.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
|
| | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+10Shansaa jam Ungern Laogorus EddieCochran OmbreBlanche Le chanoine quantat Zed Biloulou 14 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 8/11/2008, 13:47 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Browse Newspapers by country
http://newsdirectory.com/
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Canada
United States
Oceania
South America
Resources
Breaking News
Business Newspapers
College Newspapers
Media Industry Associations
Metropolitan Daily Press
Searchable Archives
Coffee Break
Television
Broadcast TV Stations
Network News
TV Networks
Additional Research
City Governments
County Governments
Travel Planner
College Locator Browse Magazines by subject
Arts and Entertainment
Automotive
Business
Computer
Culture and Society
Current Issues
Health
Home
Industry Trade Publications
Pets and Animals
Religion
Science
Sports
Travel
. . . more subjects
Magazines by Region
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America
More |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2136 - Bonjour Cher Saint Pierre 3/4/2010, 09:13 | |
| Je ne pense pas utiliser " spoiler" differemment ces derniers jours qu'avant et pourtant les resultats obtenus ne sont pas les memes. Faut-il continuer ainsi jusqu'a ce que peut-etre la correction soit faite d'"encore plus haut" ou souhaitez-vous recommander une parade? Merci d'avance. Tres Devouee Participante.  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/4/2010, 09:37 | |
| Bonjour Sylvette. Avez vous reçu le lien des tontons? |
| | | | Biloulou
 Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/4/2010, 09:38 | |
| Bonjour Sylvette !  Saint Pierre étant vraiment très cher et probablement fort occupé en salle de réanimation résurrection avec le Fils de Dieu, je constate avec vous ce bug. Curieux, j'ai risqué un coup d'oeil sur le forum d'entraide et j'ai trouvé ceci :  Je vous épargne la suite de l'échange, l'important est que la réparation soit en cours, tout sera vite rentré dans l'ordre. Donc je vous suggère de continuer comme d'habitude...  (Si la totalité de l'échange vous intéresse : http://forum.forumactif.com/probleme-divers-f75/spoilers-qui-restent-ouverts-t270478.htm ) | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/4/2010, 14:03 | |
| Bonjour Jack, non je vais voir
----------
Merci beaucoup, Biloulou! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/4/2010, 14:09 | |
| Jack! La reponse est non.  Vous pouvez m'aider? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2141 - 3/4/2010, 14:27 | |
| La encore, quand meme CBS l'ecrit!!! April 2, 2010 7:01 AM Obam's Approval Rating Hits New Low
CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.
- Spoiler:
Last week, President Obama signed historic health care reform legislation into law -- but his legislative success doesn't seem to have helped his image with the American public.
The latest CBS News Poll, conducted between March 29 and April 1, found Americans unhappier than ever with Mr. Obama's handling of health care - and still worried about the state of the economy.
President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 44 percent, down five points from late March, just before the health bill's passage in the House of Representatives. It's down 24 points since his all-time high last April. Forty-one percent of those polled said they disapproved of the president's performance.
More results from this CBS News Poll will be released in Friday's broadcast of the Evening News with Katie Couric, which airs at 6:30 p.m. Eastern.
When it comes to health care, the President's approval rating is even lower -- and is also a new all-time low. Only 34 percent approved, while 55 percent said they disapproved.
Americans are still worried about the economy, with 84 percent telling CBS they thought it was still in bad condition. However, even that high number represents an improvement: nine in ten thought the economy was bad during the last half of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009, when Mr. Obama assumed the Presidency.
Concern about job loss remains high; slightly more Americans now (35 percent) than in February (31 percent) were "very concerned" that someone in their household would lose a job. Nearly six in ten Americans said they were at least "somewhat concerned" about a job loss.
As has often been the case, lower-income Americans tend to be the most concerned about job loss.
This concern is reflected in yet another low approval rating -- this time for the President's handling of the economy. Just 42 percent said they approved of how President Obama is handling the economy, only one point above January's all-time low. Half of the public disapproves.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2142 - ... et les consequences. 3/4/2010, 14:45 | |
| En gros laissez-nous vous defaire de toutes vos libertes et pendant l'operation, vous etes pries d'etre silencieux. Pas vraiment fan de Limbaugh et ni de Beck, mais heureusement qu'ils sont la quand meme! Obama takes on talkersBy JONATHAN MARTIN & JONATHAN ALLEN | 4/3/10 7:05 AM ED  - Spoiler:
The president gets a boost with his base and may win over some independents by tying his political opponents to two of the nation's most polarizing figures.
But the conservative talkers get presidential confirmation that they're at the center of the political debate — together with a collection of sound bytes that will fuel their shows for days to come.
In an interview that aired on CBS’s "Early Show" Friday, Obama said the rhetoric employed by the chief chatterers of the conservative movement is “troublesome” — and he cast Limbaugh and Beck as demagogues who cash in on the fears of Americans struggling through a rough economy.
Limbaugh fired back in an email to POLITICO, arguing that his ratings are just fine in good time and bad — and accusing Obama of "purposely" governing "against the will of the people."
It's not the first time a president has gone after conservative talk radio; in the days after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Bill Clinton said that "promoters of paranoia" on the airwaves "must know that their bitter words can have consequences."
And it's not Obama's first round in the ring, either.
The president's shots at Limbaugh and Beck are just the latest sequel in what is becoming a franchise of attacks on conservative media outlets and personalities deemed hostile – and one in which a good portion of the box office returns are certain to accrue to the president’s hand-picked villains.
A little more than a year ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called Limbaugh “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Then, in October, POLITICO reported on a concerted White House strategy to undermine institutions that are influential in the Republican coalition, including Limbaugh, Fox News and the Chamber of Commerce, touching off a backlash from moderate Democratic lawmakers who worried about alienating conservatives who pulled the lever for Democrats in 2006 and 2008.
The White House seemed to move on; the president made nice with the Chamber and sat down recently for an interview with Fox's Bret Baier.
But when CBS's Harry Smith asked Obama this week about accusations from critics that he is everything from a socialist to a Nazi — and about the “level of enmity that crosses the airwaves” on talk radio — Obama picked up where he'd left off with Limbaugh and Beck.
"Well, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it's pretty apparent, and it's troublesome, but keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out," Obama said. "It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling like there is a lot of change that needs to take place. But that's not the vast majority of Americans. I think the vast majority of Americans know that we're trying hard, that I want what's best for the country."
