fred Baron.

Baron, Edwards' national finance chairman and a wealthy Dallas-based trial attorney, said last year that he quietly began sending money to Hunter to resettle in California. He said no campaign funds were used and that Hunter was not working for the campaign when he started giving her money.

Edwards has said he was unaware of the payments. Baron died of cancer in October.

Hunter's videos documented Edwards' travels and advocacy in the months leading up to his 2008 presidential campaign.

Edwards, 55, powered onto the national scene in 1998, when he won a seat for the U.S. Senate in his first political campaign. With smooth speech and good looks, the former trial lawyer ran for the White House in 2004 and was tapped as Sen. John Kerry's running mate. He returned to the campaign trail in a 2008 presidential bid but was largely overshadowed by a duel between Hillary Clinton, vying to be the first female president, and Barack Obama, vying to be the first black president.

Since announcing the affair, Edwards has remained largely secluded. His wife, Elizabeth, will soon be releasing a book talking about the affair.

Click here to read more on this story from The News & Observer of Raleigh.

emberlifiquotee dans son mensonge.

Pelosi: I Was Told Interrogation Methods Were Lawful

The House speaker's statement came after CIA records showed Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods and appeared to contradict her claim last month that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques were being used.


April 21: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was among those briefed on CIA interrogations. (AP Photo)

FOXNews.com

Friday, May 08, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that she was briefed only once about the "enhanced" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects and that she was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal.

Pelosi issued a statement after CIA records released this week showed that Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 on the interrogation methods. The briefings memo appeared to contradict the speaker's claims that she was never told that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation methods were being used.

"We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," Pelosi said on April 23.
The emphasis seems to be on "were used," even though she conceded in a statement released Friday that she was told they would be used.

"As I said in my statement of December 9, 2007: 'I was briefed on interrogation techniques the (Bush) administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal,'" she said.

But even that statement is at odds with the official record of the briefings recorded in the CIA memo dated to Sept. 4, 2002. That memo says Pelosi received a "briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques), including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities and a description of particular EITs that had been employed."
Pelosi noted that the media had reported this week that CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a cover letter accompanying the briefings memo that "the descriptions provided by the CIA may not be accurate."

Pelosi is fighting back against accusations that she and other Democrats are being motivated by politics in their attempt to establish an independent commission to investigate officials and lawyers involved with the Bush-era interrogation programs.

Pelosi is just one of 65 lawmakers who received 40 briefings dealing with the subject. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., for instance, was repeatedly briefed, as was Rep. Jane Harman, D-Valif., who took over Pelosi's spot on the House Intelligence Committee.

In addition, from the beginning of the program in 2002 until it became public in the fall of 2006, the House held 13 votes to authorize intelligence funding at which time no one objected or demanded changes to any intelligence programs.

The briefings took place in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. At the time, the CIA was getting actionable intelligence that helped disrupt several terrorist plots.

Lawmakers apparently didn't want to stop that. But when it became public, Pelosi and others shifted gears and started criticizing a program they had known about for years, claimed GOP strategist Brad Blakeman.

"Either the speaker has a veracity problem or an incompetence problem and it could be both," Blakeman told FOX News. "The fact of the matter is she was briefed and she was hoping that the top secret nature of these briefings would shield her from this information coming out."

Blakeman added that he trusts the notes made at the briefings more than Pelosi's memory.
Justice Department officials are not likely to recommend criminal charges against the three Bush administration lawyers who the wrote the memos approving the interrogation methods, but two could face disciplinary action from their state bar associations.

W.W.W. (wicked Witch of the West) Presidente de la Chambre des Representants.

Au sujet du transport de prisonniers vers des pays autres que les Etats Unis en vue d'interrogation. Tant critique pendant le gouvernement Bush il existait sous Clinton et Obama continue mais eux ca n'a rien a voir avec la torture, Bush, si! On peut se demander alors le besoin de faire voyager ces prisonniers hors des Etats Unis, mais bon, on va encore me dire que j'ai mauvais esprit.

