.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: 2336 - 25/5/2010, 16:29 | |
| North Korea Reportedly to Cut All Relations With South Korea
FOX News |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2338 - Financial, Political Tensions Slam U.S. Stocks 25/5/2010, 17:17 | |
| Financial, Political Tensions Slam U.S. Stocks By KRISTINA PETERSON U.S. stocks plummeted as concerns heightened over the euro zone's ability to contain its debt problems and political tension on the Korean peninsula mounted.- Spoiler:
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 209 points, or 2.1%, to 9859 in recent trading. It last closed below 10000 on Feb. 8. Global markets are slammed by growing tensions between North and South Korea, fueling a stampede out of risky assets, Dow Jones Newswires' Paul Vigna and Eduardo Kaplan report. The Standard & Poor's 500 fell 22 points, or 2.1%, to 1051, bouncing around its February intraday low of 1044.5 from Feb. 5. All of the measure's sectors were in the red, with the industrial and materials sectors leading a broad decline. The Nasdaq Composite index slid 50 points, or 2.2%, to 2165. After sliding last week into technical corrections, U.S. stock market indexes have extended their losses this week as concerns in Europe and Asia have overshadowed modestly positive U.S. economic data. Investors shunned risky assets as global concerns mounted. The Russell 2000 lost all of its year-to-date gains, slipping into negative territory for the year. The measure was recently down 2.6% to 624.63. All of the Dow's 30 components slipped into the red, led by a 3.8% drop in economically sensitive General Electric. Caterpillar tumbled 3.9% and DuPont slid 3.5%. Alcoa fell 3.2% as metals futures declined. Financial components tumbled as fears mounted over the health of the European banking system. Bank of America fell 2.2%, while J.P. Morgan Chase slid 1.8%. Global markets slid, with Korean stocks falling after a group said the North Korean military had been ordered to be ready for combat. Political tensions between North and South Korea have risen since a team of international investigators concluded that Pyongyang was to blame for the deadly sinking of a South Korean naval warship in March. The Nikkei Stock Average dropped 3.1% in Tokyo and the Kospi lost 2.75% in Seoul. Journal Community European markets also slumped as concerns mounted over the rising interbank lending rates. The three-month U.S. dollar London interbank offered rate climbed to a 10-month high, rising to 0.53625% from 0.50969% Monday. The Stoxx Europe 600 and Frankfurt's DAX were each down more than 2.5% in afternoon trade. The Athens Stock Exchange was trading at fresh one-year lows. Bloomberg News Asian stocks and the won plunged to 10-month lows after a report that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il ordered his military to prepare for combat last week.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2339 -Obama's Patience Wears Thin as BP Struggles to Contain Oil Spill 26/5/2010, 08:27 | |
| Obama's Patience Wears Thin as BP Struggles to Contain Oil SpillBy Major Garrett- FOXNews.com As the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues to gush after BP's multiple attempts to contain it have failed, President Obama is losing patience.- Spoiler:
 President Obama discusses the role that American small businesses play in the economy during an event in the Rose Garden at the White House, Tuesday, May 25, 2010, in Washington. (AP)
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 26/5/2010, 09:14 | |
| Le POTUS envoie 1200 Gardes sur la frontiere et demande 500 millions pour la defense de la frontiere le meme jour que son Departement de la Justice annonce qu'il va s'en prendre a la loi en Arizona. C'est tout benef pour lui: Il comprend les residents d'Arizona - Il a l'air d'agir - Plus besoin de la loi qui devrait entrer en vigueur en Juillet - Les garde ca peut etre rappele a tout moment, une loi c'est plus long et plus difficile a abroger.
Une simple question, si ce n'est pas le cas, pourquoi n'a-t-il jamais repondu jusqu'a ce jour aux appels desesperes de Gouverneur Brewer? Ne pas oublie non plus que la loi est soutenue par pres des 3/4 des Americains.