In calling out Limbaugh and Beck, Democratic strategists say, the president is attempting to define the Republican Party as a reflection of the most well-known and extreme elements of the conservative movement. If he can do that, they say, he’ll win back some of the independents who have swung away from Democrats in recent polling.
“It's simple strategy,” says Chris Kofinis, who worked for presidential candidates Wesley Clark and John Edwards. “Highlight the fact that your opposition is led by a radical fringe, like Beck and Limbaugh, and you get two benefits. First, moderates and independents cringe, and Democrats mobilize.”
The White House declined to discuss Obama’s strategy in detail.
“The president’s words speak for themselves,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told POLITICO in an e-mail.
Republicans say Obama’s words speak volumes about where he stands nearly 15 months into his presidency, with the Real Clear Politics average of recent approval rating polls showing Obama with a bare 47.8 percent to 45.9 percent approving vs. disapproving of the job he is doing.
“[H]e’s extremely worried that [the conservative talkers'] messages are resonating,” Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said. “I think it hurts President Obama to be getting into fights with radio show hosts,” Bonjean continued. “It shows that you have misplaced priorities.”
Of course, Limbaugh said as much about Obama before the president made his comments this week -- and did so again in an email to POLITICO Friday.
“I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what's best for the country," Limbaugh wrote. "Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely. I have never seen the media so supportive of a regime amassing so much power. And I have never known as many people who literally fear for the future of the country."
He also took issue with the president’s characterization that his ratings are benefiting from a downturn in the economy – a political shot that framed Limbaugh as a leader who turns disaffection over economic hardship into a political weapon.
“I have yet to have a down year at the EIB Network," Limbaugh wrote.
Obama’s salvo may ensure that remains the case.
When Democrats went on the offensive against Limbaugh a year ago, he told POLITICO that the administration was "enabling" him. “They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence," he said. "An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me. An ever larger number of people are now exposed to substantive warnings, analysis and criticism of Obama's policies and intentions, a ‘story’ I own because the [mainstream media] is largely the Obama Press Office.”
Limbaugh was back at it Friday; just hours after the Obama interview aired on CBS, Limbaugh was already seizing on the attention by describing himself as "The Troublesome Rush Limbaugh."
Media experts say there’s little question that attention from the president – even a scolding – is good for business in the land of Limbaugh and Beck.
“If the president is talking about you, that’s a pretty big megaphone,” said talk radio analyst Al Peterson, who runs the Website NTSmediaonline.com.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35356.html#ixzz0k2WddPIB
|
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/4/2010, 15:18 | |
| Ah ?! Miracle, miracle, ça marche !  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/4/2010, 15:19 | |
| Normal c'est le w.e. de Paques! Merci Biloulou! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2145 - 3/4/2010, 17:10 | |
|  C'est pour ne pas deranger... President Obama says First Family won't join a D.C. churchOn Monday, March 29, 2010, President Obama was interviewed by NBC News and portions were broadcast on the Today show on March 30. According to the The Caucus blog at the New York Times:
- Spoiler:
Mr. Obama said he would not select a church while living in the White House. "What we have decided for now is not to join a single church, and the reason is because Michelle and I have realized we are very disruptive to services," he said.
Instead, he said he would from time to time visit St. John's Church, across Lafayette Square from the White House, where many presidents have worshiped. He also said the family prefers to worship in the privacy of the presidential retreat when it spends the weekend there. "We love the chapel at Camp David," he said.
And he noted that he is sent a daily devotional on his BlackBerry.
On October 13, 2009, a column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution answered a reader's question:
Q: How does the church attendance of President Barack Obama compare to that of his immediate predecessor? - John Walker, Doraville
A: Obama has attended church twice in Washington since his inauguration - on Easter and on Oct. 11 - at St. John's Church, said Gary Scott Smith, author of "Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush" (Oxford University Press, 2009) and chairman of the history department at Grove City College, a liberal arts Christian college in Grove City, Pa. The Episcopal church is on Lafayette Square, across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.
Smith said Obama also has worshiped a couple of times at Evergreen Chapel, a nondenominational church at Camp David in Maryland, which the president has chosen as his primary place of worship, according to a July Time magazine report. Bush attended St. John's periodically, but worshiped fairly regularly at Evergreen Chapel, Smith said.
In an article on February 22, 2010, "Obama's spiritual life takes more private turn," the Boston Globe put the number of President Obama's Washington, D.C. church attendances as President to that point at four. It is not clear if that number included the President Elect and Mrs. Obama's attendance at a prayer service at St. John's on the morning of January 20, 2009, several hours before Mr. Obama was sworn in as President.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2146 - Another day... 3/4/2010, 19:53 | |
| ... another challenge.  Court battle could upend President Obama's agendaBy JOSH GERSTEIN | 4/3/10 7:21 AM EDT
W.H.'s drive to recalibrate the message could get off track if Stevens decides to retire. AP photo composite by POLITICO
- Spoiler:
The retirement of the court’s 89-year-old liberal stalwart would confront President Barack Obama with a difficult and highly partisan confirmation battle that could drag on for months at a time when the White House wants to focus on selling the administration’s historic health care legislation and efforts to turn around the economy.
Facing a markedly different political landscape than last spring, when David Souter’s retirement provided the first chance to put a Democrat on the court since 1994, Obama will likely decide on a successor to Stevens based on a calculation of how contentious a confirmation fight he wants to have, and whether it would help mobilize his party’s liberal base for the mid-term election in November.
The possibility of Stevens’ retirement – he has said he will decide within weeks – already has the interest groups that gear up for court fights debating which way Obama should lean in choosing a successor.
“Given that it's an election year, I expect Republicans to aggressively oppose whomever Obama nominates, in order to stir up their base,” said Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice. “Faced with a Republican fight no matter who the nominee is, the president ought to choose a fitting successor to Justice Stevens.”
“It’ll be a pitched battle,” said Nathaniel Jones, a longtime civil rights advocate and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. “The gauntlet will have to be dropped—to be thrown down.”
But many advocates on both sides of the debate doubt the White House will be eager for the bruising showdown an avowedly liberal nominee would engender. Some also question whether it would be a wise expenditure of political capital, since a more moderate nominee might do better at winning over conservative justices.