Eric Holder, le meme qui a qualifie les Americains de laches lorsqu'il etait question de discuter de problemes raciaux, reconnait avoir approuve le programme sous Clinton


Holder says he approved Clinton-era renditions

Stephen C. Webster
Raw Story
Friday, May 8, 2009

Under fire from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that he had approved of rendition — essentially, legalized kidnapping — apparently more than once during his tenure as President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general.

Cautioning Holder that any potential investigation into the Bush administration’s torture program could result in Democrats being roped in, “Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder on the CIA’s ‘rendition’ program that moved terrorism suspects from one country to another,” reported Domenico Montanaro with MSNBC.

“Didn’t that happen during the Clinton administration?

“Yes, Holder said.

“‘How many did you approve?’ they asked.

“Holder said he’d check the record.”



Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition — the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. — remains in the CIA’s playbook, thanks to a Jan. 22 executive order issued by President Obama.

Under President George W. Bush, renditions became “extraordinary renditions,” in which suspects were handed over to nations where torture was not illegal. Rendition under Presidents Clinton and Obama has not been linked to torture.

Holder has been, at least in public, an opponent of the torture program.

“Waterboarding is torture. My justice department will not justify it, will not rationalize it and will not condone it,” Holder said in a speech to the Jewish Council of Public Affairs in March.

“The use and sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American jurisprudence and American values. It undermines our ability to pursue justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever be captured on a foreign battlefield.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on the torture tactics the Bush administration wanted to use against terror war prisoners. At the time, she did not object. In April of 2009, she denied knowing the techniques would ever be applied to prisoners.

“[They] did not tell us they were using that,” she said. “Flat out. And any — any contention to the contrary is simply not true.”

RAW STORY was the first news outlet to identify the exact location of one of the sites in the CIA’s secret prison network, used in conjunction with Bush-era extraordinary renditions. RAW STORY identified a prison in northeastern Poland, Stare Kiejkuty, that was used as a transit point for terror suspects.

According to filings, the CIA has over 7,000 documents related to Bush-era renditions.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that “no one is above the law” and that his office would “follow the evidence.” He has not appointed a special prosecutor.

President Obama said Holder will be the person who ultimately decides whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote opinions providing a legal basis for interrogation techniques widely denounced as torture.
President Obama also said CIA agents who tortured prisoners will not be prosecuted.

Non, non, non, notre president n'etait pas au courant de l'endroit ou se trouvait son avion.




MAY 9, 2009

Aide Quits OVer New York Flyover

White House Review Finds Missteps in Air Force One Photo-Op That Caused

The photo released by the White House from the New York City flyover.

WASHINGTON -- The White House official responsible for the Air Force One flight over New York City that caused panic around the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks resigned Friday, as an internal review identified numerous miscues surrounding the incident.

In a resignation letter submitted to President Barack Obama on Friday, White House Military Office Director Louis Caldera said the controversy over the April 27 photo-op has made it impossible for him to lead effectively and "has become a distraction to the important work you are doing as president."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying Mr. Obama had accepted Mr. Caldera's resignation and asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina to review the military office "to ensure that such an incident never occurs again."

The goal of the midmorning operation was to take a photo of the aircraft, one of two used to transport the president, flying by the Statue of Liberty. But the sight of the huge plane flying low toward Manhattan's skyscrapers, trailed by an F-16 fighter jet, terrified many New Yorkers and led to evacuations of some buildings. Some feared a replay of the 9/11 attacks, in which hijacked jetliners smashed into the World Trade Center towers.

The three-hour roundtrip flight from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland cost more than $300,000, according to an Air Force estimate. The White House on Friday released the official photo of the flight, which shows Air Force One soaring above Liberty Island in New York Harbor.

Mr. Caldera took responsibility for the incident and apologized later that day. Mr. Obama ordered an internal review of the matter the following day. On Friday, the White House released the results of that review.

The report details the chain of events preceding the flyover, stretching back to March. In an April 3 meeting, the report indicates, Air Force and FAA officials, along with local authorities decided that the public would be notified two days before the event, though "no reference" would be made to Air Force One. The plane is referred to as Air Force One in the report, even though that designation technically only applies when the president is on board.

...

-------------------

Qui est reellement Monsieur Caldera, qu'on nous presente comme un militaire sans parti-pris politique et avec peu de jugement.