Barack Obama orders Guard to Mexican border |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2341 - Obama: Day for 'partnership' passed 26/5/2010, 13:14 | |
| Le POTUS, en tant que candidat a la presidence, expliquait l'importance de la patience, de la negotiation et des echanges continus avec les ennemis (bon, d'accord il ne disait pas "ennemis") des Etats Unis, se refusent a converser avec le GOP (evidemment, la seule base sur laquelle il etait pres a le faire de toute facon depuis Janvier 2009, c'etait un acceptation complete par les Republicainsde tout ce qui leur ete propose pour le bien de la nation. Son ideologie etant aux antipodes de la leur et d'a peu pres les 2/3 des Americains, d'ailleurs, le GOP a refuse de jouer le jeu - les party poopers - et de deposer les armes, ils ont ete marques au fer comme le Parti du NON! Comme le fait justement remarquer Newt Gingrich: ca n'est pas si terrible, si vous soutenez ce en quoi vous croyez - ce qui ne l'empeche pas de diriger un mouvement qui a trouve a beaucoup de choses auxquelles dire: oui). Pour etre juste, je n'ai pas grand souvenir que Bush 43 ait eu grand soutien de la part des Democrates. C'etait plus normal, la? Obama: Day for 'partnership' passed 
President Obama delivered some of his harshest criticisms to the GOP from California Tuesday. AP - Spoiler:
Noting that sometimes conservative activists portray him with a Hitler moustache, Obama seemed to put to rest any notion that there could be broad-based bipartisan cooperation – something he promised to try to bring to Washington during his 2008 campaign.
“There are members of their base who think if somebody even smiles at me, they think, ‘You’re a traitor. You smiled at Obama,’ ” the president said at fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “The day has passed when I expected this to be a full partnership.”
There is hardly any “room for cooperation” in the Republican Party, Obama said.
At the same time, he said he understands why the GOP is “sitting on the sidelines.”
“Politically it hasn’t been bad for them,” he said – an apparent reference to the Republicans’ expected gains in the midterm congressional elections this fall.
Obama delivered his remarks just hours after a contentious meeting with the Senate Republican caucus on Capitol Hill. The president grew increasingly feisty as the San Francisco evening wore on.
He took Republicans to task, but ribbed his own supporters, too, even as one of them heckled him for moving too slowly on repealing the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.
“People weren’t paying attention to me when I said change is hard,” Obama said, insisting: “We’ve moved the country in powerful ways.”
Obama used the oil spill in the Gulf to frame his call for energy legislation – another point on which he needled Republicans. He said the spill shows the government needs to “revisit how these oil companies are operating,” and “tells us that we’ve got to have a long-term energy strategy in this country.”
Boxer, who introduced Obama, offered a more pointed attack of the “Drill, baby drill crowd.”
“They have Sarah Palin and we have the man I’m going to bring on stage right now,” she said, calling Obama “my friend, my pal.”
Obama opened his first set of remarks to roughly 100 high-end donors with a sarcastic remark that his meeting with Senate Republicans Tuesday was “warm and fuzzy.” He said he wouldn’t get into the details of said meeting “because they wanted the meeting closed,” while remarking that the one he attended with House Republicans a few months ago was open.
“We agreed to let the press in on that one,” Obama said at a larger reception at the Fairmont Hotel. “This one not so much.”
Deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton said the White House asked Senate Republicans to open up the meeting to the press. A spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) couldn’t be reached.
By the end of the night, Obama had thoroughly torn into Republicans on bipartisanship, even as he said he doesn’t need more than 10 of them to pass his key priorities.
“You don’t even have to meet me halfway. I’ll bring most Democrats on these issues. I’m just looking for eight or 10 of you,” he said.
Obama put the blame for a lack of bipartisanship in Washington squarely on Republicans. He said he’s made decisions in an effort to win Republican votes that have angered the Democratic base and needs Republicans to do the same with the their base.
“Some of the things I’ve done, you guys are unhappy with,” Obama told the Democratic donors. “But what I said to them [Senate Republicans] is if I’m comfortable with making decisions that aren’t always comfortable for me politically, I need you to make some decisions that aren’t always comfortable for you politically. If they can do that, we can get immigration reform done. And it needs to be done.”