Obama may be able to speed up his selection process this time around because he has already had one run at it, tapping Sonia Sotomayor last May after Souter resigned. Because Stevens is more of an ideological force on the court than was Souter, some liberal activists hope that Obama will swing for the fences and name an outspoken progressive to the court this time. Other court watchers have their doubts.
I don’t think Obama was ever anxious to have the debate be about guns, gay marriage, and partial-birth abortion, and is even less so now,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, which opposed Sotomayor and lobbied for many of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.
Obama “was still walking on water last summer….,” Levey said.
“Whatever you think of the health care outcome, he’s certainly not walking on water any more. Republicans who were a bit leery of standing up to him are, if anything, a bit overcharged in the other direction at this point.”
“My guess is the nominee is not going to be someone who’s a lightning rod,” said Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has pressed Obama to appoint more liberal judges. “Someone beneath the radar on these issues to me would represent another missed opportunity. But I don’t think the administration
sees it that way.”
Stone said a choice who does not elicit much enthusiasm from Obama’s base of support could also have electoral consequences. “The downside of it is I think it would be a disappointment to a lot of people who came out to vote for [Obama] in 2008, who normally don’t vote and might not in 2010 or 2012,” the professor said.
While many on the left have been disappointed by the administration’s plodding pace on repealing the ban on gays in the military and by Obama’s near silence on his Guantanamo policy for nearly a year, there are a couple of signs that the president might be a tad feistier when it comes to his next court pick.
At the State of the Union address in January, Obama ruffled feathers by publicly calling out the conservative justices for a ruling that the president said would allow businesses, including foreign ones, to spend freely on federal elections. His comments clearly rankled Justice Samuel Alito, who could be seen muttering: “Not true.”
And last month, Obama also heartened some liberals with his nomination of Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to a seat on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Liu is considered more liberal than other Obama judicial nominees, so the move was seen by some as a sign the president is now willing to invest some political capital in reshaping the federal bench.
“They knew that was going to ignite a spirited challenge, nevertheless they went for it,” Jones said. “To me, that’s an indication” that Obama could pick a strongly liberal justice, the former judge said.
However, others believe Liu’s nomination is a sop of sorts to the left and no indication of what Obama would do with a far higher-profile Supreme Court vacancy.
Obama’s pick last year, Sotomayor, won the support of Senate Democrats, save save for the ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), as well as the backing of nine Republicans.
But Levey warns that, as an election looms, conservative Democrats in the Senate will be in no mood to back a left-leaning nominee. “Red state Democrats are not only going to be willing to, but looking to, put some distance between themselves and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party,” he said.
With Scott Brown replacing Kennedy, Democrats have lost the filibuster-proof 60-vote majority Democrats they held last year “The fact that they’re down to 59 votes in the Senate, the White House has to be conscious of that,” said Ted Shaw, a law professor at Columbia and former head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
Congressional sources say Democrats want Obama to move fast if Stevens quits, in part so they can be confident the confirmation process will be wrapped up before campaigning starts in earnest during the August recess. The White House declined to comment on timing, or anything else to do with a possible Stevens retirement.
But sources close to the process say the president and his advisers are focused primarily on several potential nominees who were considered last year, including Seventh Circuit Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, and D.C. Circuit Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland.
Obama and Wood both taught at the University of Chicago and he is said to be particularly fond of her. “Judge Wood was way up there, and is from his, so to speak, home circuit,” said John Brittain, a well-connected civil rights lawyer.
Wood is well-regarded by liberal groups for defending abortion rights, and the rights of immigrants. At 59, though she is somewhat older than recent Republican nominees.
Kagan, 49, could have more staying power on the court, but she is viewed more warily by civil rights and civil liberties advocates. She was a decidedly centrist force as a policy adviser in President Bill Clinton’s White House and as dean of Harvard Law School made a concerted effort to bring conservatives onto the faculty. Kagan, who has never served as a judge and has little courtroom experience, also has a slimmer paper trail than other possible nominees.
D.C. Circuit appeals court judge Merrick Garland, 57, is seen as a pick that would signal Obama is intent on avoiding a fight. “If he nominates someone like Merrick Garland, all the Democrats will vote for him and probably most of the Republicans,” said Levey.
The choice of Garland could be appealing to Obama, who has viewed himself as a consensus builder. Some also suspect Obama will pick a male nominee to replace Stevens and opt for another woman if and when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaves the court.
One pick that would be received enthusiastically on the left is State Department legal adviser and former Yale law dean Harold Koh, 55, who would also become the Supreme Court’s first Asian-American justice.
Koh, a prominent human rights advocate, seems to be trying to appear a bit more muscular as the Supreme Court derby nears. In a speech last week, he stepped forward with the first serious effort by the Obama administration to mount a public defense of the legality of the drone strikes that have become one of the most favored tactics in Obama’s war on terror
However, Koh’s proud embrace of an international approach to interpreting U.S. law would provide fodder for the right. In 2006, for instance, he joined a legal brief urging the Connecticut Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage in the state because courts in other countries have found that limiting marriage violated the rights of gay couples. “He’s just way out there,” Levey said, calling Koh’s record “red meat.”
Another name regularly included among potential nominees is Cass Sunstein, 55, a University of Chicago law professor now overseeing the federal government’s regulation-approval unit at the Office of Management and Budget. Sunstein’s approach to cost-benefit analysis has always rankled the left and some also consider him as too accommodating to the Bush administration’s legal
approach in the war on terror.
After the New York Times portrayed Sunstein recently as a liberal favorite, Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald loudly dissented, calling the longtime constitutional law scholar “one of the most reliable Democratic cheerleaders for Bush/Cheney radicalism” and referring to his nomination as a “horrible prospect.” Sunstein’s philosophy of “libertarian paternalism” has drawn fire from both ends of the political spectrum. When he was up for confirmation to his current regulatory job last September, five conservative Democratic senators dissented, as did 34 Republicans and liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
One name believed to have dropped from Obama’s short list since last time: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Both liberal and conservative advocates agree that choosing her now would refocus what the administration would view as unwelcome attention on government failures prior to the Christmas Day airplane bombing attempt.
As they did last year, some in the press have speculated that Obama could decide to choose the first openly gay justice, such as Stanford law professors Kathleen Sullivan or Pam Karlan. A new “60 Minutes”/Vanity Fair poll found 55% of Americans supportive of the idea of an openly gay justice, but few observers expect Sullivan or Karlan to be Obama’s choice.
The more salient question politically may be a potential nominee’s stance on the hot-button social issue of the moment: same-sex marriage.