Louis Caldera: 1956—: Educational Administrator - Rose From Cadet To Army Secretary

Caldera recalled his early years and the shame he felt when his parents were forced to turn to food stamps at times to feed the children. "Kids like me weren't supposed to go to college, weren't supposed to succeed," he said in the interview with De la Garza, citing an uncle in Mexico who was a metallurgist as one of his earliest role models. "I was really determined that a kid from my background could achieve those things." A studious teen, he scored well on the Scholastic Aptitude Test in high school, and won a spot at the U.S. military academy for the Army, West Point. This four-year college in upstate New York and training ground for officers, like its counterparts at Annapolis, Maryland, and Colorado's Air Force Academy, was notoriously difficult to enter, and even more challenging for cadets once inside. But Caldera survived his four years, graduating in 1978 and entering the Army as a second lieutenant. He served five years, finishing as a captain and earning several honors and decorations along the way, including the Meritorious Service Medal.

At a Glance . . .
Born on April 1, 1956, in El Paso, TX; son of Benjamin Luis (a hairdresser) and Soledad Caldera; married to Eva Orlebeke (an attorney); children: Allegra, Sophia, Camille. Education: U.S. Military Academy at West Point, B.S., 1978; Harvard University, M.B.A., 1987, J.D., 1987. Politics: Democrat. Military Service: U.S. Army, commissioned second lieutenant, 1978, attained rank of captain before 1983 discharge.

Career: O'Melveny and Myers, attorney, 1987-89; Buchalter, Nemer, Fields and Younger, attorney, 1990-91; served as deputy counsel for Los Angeles County, 1991-92; elected to the California State Assembly representing 46th District, 1992-97; Corporation for National Service, managing director and chief operating officer, 1997-98; US Secretary of the Army 1998-00; became vice chancellor for university advancement in the California State University system, Long Beach, 2001–.

Awards: Awarded several military honors and decorations, including the Meritorious Service Medal.
After his stint with the Army ended, Caldera earned dual law and business degrees from Harvard University in 1987. He practiced law at the firm of O'Melveny and Myers, spending two years there before a stint in the U.S. Army Reserves and then a year at another firm. In 1991 he began a post as deputy counsel for Los Angeles County, and the following year ran for a seat in the California State Assembly representing the state's 46th District, a section of downtown Los Angeles. He served five years in Sacramento as a Democrat, focusing heavily on education issues. His talents earned him a political appointment as managing director and chief operating officer for the Corporation for National Service, the federal grant-making agency that oversees the volunteer-service programs AmeriCorps, the National Senior Service Corps, and Learn and Serve America.

In June of 1998 Caldera was confirmed by Senate vote to serve as secretary of the Army when Clinton's first-term pick, Togo West, left to become secretary for Veterans' Affairs. The Army secretary post is the highest civilian office in this branch of the service; it was once a far more influential post, but after World War II the cabinet posts of the Army and Navy secretariats were combined into a new office, the Department of Defense. Nevertheless, the Army job still carried some major responsibilities: Caldera became leader of roughly one million service personnel—regular Army enlistees and officers, as well as those who serve in the National Guard and Army Reserves—and more than quarter-million civilian employees. He oversaw a budget of $70 billion, and the main focus of his job was to ensure that this branch of the military was combat-ready.

May 08, 2009
Categories: Senate Republicans

Alexander: Why not probe Congress on briefings?

During a scantly noticed exchange in a Thursday Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder a potentially explosive question -- given the furor over Nancy Pelosi's 2002 interrogation briefing.

Alexander wanted to know if the AG would consider investigating what House and Senate members knew about torture and when they knew it. And Holder didn't exactly reject the idea.

ALEXANDER: Should you follow these facts and continue in an investigation if you’re investigating lawyers at the Department of Justice who wrote legal opinions authorizing certain interrogations, wouldn’t it also be appropriate to investigate the CIA employees or contractors or other people from intelligence agencies who asked or created the interrogation techniques or officials in the Bush Administration who approved them or what about members of Congress who were informed of them or know about them or approved them or encouraged them? Wouldn’t they also be appropriate parts of such an investigation?