The president got the most fired up when he turned to immigration reform, an issue he said was central in his discussion with Senate Republicans Tuesday. He criticized the Arizona immigration law and said he’s only asking the GOP to “meet me a quarter of the way” on federal reform.
“I’ll be with you, but you’ve got to meet me on solving the problem long term. It’s not enough just to talk about National Guard down at the border,” Obama said he told Senate Republicans, in the only reference to a plan the administration announced Tuesday to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the Mexico border.
“So I said to the Republicans, join with me,” he said. Instead, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama’s 2008 presidential rival, ripped into Obama’s plan on the Senate floor, saying it fell far short of the 6,000 troops McCain believes are needed.
The president raised $1.7 million, according to a Democratic official, with $1.1 million for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $600,000 for Boxer. Tickets ranged from $250 for a larger reception to $35,200 per couple at a dinner.
After the Fairmont events, Obama headed to a private fundraiser at the home of two of California’s big Democratic contributors, Ann and Gordon Getty. The event was closed to the press.
The president ended his public remarks at the Fairmont Hotel on a nostalgic note – his inauguration.
But he used the point to talk about how much has changed since January 20, 2009 – his approval ratings, the initiatives he’s signed into law.
At one point he noted, “I’ve got a Hitler moustache” on posters. “That’s quite a change,” he said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2342 - BP Reveals Crucial "mistake" on Oil Well 26/5/2010, 13:18 | |
| BP Reveals Crucial 'Mistake' on Oil Well
BP told congressional investigators that a decision to continue work on an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico after a test warned that something was wrong may have been a "fundamental mistake," according to a memo.
You Think? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2343 - AP: Obama's Border Plan Looks Similar to Bush's 26/5/2010, 17:20 | |
|  AP: Obama's Border Plan Looks Similar to Bush'sAssociated Press Some law enforcement officials along the border believe the scale of the force -- one-fifth of the size of the one sent by Bush -- is too small to make a difference along the length of the 2,000-mile border.- Spoiler:
PHOENIX -- President Barack Obama's plan to send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border appears to be a scaled-down version of the border security approach championed by his predecessor.The 6,000 troops who were sent by President George W. Bush to the border from June 2006 to July 2008 were generally credited within law enforcement circles as having helped improve border security, but restrictions placed on the soldiers were denounced by advocates for tougher enforcement who are now leveling similar objections at Obama's plan.Some law enforcement officials along the border said they worry that Obama will repeat Bush's mistake by limiting the troops to support roles, such as conducting surveillance and installing lighting, rather than letting them make arrests and confront smugglers. They also believe the scale of the force -- one-fifth of the size of the one sent by Bush -- is too small to make a difference along the length of the 2,000-mile border.Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, whose jurisdiction includes about 80 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border, said 1,200 soldiers might make a difference in a smaller portion of the border. "But if you spread it across the border, it's like spitting into the wind," Dever said.Under the Obama plan, the troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking. They will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Protection can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border. Obama also will request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who has prosecuted rings of drug and immigrant smugglers, said the planned deployment was a good first step, but believes that the president's plan should evolve to include more troops and more authority for the soldiers."I'll take what we can get," Goddard said. "Again, I don't think this is the final response."The Mexican government issued a statement saying it hoped the troops would be used to fight drug cartels and not enforce immigration laws. Mexico has traditionally objected to the use of the military to control illegal immigration.  When Bush sent the National Guard to the border, the troops performed support duties that tie up immigration agents, who then had more time to arrest illegal immigrants.The troops under the Bush deployment didn't perform significant law enforcement duties. They installed vehicle barriers, operated remote cameras, repaired vehicles, worked as radio dispatchers and performed other duties. Troops who manned mobile observation towers had used binoculars to search for and report border breaches.The effect of the troops was felt by the smugglers and would-be border-crossers during 2006 in Palomas, Mexico, a smuggling hub south of the village of Columbus, N.M., where a buildup of border agents, surveillance cameras, vehicle barriers and troops were credited with reducing smuggling traffic.Vendors in Palomas reported a significant drop in the number of backpacks they sold to border-crossers for carrying their food, water and clothing in during their walk into the United States. "There are not many people because of the soldiers that were put on the border," vendor Elisco Hernandez Gonzalez told The Associated Press two months after the Guard was sent to the border.Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce of Arizona, the author of the state's new immigration law, said he fears Obama will repeat Bush's mistake in not giving the troops the power to confront violent smugglers and other armed criminals along the border.Pearce was disturbed by an incident in 2007 where National Guard troops backed off and called in federal agents as gunmen approached their post near the Arizona-Mexico border.While supporters of the decision said the Guard members did as they were supposed to, Pearce questioned the point of having troops on the border if they can't confront such dangers. "It was a welcome-wagon role last time," Pearce said. "They weren't allowed to do anything."T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 17,000 agents, said he doesn't see the broad outlines of the Obama plan as a solution to border violence."People shouldn't be surprised if the violence continues," Bonner said. "They shouldn't expect that the announcement of up to 1,200 National Guard members will send a shock wave of fear in the cartels and that they will start playing nice."Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a major in the Arizona Army National Guard who served as a commander in Yuma, Ariz., during the 2006 deployment, said Obama's plan is welcome news that will help confront border security weaknesses, but it doesn't go far enough.Babeu, who wasn't speaking on behalf of the National Guard, said the visible presence of armed soldiers is an effective deterrent for illegal immigration. "They're not given law enforcement authority, but the fact that they're there, keeping watch, 24/7, has proven to be the most effective solution for border security," Babeu said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2344 - Republicans, Dems press White House on job offer 26/5/2010, 21:52 | |
| Republicans, Dems press White House on job offer Philip Elliott Republicans and Democrats pressured the White House on Tuesday to disclose whether it offered a federal job to Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak if he would drop his Senate primary challenge against Democratic incumbent Arlen Specter.- Spoiler:
Sestak has said repeatedly that he received an offer to join the Obama administration if he abandoned the race against Specter, who had switched from Republican to Democrat last year and was the White House's preferred candidate. Republicans have criticized the offer, saying it was grossly inappropriate and demanding an explanation from the administration.
Sestak said he rejected the job offer. Last Tuesday, he defeated the five-term Specter, capturing the party nomination.
White House officials have insisted that "nothing inappropriate" took place. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to say if Sestak was offered a job, but did say on Sunday that White House lawyers and others have looked into the matter. Political adviser David Axelrod hinted that the White House might have more to say.
"I don't think that any questions will be left unanswered on this," Axelrod said during a Monday appearance on CNN.
That hasn't quieted the calls for the administration, which frequently says it is the most transparent in history, to make a full disclosure.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele urged supporters to take to Twitter to pressure the White House into answering questions.
"We have Joe Sestak telling us that the White House offered him a deal, offered him a job, offered him something if he didn't run for the United States Senate. The White House won't answer the question," Steele said in a Web video.
Two top Democrats — party chief Tim Kaine and Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate — said the White House and Sestak need to address these questions.
"At some point, I think Congressman Sestak needs to make it clear what happened," Durbin told CNN, adding that he was not pointing fingers at either party.
In Blue Bell, Pa., Republican candidate Pat Toomey said Tuesday that Sestak should clarify what job the White House offered him to drop a primary challenge. Toomey, a former Republican congressman who pushed Specter out of the Republican primary, said he prefers to focus on issues but "it would be helpful" if Sestak cleared the air about the job offer.
Sestak spokesman Jonathon Dworkin dismissed Toomey's rhetoric.
"If Congressman Toomey really wanted to focus on issues that matter to the working families of Pennsylvania, he wouldn't be bringing in the Republican establishment from Washington, D.C., to speak for him about political distractions," Dworkin said.