“Whether someone has taken a position on it or someone’s own personal situation has an effect on it, they will certainly take that and a lot of other issues into account,” said Ted Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who has taken up the cause of same-sex marriage in the federal courts. “It’s not just marriage. It’s “don’t ask don’t tell,” and the Defense of Marriage Act that are in litigation. This is an issue that people have strong opinions about.”
But it seems doubtful that Obama would select a nominee whose support for gay marriage could become a central issue at the confirmation hearings. After all, Obama himself publicly opposes same-sex marriage.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/4/2010, 20:11 | |
| A l'occasion de sa re-sortie en salles :
Origine du film : français, allemand, italien Réalisateur : Georges Lautner Acteurs : Lino Ventura, Bernard Blier, Francis Blanche Genre : Comédie, Policier Durée : 1h 45min | avi Date de sortie : 27 Novembre 1963 Année de production : 1963 Titre Original : Distribué par : Gaumont Distribution Critiques spectateurs :  pour 189 critiques Bande annonce : Cliquez ici pour visualiser la bande annonce Sur son lit de mort, le Mexicain fait promettre à son ami d'enfance, Fernand Naudin, de veiller sur ses intérêts et sa fille Patricia. Fernand découvre alors qu'il se trouve à la tête d'affaires louches dont les anciens dirigeants entendent bien s'emparer. Mais, flanqué d'un curieux notaire et d'un garde du corps, Fernand impose d'emblée sa loi. Cependant, le belle Patricia lui réserve quelques surprises ! download ici |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 3/4/2010, 20:14 | |
| Bonsoir, Jack, j'y vais. Merci!  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2149 - 3/4/2010, 21:40 | |
| Why was Hillary Clinton so hot under the collar? Grover Cleveland, FDR, JFK - Democratic presidents have rarely gotten along with Canadian Conservatives Library of Congress, AP, Cecil Stoughton/White House
- Spoiler:
Democrats in the U.S. and Conservatives in Canada – this rare combination never seems to workThree whacks in one visit. Was Hillary Clinton trying to set a bilateral record for hostal abuse? Her Ottawa visit has left many wondering: Why the rancour? Had she wanted to be diplomatic, all of her criticisms could have been delivered in private. She clearly did not want to be diplomatic.
What appeared to be a smooth-running bilateral relationship suddenly veered offside. But no one should be terribly surprised. What it comes down to is the basics. One government is conservative, the other liberal. It was never in the cards that they would see eye to eye for very long.To date, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done well in getting along with the Obama White House. Given the President's popularity in Canada, it's been the sensible thing to do. But what we've seen on the surface is not indicative of what's underneath.The Liberals have been working behind the scenes to cement their party's relationship with the Democrats, while, at the same time, making sure that the Obama team knows where the Harper Tories are rooted. Liberals, including Bob Rae, have held unpublicized meetings with officials from the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon.They report that the White House was hardly impressed, for example, at the sight of Pierre Poilievre, Mr. Harper's parliamentary secretary, and other Conservative MPs going down to attend Republican meetings. As the American political debate becomes poisonously polarized, the Obama administration's sensitivities to any conservative ideological bent have heightened. The Harper Tories are not in Sarah Palin's neighbourhood. Witness Afghanistan, for example, where they're more moderate than the Obama administration. But Liberals like to paint them as being in her region.The Obama-Harper differences are on more than the three issues – maternal health, Arctic, Afghanistan – that Ms. Clinton raised. They differ on attitudes toward the Middle East and Muslims. On its effort to relocate Guantanamo inmates, the White House was annoyed that it received no help from Ottawa. On nuclear disarmament, an Obama priority, the United States has heard little but silence from Canada. On a broad range of social issues, the differences are deep.Throw the Secretary of State's tendency to be blunt into the mix and the stage was set for her broadsides. On the Afghan war, Canada's exit position had been stated clearly to the Americans several times. As a parting gift, Ms. Clinton should have been presented with a hearing aid. On the fact that Canada didn't include all coastal countries as host of the Arctic meeting, she may have had a point. She made her views clear well before arriving in Ottawa. But was it really necessary to leak her remarks to the media, to slam the Harperites publicly and to skip out on a joint press conference, prompting other foreign ministers to do the same?On the issue of maternal mortality and the need for access to abortion, Ms. Clinton's views should have come as no surprise. In case anyone wasn't aware, they got the news brusquely at a news conference. It is news that may well kill Mr. Harper's plan to make maternal health the centrepiece of this summer's G8 summit.
Through much of bilateral history, Democratic governments in the U.S. and Liberals in Canada have tended to be closely aligned. What never seems to work is the rare combination of Democratic administrations and Conservative incumbents north of the border. The last such combination of any reasonable duration was John Kennedy and John Diefenbaker, and that was a disaster. In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt didn't want to have much to do with R. B. Bennett. And back in the 1880s, Grover Cleveland and John A. Macdonald almost went to war.Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has a wide range of contacts, including economic guru Larry Summers, in the Obama White House. It's surprising that he's not yet been to Washington for an audience with the President to exploit their commonalities.Now that the differences between the Democrats and the Conservatives are coming out into the open, that meeting might not be far off. Mr. Ignatieff would like nothing better than to cast himself in the Obama mould and the others at tea with Ms. Palin.
|
| | | | Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 59
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 4/4/2010, 08:08 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- Why was Hillary Clinton so hot under the collar?
Grover Cleveland, FDR, JFK - Democratic presidents have rarely gotten along with Canadian Conservatives Library of Congress, AP, Cecil Stoughton/White House
- Spoiler:
Democrats in the U.S. and Conservatives in Canada – this rare combination never seems to workThree whacks in one visit. Was Hillary Clinton trying to set a bilateral record for hostal abuse? Her Ottawa visit has left many wondering: Why the rancour? Had she wanted to be diplomatic, all of her criticisms could have been delivered in private. She clearly did not want to be diplomatic.