HOLDER: Well there is, as has been publicly reported, an OPR inquiry into the work of the attorneys who prepared those OLC memoranda. It is not in final form yet and I have not reviewed that report. I will look at that report and make a determination as to what we want to do with it. It deals, I suspect, not only with the attorneys, but people that they interacted with, so I think we will gain some insights by reviewing that report. Our desire is not to do anything that would be perceived as political or partisan. We do want to report, to the extent that we can do that, but as I said, my responsibility is to enforce the laws of this nation and to the extent that we see violations of those laws, we will take the appropriate action.

ALEXANDER: If you’re going to investigate the lawyers whose opinion was asked about whether this is legal or not, I would assume you could also go to the people who created the techniques, the officials who approved them, and the officials in Congress who knew about them and may have encouraged them.

HOLDER: Hypothetically that might be true, I don’t know. What I want to do is look at, in a very concrete way, what that OPR report says and get a better sense from that report about what it says about the interaction of those lawyers with people in the administration and see from there whether further action is warranted.

conference de presse jeudi dernier, dit que le CIA avait menti au congres (au sujet du Waterboarding), puis s'etant excuse expliquant qu'elle n'en avait qu'apres le gouvernement Bush et pas du tout apres l'Agence, le Directeur, Panetta vient de defendre ses employes.

Ici, WWW nous explique qu'elle n'etait au courant de rien

La, qu'ON lui a menti:

Elle a l'air sincere, hein, la dame?

MAY 16, 2009
CIA Chief Rebuts Pelosi on Briefings

By SIOBHAN GORMAN and NAFTALI BENDAVID

Washington - The Central Intelligence Agency's chief fought back Friday against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that the CIA "was misleading" Congress, issuing a memo defending the integrity of its employees and contradicting her assertion that she wasn't told about the agency's use of waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said at a press conference Thursday that Congress was misled by the CIA in regards to questions about waterboarding.

Later in the day, Ms. Pelosi tried to defuse what has turned into an unusual open feud between Congress and the spy agency, with a statement praising the work of intelligence officers and redirecting her rhetorical fire toward the Bush administration.

Apart from the institutional contretemps, the matter has put Ms. Pelosi in conflict with CIA director Leon Panetta, a former colleague when both belonged to California's Democratic congressional delegation.

"CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" Mr. Panetta wrote in a memo to agency employees. He was referring to an alleged senior al Qaeda detainee in CIA custody in September 2002, when Ms. Pelosi attended a briefing in her capacity as the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

...

bon, je sais pas trop ce qu'on lui a dit ou ce qu'elle a compris
mais il y a un truc dont on peut être sûr
c'est que la cia ment
c'est le principe de fonctionnement de tous les services secrets de tous les pays du monde
et je dirais même que si la cia mentait pas, ça serait anormal
c'est un principe
donc arriver comme des benêts pour constater que la cia a mentit, c'est vraiment le summum de la naïveté
c'est vraiment ne rien comprendre à la politique
le b a ba de la politique

bon, je reprends à zéro:
tout humain a la capacité de mentir (principe de base)
tout système de pouvoir est contrôlé par des humains (au cas où il y en a qui douteraient)
et ne doit son existence qu'à un seul et unique concept: "le mensonge accepté"
(je vous laisse digérer ça)

By Daniel O'Brien



My six-year-old “son,” whom I’ve yet to name, tossed and turned in the dresser drawer I’d converted into a bed.
“What’s wrong boy-I-refuse-to-acknowledge-as-mine-without-a-proper-paternity-test?”
“Oh, nothing daddy,” he said precociously, “just having trouble sleeping.”
“Well then,” I said warmly, “why don’t I read you a bedtime story?” My
almost-son’s eyes widened and a giant grin spread across his face.
“That sounds great, daddy! What story?”
“It’s a new one,” I told him, “just picked it up today.”