Steele, campaigning for Toomey, noted Sestak was the one who first disclosed the job offer.
"Speaking of forthright, don't you just love Congressman Sestak right now?" Steele said. "Singing all kinds of tunes. White House is not happy."
In the House, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California suggested the White House was stonewalling.
"The chorus is growing louder from both Democrats and Republicans for both Joe Sestak and the White House to finally disclose what was said and who said it," said Issa, who unsuccessfully sought a Justice Department investigation.
National Democrats have urged the White House to quickly dispatch with the nagging question and focus on the midterm elections, when voters will pick 36 senators, 37 governors and the entire 435-member House.
____
Associated Press writer Patrick Walters in Blue Bell, Pa., contributed to this report.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2345 - A Tale of Three States 27/5/2010, 03:56 | |
| A Tale of Three StatesBy Lisa Fabrizio on 5.26.10 @ 6:08AMFolks outside of the Northeast have long been perplexed by an apparent electoral anomaly; for years, these states that consistently send liberals to Congress have chosen Republicans as their governors. - Spoiler:
The GOP has held the title in Connecticut since 1995 while New York's George Pataki reigned for twelve years until the disastrous election of Eliot Spitzer. New Jersey suffered through nearly a decade of financial degradation before electing Chris Christie. Those of us who live in the area are pretty well convinced that the explanation for this is that our fellow northeasterners want a daddy in charge of our particular nanny states. Thus do they continue to elect what are euphemistically called fiscal conservatives, Rockefeller Republicans or most commonly, RINOs. That enables these folks to vote for candidates who are socially liberal -- supporters of abortion, gay marriage, etc, -- but keep an eye on finances; a combination which satisfies both their consciences and their pocketbooks. Now these Rockefeller Republicans have always bowed to pressure from local liberals to grow government programs and fund their partisan groups, particularly teachers unions. But the times may be a-changin', as they say. Republicans of the RINO genus are still on the prowl here, but they are developing quite a considerable set of horns.Take the newly elected governor of New Jersey. The deeds of the redoubtable Chris Christie are indeed incredible, beyond a doubt. In a few short months he has managed to enrage just about every liberal in the Garden State by slashing budgets, freezing teacher pay, cutting non-essential programs, and swiftly vetoing a so-called millionaire's tax. And although he may be moderate on a few issues, his words are like sweet music to the ears of conservatives. As a candidate he promised, "I will remake the court and I will remake it on this one simple principle: If you [want to] legislate, [then] run for the Legislature, don't put on a black robe and go to the Supreme Court." And when confronted by a reporter asking about his "confrontational" tone in support of school vouchers, he explained an essential difference between liberals and conservatives: "They believe in certain things. They believe in bigger government, higher taxes and more spending. I believe in less government, less taxes and in empowering local officials who were elected by their citizens. Now, I can see where there could be a disagreement or two." Les liberaux, le Party of No in New Jersey? Over in New York, the big news was the hat tossed in the gubernatorial ring by Andrew Cuomo, son of the man Rush Limbaugh tagged, "Mario the Pious." It seems that Merry Andrew has inherited none of his father's purported oratorical skills. He burst into the campaign with this succinct and detailed summary of his plan for governance: "My mission is to develop an agenda for this state and develop support among the people. I believe if you do that successfully, the Legislature will pass an intelligent agenda supported by the people. Otherwise, you would have to believe that legislators would act adverse to the interests of the people of their district." But the real surprise is that young Cuomo is said to be in favor of adopting some conservative stances like support for charter schools and caps on state spending and property taxes.In nearby Connecticut, home of yours truly, the buzz is not about our gubernatorial contest, but surrounds the replacement for our ultra-liberal senator, Christopher Dodd. Short weeks ago, Republicans held moderate hopes of seeing Dodd's seat go the way of his longtime pal Ted Kennedy's. The fact that Dodd decided against defending his incumbency was evidence enough that Democrats were worried about affairs in the Nutmeg State, but they were confident that voters would flock to the side of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Of course, recent revelations from his past have severely wounded his chances. Now in fairness, I must disclose that I have heard Blumenthal speak at more than a few veterans functions where it was common knowledge that he never saw active duty during the Vietnam era. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with many who characterize him as the worst AG in the nation and one of the most dangerous men in America. It is only fitting that WWE magnate Linda McMahon is prepared to go to the mat against him. And although she is also a RINO, she would be the first Republican senator -- no, Lowell Weicker doesn't count -- from our state since Prescott Bush, father of George H.W. and granddaddy of George W.So in New York and Connecticut, things are looking up for those of us tired of big government, high taxes and other countless manifestations of the tender mercies of the Nanny State. And if, by some chance, our November dreams don't come true, we can always move to New Jersey.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2346 - Gibbs Cracks Whip as Administration Faces New Criticism 27/5/2010, 04:12 | |
| La "transparence" promise par le POTUS et implementee par le porte-parole de la Maison Blanche, pas exactement la meme que celle comprise et esperee par la presse americaine, pour ne parler que d'elle? Gibbs Cracks Whip as Administration Faces New CriticismPublished May 26, 2010FOXNews.comWhite House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been keeping pesky reporters at bay as the Obama administration faces mounting pressure over controversies ranging from the BP oil spill to the allegation that the White House offered a congressman a job to drop out of a race against a key ally. - Spoiler:
 White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs talks to reporters May 20 in Washington. (AP Photo)
The press secretary repeated that line five more times before cutting off reporters. Journalists may get a chance to take their questions straight to the top on Thursday, when President Obama is expected to hold a press conference - though it's unclear how extensive that will be. The White House says the event will be comparable to the full-blown press conferences held last year. But the announcement came after the White House faced criticism from the press corps about the fact that the president hadn't convened a full-scale press conference since July of last year.
Gibbs ridiculed a reporter who pointed that out at the May 3 briefing. He argued that critics were quibbling over the definition of a press conference and noted that Obama took eight questions at the Nuclear Security Summit on April 13. "Is it a number thing ... if it wasn't eight, it maybe was like nine?" Gibbs said. Well, there's 47 that are here today," the reporter responded. "So 47." The back-and-forth continued until the reporter begged to move on to a different issue. Gibbs resisted. "I suddenly have found this to be wildly amusing," he said.
Quand on pense que la totalite des reporters a vote pour Obama (dixit le POTUS) - bon ca m'etonnerait tout de meme que ce soit le cas de Major Garrett, alors disons la presque totalite - et l'a soutenu pendant toute sa campagne... On comprend qu'ils soient un peu mecontent du traitement professionnel qu'ils subissent - Le pire depuis Nixon selon Helen Thomas (90 ans!), la veterante du groupe. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2347 - 27/5/2010, 04:51 | |
|
Moving the National Guard to the border
... Are we afraid of offending the drug cartel and hte coyotes who smuggle people? ...
Video - O'Reilly
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2348 - 27/5/2010, 05:48 | |
| Breath in - Breat out
Video - Sean Hannity |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2349 - Conservative pundit on attorneys who allegedly exposed CIA interrogators 27/5/2010, 07:47 | |
| Quand je dis qu''reusement qu'on l'a... Conservative pundit on attorneys who allegedly exposed CIA interrogators
O'Reilly - Video |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2350 - 27/5/2010, 08:47 | |
| National Debt Soars Past $13 Trillion Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: National Debt Is 'True Emergency'  By ALICE GOMSTYN
ABC NEWS Business UnitMay 26, 2010 The U.S. national debt has passed the $13 trillion mark, according to USDebtClock.org, an independent website that tracks the real-time growth of U.S. revenues and spending. (http://usdebtclock.org/) - Spoiler:
On Tuesday, the national debt stood at $12,995,779,490,444.52, according to the Treasury Department's national debt-tracking website TreasuryDirect.gov.