What appeared to be a smooth-running bilateral relationship suddenly veered offside. But no one should be terribly surprised. What it comes down to is the basics. One government is conservative, the other liberal. It was never in the cards that they would see eye to eye for very long.To date, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done well in getting along with the Obama White House. Given the President's popularity in Canada, it's been the sensible thing to do. But what we've seen on the surface is not indicative of what's underneath.The Liberals have been working behind the scenes to cement their party's relationship with the Democrats, while, at the same time, making sure that the Obama team knows where the Harper Tories are rooted. Liberals, including Bob Rae, have held unpublicized meetings with officials from the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon.They report that the White House was hardly impressed, for example, at the sight of Pierre Poilievre, Mr. Harper's parliamentary secretary, and other Conservative MPs going down to attend Republican meetings. As the American political debate becomes poisonously polarized, the Obama administration's sensitivities to any conservative ideological bent have heightened. The Harper Tories are not in Sarah Palin's neighbourhood. Witness Afghanistan, for example, where they're more moderate than the Obama administration. But Liberals like to paint them as being in her region.The Obama-Harper differences are on more than the three issues – maternal health, Arctic, Afghanistan – that Ms. Clinton raised. They differ on attitudes toward the Middle East and Muslims. On its effort to relocate Guantanamo inmates, the White House was annoyed that it received no help from Ottawa. On nuclear disarmament, an Obama priority, the United States has heard little but silence from Canada. On a broad range of social issues, the differences are deep.Throw the Secretary of State's tendency to be blunt into the mix and the stage was set for her broadsides. On the Afghan war, Canada's exit position had been stated clearly to the Americans several times. As a parting gift, Ms. Clinton should have been presented with a hearing aid. On the fact that Canada didn't include all coastal countries as host of the Arctic meeting, she may have had a point. She made her views clear well before arriving in Ottawa. But was it really necessary to leak her remarks to the media, to slam the Harperites publicly and to skip out on a joint press conference, prompting other foreign ministers to do the same?On the issue of maternal mortality and the need for access to abortion, Ms. Clinton's views should have come as no surprise. In case anyone wasn't aware, they got the news brusquely at a news conference. It is news that may well kill Mr. Harper's plan to make maternal health the centrepiece of this summer's G8 summit.
Through much of bilateral history, Democratic governments in the U.S. and Liberals in Canada have tended to be closely aligned. What never seems to work is the rare combination of Democratic administrations and Conservative incumbents north of the border. The last such combination of any reasonable duration was John Kennedy and John Diefenbaker, and that was a disaster. In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt didn't want to have much to do with R. B. Bennett. And back in the 1880s, Grover Cleveland and John A. Macdonald almost went to war.Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has a wide range of contacts, including economic guru Larry Summers, in the Obama White House. It's surprising that he's not yet been to Washington for an audience with the President to exploit their commonalities.Now that the differences between the Democrats and the Conservatives are coming out into the open, that meeting might not be far off. Mr. Ignatieff would like nothing better than to cast himself in the Obama mould and the others at tea with Ms. Palin.
Hillary est hot under n'importe quoi Ben quoi, c'est pas péché que d'aimer des femmes très matures 
Et si je préfèrais avoir que de dominer ? | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 4/4/2010, 13:46 | |
| Ah mais ca Zed, vous avez parfaitement raison. Les gouts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2152 - 6/4/2010, 11:54 | |
| The Tea Party and the Media Corruption Les media sont inquiets de l'ampleur que le Tea Party (qui n'est PAS un parti mais qui est un rappel de l a Boston Tea Party - 1773) pourrait prendre, les denigrements et la fausse representation du mouvement et de ceux qui en font partie y vont donc bon train. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2153 - 6/4/2010, 12:54 | |
| Tea party: Much noise, but an impact in November?Ron Fournier The tea party is making a lot of noise, but the angry-at-government movement has yet to establish itself as a force that can determine the outcome of November's congressional elections. The key could be forging alliances with GOP candidates, but tea partiers in nearly every state are leery of that if not downright opposed.- Spoiler:
"The day there's an organized tea party in Wisconsin," says Mark Block, who runs tea party rallies in the state, "is the day the tea party movement dies."
The Associated Press reviewed tea party chapters across the country, interviewing dozens of local organizers as well as Democratic and Republican strategists to produce a portrait of the movement to date — and its prospects for tipping congressional elections this fall.
Though it's far too early for any long-term verdict on the tea party — even defining what short-term success would be for its members can be a challenge — the AP found that:
_The embryonic movement is not as much a force that drives public opinion as a reflection of it.
_Local chapters are underfunded, loosely aligned and often at odds with one another.
_The lack of a single leader, issue or strategic goal sets them apart from most politically potent movements.
America's tea party is a hodgepodge of barely affiliated groups, a home to the politically homeless, a fast-growing swath of citizens who are frustrated with Washington, their own state capitals and both major political parties. Most describe themselves as conservatives or libertarians. They rarely identify themselves as Democrats.
Last year's rise of the tea party closely tracked polls showing declining faith in government, confidence in the nation's future and approval of President Barack Obama and Congress. Government bailouts and Obama's trillion-dollar push to overhaul the U.S. health care system proved too much for people like Ralph Sprovier, a regional coordinator for Illinois Tea.
"We're regular people who are p---ed off at our government — period, end of story," says Sprovier. "Defend us, don't spend more than we have, get the budget balanced and listen to what we say."
But listening doesn't guarantee understanding. Tea party regulars back candidates who support debt reduction. Or free markets. Or states' rights. Or civil liberties. Or tort reform. Or term limits. Or abolishing federal agencies. They champion some of these issues — but not always all of them — and sometimes many more. Generalizing the movement is a fool's errand.
This we know: Tea parties know how to produce crowds. In the footsteps of the Boston Tea Party more than two centuries ago, organizers use e-mail, social networking and other electronic tools to draw enormous numbers of disaffected Americans together.
Some wear Revolutionary-era garb and carry signs bearing the language of 18th century patriots — "Don't tread on me!" is a popular one.
But rally building is no big trick in the era of Twitter and Facebook, when people with cell phones can summon crowds for events as frivolous as snowball fights and bursts of song.
Beyond rallies, the movement thins out.
Too broke to buy a copy machine, a tea party group in Alaska plucked a copier from a landfill.
A chapter in Kansas lost its only laptop, and with it the group's membership list.
Unversed in media management, two local leaders suggested in a nationally broadcast interview that they favored abolishing Social Security. Democrats quickly assigned that view to the entire movement.
The organization seems strongest in places where lobbyists and GOP party operatives like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey pull levers. Their involvement hardly squares with the anti-political sentiment that drives grass-roots activists like Bill Hennessy.
"I'm not into politics," the Missouri rally organizer says.
The tea party itself is not a political party — and there are no signs it ever will be.