“Hold on,” the little boy interrupted. “Just so I’m clear, when you
say his ‘mean parents wouldn’t allow him,’ you’re talking about
international law, right? Like, it’s international law that forbids Americans
from using torture, so in the story when it complains about ‘mean
parents,’ it’s really about the international law?” I smiled at the
small boy.
“Well, aren’t you precocious? But, yes, that’s right, I suppose that’s the comparison the book is going for.”
“Sort of an unfair metaphor, if you ask me. Takes a pretty complex
situation and oversimplifies it to the point of absurdity, like it’s
forcing the reader to side with the-”
“Look, kid, if you have a problem with the shady manipulation of
language for the purposes of advancing an agenda, maybe I should stop
reading this story now, because it’s only gonna snowball from here.”
“No, no,” the boy said, “please, keep going.”

“Waterboarding, daddy? Is that like boogie-boarding, or surfing?”
“Hahaha. My goodness, that’s rich, what a precocious little notion.
But no. Waterboarding is in no way like boogie-boarding, surfboarding
or anything else you have ever or will ever experience in your
sheltered, pampered life.”






“So,” the boy said, “they went to some outside consultants to decipher the anti-torture laws?”
“Not consultants,” I corrected, “a two headed monster.”
“Right… two-headed monster. But what if the two-headed monster was wrong in its interpretation? Or worse, deliberately wrong? Like corrupt, what if the two-headed monster was corrupt?”
“Oh ho ho, you precocious little so-and-so, let’s read on and find out!”




“Okay,” said the boy, “this… I already have a problem with this.”

“Nope,” the boy said, “no, no, no. Uh uh. Nope.”
“Calm down, you precocious thing,” I said. “It’s just a fairy tale.”


“Slow down for a second, daddy, this is… there’s a lot, here. So, no one would be held accountable?”
“According to Uncle Dicky’s plan.”
“How would Uncle Dicky know to do that in advance? How
would Uncle Dicky know to make a list with so much built-in wiggle
room? And how would he know that Bybee Bradbury would see things his
way? It all seems so convoluted. It just requires such tremendous
foresight.” Look at that vocabulary. Six-years-old. No way this kid’s
mine.
“Well, son, in the way that a talented engineer can look at a broken
computer and know exactly what to do to make it work, or in the way
that Michelangelo can look at a slab of marble and in it see the
magnificent Statue of David, Uncle Dicky can look at a terrorist, some
crooked lawyers and a poorly-written international law regarding
torture and see in it an airtight, effective plan for covering the
collective ass of his administration.”
The boy scratched his head. “Did… did you just compare Dick Cheney to Michelangelo?”
“In the field of heartless manipulation and ass-covery, yes, yes I did. Would you like me to keep reading?”
“I guess. I just feel sort of sick, now, and dirty. Like, everywhere.”
“So precocious. I’m gonna keep reading.”


“The end,” I said, shutting the book.
“Hold on, did it work? The waterboarding, I mean, was it worth it?
What kind of information did we get out of Zubayah?” I mussed the boy’s
hair and laughed heartily.
“Well someone’s about to OD on precociousness, am I right?
But, no, we don’t know if it was worth it. The investigation as to
whether or not we learned anything from Zubayah, as well as the
usefulness of said knowledge, is ongoing. Some think the interrogation
yielded some useful info that was integral in preventing several
potentially dangerous terrorist attacks, but some high-ranking members
of the intelligence community genuinely believe that Zubayah was
certifiably insane and his involvement in al-Qaida didn’t extend beyond
making bombs and organizing transportation, and therefore couldn’t
possibly have any useful information to begin with.”
“What?!”
“Oh yeah. I’ll read you The One Percent Doctrine before you go to sleep tomorrow night, it’ll blow your mind.”

“Wait,” the little boy said, “wait just one goddamned fingerblasting second. THAT’S how the story ends? A ton of pages that’s nothing but a bunch of language-manipulating, bureaucratic horseshit and we still don’t even know if we learned anything? And the guy we tortured might even just be a delusional lunatic?”
I mussed the boy’s face and chuckled grandly. “Allegedly tortured,”
I corrected. “Also the lunacy was alleged, too, so, really, watch your
word choice.”
The boy stared off, looking at nothing in particular. Tears were
developing in his eyes and his lower lip started quivering. I could
tell he was choking back sobs, trying to look like a big man in front
of me. I poked his nose and made an accompanying “boop” sound before
unplugging his nightlight.
“Anyway, sweet dreams, Kid!”