The Treasury Department did not immediately return a request from ABC News for comment.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky., wasted no time in sounding an alarm about the new debt milestone. In a statement released today, McConnell cited the debt in his criticism of what's called the tax extenders bill, which would extend unemployment benefits and the amount of time unemployed workers could stay on their group health plan through COBRA, as well as certain tax cuts. McConnell said the bill would cost $130 billion.
"As early as today, we'll reach a dubious milestone in America: a $13 trillion national debt -- the first time in history we've crossed this frightening threshold. This extenders bill would add another $130 billion on top of that. ...This is fiscal recklessness."The true emergency here is our national debt," he said. Addison Wiggin, the executive producer of the 2008 documentary I.O.U.S.A. and the editorial director of the website Daily Reckoning, said everything from the government's regular operations to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the U.S. stimulus package to lackluster tax revenues have contributed to the recent rapid growth of the national debt. A decade ago, he said, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. By 2005, it rose to $7.7 trillion. As of six months ago, it stood at $12 trillion. The larger the debt grows, the faster the U.S. government's interest payments pile up, which helps explain why USDebtClock.org's national debt tracker jumps hundreds of thousands of dollars in less than a minute. "As time goes on, it's such a large figure, you can actually see the interest that we have to pay on it rise if you calculate it down to the second as this site does," Wiggin said. Wiggin said that U.S. government's borrowing grew especially quickly during the height of the financial crisis, because investors wanted to lend money to the United States -- it was seen as a safer place to stash wealth than the stock market or even banks. The clamor for U.S. Treasury bonds meant that the government could negotiate lower interest rate payments on its debt.
This Feb. 1, 2010, file photo shows the National Debt Clock in New York. The U.S. national debt has passed the $13 trillion mark, according to USDebtClock.org, an independent website that tracks the real-time growth of U.S. revenues and spending. TreasuryDirect.gov lists the national debt, as of Monday, May 24, as nearly $12.99 trillion.  (Mark Lennihan/AP Photo)
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2351 - AP source: Salazar calls for delaying exploratory drilling in Arctic Ocean until 2011 27/5/2010, 08:55 | |
| AP source: Salazar calls for delaying exploratory drilling in Arctic Ocean until 2011Published May 27, 2010Associated PressWASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is suspending proposed exploratory drilling in the Arctic Ocean.- Spoiler:
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says in a report to be delivered to the White House on Thursday that he will not consider applications for permits to drill in the Arctic until 2011. Shell Oil is poised to begin exploratory drilling this summer on leases as far as 140 miles offshore.
An administration official familiar with the plan said Salazar wants to allow further study of proposed drilling technology and oil spill response capabilities in Arctic waters. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public.
Salazar has said he wants to take a cautious approach in the Arctic.
President Barack Obama ordered Salazar to conduct a review of the nation's offshore oil drilling safety after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill last month.
In March, Obama and Salazar canceled a planned 2011 lease sale in Alaska's Bristol Bay, where oil development was proposed by the Bush administration. They canceled four scheduled lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and said no additional leases would be offered there until more scientific data are collected.
An administration official said Salazar believes that fisheries, tourism and environmental values in Bristol Bay make the area inappropriate for oil and gas drilling.
Shell, which has leases in both the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, had sought to begin drilling five exploratory wells in those areas this summer. Salazar's announcement means those wells will not be considered until 2011.
Salazar also is directing the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct an independent evaluation of oil spill risks and spill response capabilities in the state.
Shell Oil, the U.S. arm of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, has the backing of Alaska's political leaders. With few exceptions, they support offshore drilling, a stance articulated by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP nominee for vice president.
About 90 percent of Alaska's general fund revenue comes from the petroleum industry. State leaders look to offshore oil to provide jobs and keep the trans-Alaska pipeline from running dry.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2352 - NKorea says it will scrap accord aimed at preventing accidental naval clash with SKorea 27/5/2010, 09:00 | |
| NKorea says it will scrap accord aimed at preventing accidental naval clash with SKoreaPublished May 27, 2010Associated PressSEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea announced Thursday that it will scrap an accord aimed at preventing accidental naval clashes with South Korea in retaliation for Seoul blaming Pyongyang for a torpedo attack that sank a South Korean warship.- Spoiler:
Tension on the divided peninsula has risen dramatically since a team of international investigators said last week that a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine tore apart and sank a South Korean warship on March 26, killing 46 sailors. North Korea has denied its involvement in the sinking and warned any retaliation would mean war.