"That's the beauty of it," says George Burton, a Minnesota electrician and history buff who dressed in period garb for a rally he organized in Brainerd, "We don't take any orders from anybody."
The tea party has no single issue around which people rally — taxes comes closest — and it has no clear leader who drives the organization's message, motivates followers and raises money. Indeed, the hundreds of tea party chapters and tens of thousands of its activists cannot agree on the most basic strategic goal: whether to try to influence the current political system or dismantle it.
So what does that mean for November?
With no candidates of the tea party's own, Republican strategists still hope tea party groups will align with the GOP to defeat Democrats. They want the movement to share its e-mail lists, raise money for the party and send its volunteers to the homes of likely Republican voters. That could make a difference in dozens of races.
If the tea partiers stay apart?
"The American experience is if you don't go through one of the two major parties or you don't home in on a single issue as a litmus test, it's very difficult to be impactful across the country," says Matt Schlapp, a White House political director in President George W. Bush's first term who currently advises congressional candidates.
"We know who we are against," says Justin Holland, organizer for the North Alabama Patriot Tea Party. "We don't quite know who we are for yet."
That is one of many differences between tea partiers and past movements that made a mark. In the 1990s, a period of voter disenchantment not unlike today, Ross Perot's supporters formed a third party. Perot lost, but he carried enough votes to influence two presidential races, and his positions on trade and deficit reduction remained in the political bloodstream.
Perot's former running mate, Pat Choate, says the tea party is far from establishing itself as a lasting movement.
"The real test, seems to me, is whether or not they decide to field candidates," he says.
For many, that's a tough sell.
"I've already been involved in party politics," says Gia Gallegos of Reno, Nevada, "I don't want another party."
So far, tea party groups lack the galvanizing issue that made the anti-tax movement a success in California decades ago.
"I understand what they're angry about because they're angry about some of the same things that I'm angry about," says Ken Khachigian, an aide to Republican presidents who is now a GOP consultant in California. "But it's a disparate force right now, and movements don't have an effect until they have some cohesion behind them."
It pains Republicans like Khachigian to concede that the movement is not leading directly to GOP gains.
Says Schlapp: "Republicans who assume this is a Republican effort or something playing right into the Republican playbook are making a big mistake."
Despite its potential value, the movement worries GOP candidates, particularly out-of-touch incumbents, he says. "For many Republicans and Republican strategists, this is too organic and uncontrolled, and that's a little scary for them."
The tea party gained political credibility after Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts' special Senate election. But activists were not key organizers in his race. The question is whether tea party-affiliated voters would have backed Brown anyway, given that many are conservatives.
Upcoming GOP nomination contests will offer further tests. Republican strategists are keenly watching Senate GOP races in Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Kansas, Florida and Utah, where victories by tea party-backed candidates could tilt the party to the right.
In Arizona, former presidential candidate John McCain turned to his former running mate — tea party favorite Sarah Palin — to help stave off a primary challenge from the right.
In Florida, tea party darling Marco Rubio is making waves in his effort to upset Gov. Charlie Crist in the GOP Senate primary. But is that cause or effect?
Republicans wonder whether the tea party is bringing new voters, new money and new volunteers to Rubio or simply stirring his conservative base.
The Associated Press
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2154 - 6/4/2010, 18:28 | |
| Obama est convaincu que les AMericains apprendront a apprecier Obamacare. Pour le moment, ca n'est pas... encore le cas. Still waiting for that ObamaCare bounce3:01 pm April 5, 2010,
by Kyle Wingfield
Yet another opinion poll indicates the public wasn’t sighing in relief after ObamaCare passed. The latest is from CBS News, which calls the American public “increasingly skeptical” about the new health laws:
- Spoiler:
Fifty-three percent of Americans say they disapprove of the new reforms, including 39 percent who say they disapprove strongly. In the days before the bill passed the House, 37 percent said they approved and 48 percent disapproved.
Republicans and independents remain opposed to the reforms, and support has dropped some among Democrats. Now 52 percent of Democrats approve of the new reforms, a drop from 60 percent just before the bill was passed by Congress.
So, no softening among Republicans and independents, and a hardening of Democratic opinion against the bill.
There was a brief bounce: In the days immediately following the House’s passage of ObamaCare, the approval gap for the legislation improved from minus-11 to minus-4 (follow the CBS News results in the second table here). Within one week, however, the gap had re-widened to the current minus-21.
The same goes for the USA Today/Gallup poll, which showed a 12-point swing in ObamaCare’s favor immediately following the House vote. Less than a week later, however, sentiment as measured by the very same poll had swung back against the new law by those same 12 percentage points.
Rasmussen Reports shows a steady 12- to 13-point disapproval margin for the bill-turned-law. Recent polls by Quinnipiac and for the Washington Post also show lingering disapproval for the new law.
The public’s verdict remains clear: While the Democrats could reasonably claim a mandate after the 2008 elections to do some kind of health-care reform, this wasn’t what the people expected or wanted.
Pundits keep trying to guess how much longer the public will stomach hearing about health care, given that it has dominated the public debate since last summer. The conventional wisdom is that people will tire of hearing about health care, but I think that’s only half-right. People may tire of hearing only about health care, but this kind of early hardening of opinion against ObamaCare suggests that it could easily remain at the heart of a broader election-year debate about the size and scope of government.
One piece of evidence for my thinking: The early results of the voting at ContractFromAmerica.com. The top three vote-getters so far are a requirement that Congress cite the specific provision of the Constitution that gives it authority to pass any given bill; the rejection of a cap-and-trade plan for CO2 emissions; and a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Each of these ideas has received support from at least two-thirds of the participants so far; the online vote is still under way, and the full results will be announced April 15.
The president says it will take more than one week for public opinion of ObamaCare to improve. Fair enough. In the meantime, as the public learns more about what’s in the new law, the hole is only getting deeper.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2155 - 6/4/2010, 18:57 | |
| Obama's 17-Minute Non-Answer AnswerBy Debra SaundersIn June, comedian Bill Maher complained of President Obama, "You don't have to be on television every minute of every day -- you're the president, not a rerun of 'Law & Order.'"- Spoiler:
I get paid to listen to politicians tell the same old jokes, repeat the same canned sound bites and -- as often occurs -- not answer questions. But I do not think it too much to ask that, now that Obama has signed legislation to overhaul the health care system, he ditch the health care spiel.
To watch Obama nine months after Maher's quip is to live in rerun hell. The president's remarks at a North Carolina lithium battery plant last Friday were so tedious as to garner attention of, among others, the Washington Post's Anne E. Kornblut. In answer to a question from Doris of Lake Wylie, S.C., Kornblut wrote that Obama gave a 17-minute response that lulled "the crowd into a daze" as "his discursive answer -- more than 2,500 words long -- wandered from topic to topic."
The worst part: Obama didn't answer the question. He didn't even come close. This is what Doris asked: "In the economic times that we have now, is it a wise decision to add more taxes to us with health care?" She added, "Because we are overtaxed as it is."
Obama's answer, abridged: The prince of self-pity started with his usual lament about "misinformation" from his critics. "No. 1," he began, America is the only advanced country not to have health care for 50 million citizens. No. 2, you don't know if you'll be uninsured. No. 3, the way some companies operate, "you don't always know what you've got." Then the "final point" that health care costs are out of control.
Obama noted Medicare, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance program all "are completely out of control." Another "No. 1:" The individual market doesn't give consumers leverage and is more expensive. Another No. 2 "is we've got the strongest insurance reforms in history." Sometimes three doctors will order the same test, but under ObamaCare, "we'll pay you for the first test and then e-mail the test to everybody" or "have all three doctors in the room when the test is being taken."
Then a "last point," which turned into the third No. 1: ObamaCare will eliminate "waste, fraud and abuse" in Medicare. And the health care tax increase dings unearned income because, it seems, it's unfair if investor Warren Buffett doesn't have to pay Medicare taxes on every penny of his dividends.
He apologized for the long answer, but "I want to make sure you guys -- that I'm really answering your question." Then he kept talking -- about the deficit he inherited, declining revenues and the drags of a depressed economy on the safety net. He also expounded on how cutting foreign aid and getting rid of earmarks would not balance the budget.
Then, 17 minutes after the query, he said, "I hope I answered your question." Actually, he had answered every question but the over-taxed question.
Now I can see why Obama would not want to dwell on the tax increases in his health care package. They're not likely to inspire confidence in this economy.
But the decision to change the subject with a too-long pep talk makes you wonder if Obama is losing his touch. He certainly has forgotten to pretend that he's listening.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2156 - 6/4/2010, 19:10 | |
| Republicans Slam Obama Judicial Nominee Over 117 Omissions From RecordBy Judson Berger- FOXNews.com Senate Republicans on Tuesday slammed one of the Obama administration's most controversial judicial nominees for failing to initially disclose more than 100 of his speeches, publications and other background materials -- an omission the Republicans called unprecedented and a possible attempt to "hide his most controversial work." - Spoiler:
 Goodwin Liu is President Obama's nominee to be a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Stanford University).
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 7/4/2010, 08:22 | |
| Etre Republicain lorsqu'on est afro-americain c'est deja une honte aux yeux des Democrates en general et du Black Caucus en particulier mais faire en plus partie de la Tea Party alors la... c'est carrement de la traitrise! Black Tea Party Activists Called 'Traitors'AP Black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.- Spoiler:
 APFeb. 10: Fox News political analyst Angela McGlowan announces at the Tupelo, Miss., City Hall, that she is running for the 1st Congressional District as a Republican.Oui, c'est exact et pourtant ca n'a pas empeche la madame de voter pour le POTUSbien qu'il ait pendant 20 annees assiste aux sermons et ete le grand ami de J. Wright ainsi que d'avoir eu dans son entourage un terroriste W. Ayers.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2158 - 7/4/2010, 09:23 | |
| Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy DocumentAP The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war.- Spoiler:
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.
The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."
The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document will be the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, like his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.
The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.
That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a "new beginning" in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terror and winning the war of ideas.
"You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, 'We're building you a hospital so you don't become terrorists.' That doesn't make much sense," said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.
Ramamurthy runs the administration's Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach "in pursuit of a host of national security objectives."
Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terror but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.
Before diplomats go abroad, they hear from the Ramamurthy or his deputy, Jenny Urizar. When officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration returned from Indonesia, the NSC got a rundown about research opportunities on global warming.
Ramamurthy maintains a database of interviews conducted by 50 U.S. embassies worldwide. And business leaders from more than 40 countries head to Washington this month for an "entrepreneurship summit" for Muslim businesses.
"Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?" Ramamurthy said.
To deliver that message, Obama's speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke to Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research.
He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.
"They didn't look up to the U.S. because we hated communism," said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama's foreign policy speechwriter.
Like Reagan in China, Obama in Cairo made only passing references to terrorism. Instead he focused on cooperation. He announced the United States would team up to fight polio with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a multinational body based in Saudi Arabia.
The United States and the OIC had worked together before, but never with that focus.
"President Obama saw it as an opportunity to say, `We work on things far beyond the war on terrorism,"' said World Health Organization spokeswoman Sona Bari.
Polio is endemic in three Muslim countries -- Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan -- but some Muslim leaders have been suspicious of vaccination efforts, which they believed to be part of a CIA sterilization campaign. Last year, the OIC and religious scholars at the International Islamic Fiqh Academy issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that parents should have their children vaccinated.
"We're probably entering into a whole new level of engagement between the OIC and the polio program because of the stimulus coming from the U.S. government," said Michael Galway, who works on polio eradication for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Centers for Disease Control also began working more closely with local Islamic leaders in northern Nigeria, a network that had been overlooked for years, said John Fitzsimmons, the deputy director of the CDC's immunization division.
Though health officials are reluctant to assign credit to any one action, new polio cases in Nigeria fell from 83 during the first quarter of last year to just one so far this year, Fitzsimmons said.
Public opinion polls also showed consistent improvement in U.S. sentiment within the Muslim world last year, although the viewpoints are still overwhelmingly negative, however.
Obama did not invent Muslim outreach. President George W. Bush gave the White House its first Quran, hosted its first Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan, and loudly stated support for Muslim democracies like Turkey.
But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized him for describing the war against terror as a "crusade" and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" -- words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America's enemy as "Islamic extremists" and "radical jihadists."
Karen Hughes, a Bush confidant who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.
"I did recommend that, in my judgment, it's unfortunate because of the way it's heard.
We ought to avoid the language of religion," Hughes said. "Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have."
Hughes and Juan Zarate, Bush's former deputy national security adviser, said Obama's efforts build on groundwork from Bush's second term, when some of the rhetoric softened. But by then, Zarate said, it was overshadowed by the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and a prolonged Iraq war.
"In some ways, it didn't matter what the president did or said. People weren't going to be listening to him in the way we wanted them to," Zarate said. "The difference is, President Obama had a fresh start."
Obama's foreign policy posture is not without political risk. Even as Obama steps up airstrikes on terrorists abroad, he has proven vulnerable to Republican criticism on security issues at home, such as the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the announced-then-withdrawn plan to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York.
Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama's engagement effort. It "doesn't appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit" in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran's nuclear ambitions, he said.
Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.
The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech.
"This is the long-range direction we need to go in," Ramamurthy said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2159 - 7/4/2010, 09:41 | |
| Obama revivies terror-prison rules By JOSH GERSTEIN | 4/6/10 9:03 PM EDT - Spoiler:
The Obama Administration is releasing new public rules to govern where terrorism-related convicts and others should be jailed – in special prison units where their communications with the outside world are closely monitored and sharply restricted.
The rules are largely identical to regulations the Bush Administration proposed in 2006 and officially abandoned the following year.
The new proposed regulations allow the Bureau of Prisons to impose strict limits on the communications of inmates, though it’s unclear whether the Obama administration actually intends to lock these prisoners down to that degree. In fact, it has gone largely unnoticed that the Obama administration actually eased the rules substantially in January of this year.
The new rules were first spotted by Joe Palazzolo at Main Justice, who highlighted some of the more onerous restrictions, including a limit of one three-page, double-sided letter a week to or from a single correspondent. There are exceptions for communications with courts, lawyers, the president, members of Congress and others. However, it's notable that the rules appear to foreclose any direct communication by inmates with the press.
On January 3, the Obama Administration eased the phone and visitation policies at the Terre Haute, Ind. and Marion, Ill. Communication Management Units, letting inmates have two 15-minute phone calls a week instead of one and up to eight hours of visits a month up from four. Sunday visits were also allowed, previously all social visits on weekends were banned.
However, the proposed regulations would allow the federal prisons to impose tight limits on the inmates including as little as one 15-minute phone call per month and one one-hour visit a month. That’s precisely what the Bush officials had in their proposal in 2006.
A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons, Traci Billingsley, said the prisons wouldn’t automatically change their policies if the rules are adopted. “That outline in the regs was simply a proposal for the baseline or the floor level. Wardens would then have the ability to go above that,” she said.
Lawyers tracking the situation say the simultaneous easing of the rules and claims of broad authority to limit communications are a result of lawsuits the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights are pursuing over the contact-limiting prison units.
“It has to be in response to litigation,” said Rachel Meeropol of the CCR, which filed suit on behalf a a group of inmates last month. “It is moving in two different directions, but both actions seem intended to answer some of the charges in the lawsuits.”
However, Billingsley said the changes took place because those running the units determined they had the resources to allow for more outside interaction with prisoners. “At that time both wardens felt that they could accommodate additional visits or phone calls,” she said.
Meeropol called the Obama regs “very similar” to what Bush officials proposed, but she said she still finds them troubling. “It’s extremely disturbing they’re claiming the authority to make the restrictions so much harsher than they are now,” she said. She said the rules still don’t clearly spell out what evidence can get a prisoner into such a facility and ignore the total ban on so-called “contact” visits which allow physical interaction between prisoners and their families.
The attorney said the proposed regulations also dance around the issue of how most inmates sent to the Communication Management Units in Terre Haute, Ind. and Marion, Ill. are Arabic speakers and Muslims. Critics have decried the facilities as a way to corral Muslim inmates and hold them nearly incommunicado. Lawyers tracking the issue say about two-thirds of the prisoners in the units are Muslims. However, at least one animal-rights terrorist and others considered disruptive have also been moved to the facilities.
While news reports have indicated that the main justification for the Bush Administration in setting up the units was to ease the monitoring of Arabic-language communications with the outside world, there is scant mention of the language issue in the proposed regs.
There is a single reference to "translators." And, of course, no reference to religion.
(Though the regs do quote from an Al Qaeda training manual—a mention that makes clear that terrorism by Islamic extremists is something of a factor here.)
The Bush administration did experiment with even stricter policies at the CMU. Shortly after the Terre Haute unit opened, it allowed as little as one three-minute social call per month.
Prisoners sent to the CMUs are generally not the worst-of-the-worst terrorists: those folks are sent to the Supermax in Colorado and kept under "Special Administrative Measures" that can even more sharply limit individual inmates' contact with the outside. Those at the CMUs are largely prisoners who are perceived by the government or as a result of their crimes to be more likely to try to associate with terrorist networks.
At the moment, for example, the Justice Department is trying to get four men convicted of fundraising-based terrorism-support charges in the Holy Land Foundation case moved from a prison in Texas to one of the CMUs.
The newly proposed rules will be open for public comment through June 7.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2160 - 7/4/2010, 09:56 | |
| Voila une nouvelle raison pour laquelle le Tea Party existe. Mr. Steele se cramponne mais il y a un moment qu'il cree des problemes pour les membres du GOP, il serait peut-etre bon, s'il a vraiment le bien du parti a coeur.... Shakeup: RNC chief of staff resigns By JONATHAN MARTIN | 4/5/10 6:21 PM EDT - Spoiler:
 One of RNC Chairman Michael Steele's closest advisers has also cut ties to the committee -- an indication that a full-scale bloodletting is under way.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 7/4/2010, 10:00 | |
| Justement.... Castellanos jumps ship Another blow to Michael Steele: Alex Castellanos, whose presence as an unpaid adviser was meant to smooth the impression of chaos last time a senior aide quit, suggested on CNN just now that Steele should resign.- Spoiler:
"Chairman Steele, I think, has lost the support of two important constituencies in the Republican Party," he said, referring to the Congressional leadership and "a lot of our major donors, the donors who provide the money, the lifeblood, the oxygen the Republican Party needs to succeed on its mission to take back control of the House
"Perhaps a change in leadership here would thaw that and allow that support to flow," Castellanos said.
"I think a change in direction now at this point would do the party good," he said. "I think a change at this moment would be a good thing."
Castellanos also said he'd lost "my ability to be of service to the RNC" and that people "found me less than useful" there, and that his always nebulous unpaid adviser role had ended.
Posted by Ben Smith 06:31 PM
|
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