On Thursday, North Korea's military said it will "completely nullify" an inter-Korean accord aimed at preventing accidental armed skirmishes along the disputed western sea border — a scene of three bloody maritime battles between the two Koreas.
"Immediate physical strikes will be launched" against any South Korean ships that intrude into North Korean waters, the country's military said in a statement, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.
It said it will also start a review to possibly ban South Korean personnel and vehicles from entering a joint industrial park in the North Korean border town of Kaesong — the last remaining major inter-Korean reconciliation project. It gave no timeframe, however.
The announcement came hours after a fleet of South Korean warships staged a large-scale anti-submarine drill off the west coast despite North Korea's warnings that such exercises will drive the peninsula to the brink of war.
The two Koreas are still technically at war because their 1950-53 conflict ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty. The U.S. stations 28,500 troops in South Korea, a legacy of the Korean War.
South Korean and U.S. troops are on their highest alert since North Korea's second nuclear test in May last year, reports said. The mass-circulation JoongAng Ilbo newspaper, citing an unidentified Seoul official, reported Thursday the South Korean-U.S. combined forces command raised their surveillance level called Watch Condition, up a level from 3 to 2. Level 1 is the highest.
South Korea, backed by the U.S., Japan and other allies, has begun carrying out punitive measures that range from slashing trade and resuming propaganda warfare to barring the North's cargo ships — the strongest it can implement short of military action.
North Korea quickly responded by threatening to cut ties with South Korea, wage "all-out counterattacks" against psychological warfare operations and bar South Korean ships and airliners from its waters and airspace.
"We will never tolerate the slightest provocations of our enemies, and will answer to that with all-out war," North Korean Maj. Gen. Pak Chan Su, a Korean War veteran, told broadcaster APTN in Pyongyang. "This is the firm standpoint of our People's Army."
South Korea pressed ahead Thursday with anti-submarine drills to boost readiness against any North Korean provocations.
During a one-day exercise off the west coast, 10 warships including a 3,500-ton destroyer, fired artillery and other naval guns and dropped anti-submarine bombs off Taean, about 95 miles (150 kilometers) south of Seoul, the navy said.
It was the first anti-submarine drill since the Cheonan disaster, which occurred about 100 miles (160 kilometers) to the north, according to the navy.
South Korea is also planning two major joint military drills with the U.S. off the west coast by July in a display of force intended to deter future aggression by North Korea.
North Korean state media, citing the drills, criticized South Korea on Wednesday for "driving the situation to the brink of explosion."
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2353 - Faces of War: Femal on the Front Lines 27/5/2010, 09:10 | |
| Faces of War: Female on the Front LinesMay 26, 2010 - 10:39 AMby: Rick LeventhalTraditionally women have been kept at a distance from the front lines, but in Afghanistan there are no front lines. The fight is everywhere… and it’s nowhere. The combatants may be staying in the shadows or hiding in plain sight. And since there’s no battlefield per se in Helmand Province, women are serving in the U.S. military here in a variety of roles.- Spoiler:
One of those women is 21-year-old Da’Shonda Shedd, an Army Private First Class from Marieta, Georgia, on her first Tour of Duty. She’s a Combat Engineer and her unit is working in support of the Marines 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion at Forward Operating Base Payne in Southern Afghanistan.
Da’Shonda is a bridge crew member. She and her fellow soldiers operate a ferry of sorts, moving troops, civilians and up to six huge armored vehicles at a time across the Helmand River between Payne and the wide open territory to the west.
She says she joined the Army for a change of pace and to prove people wrong, people who said she couldn’t do it. She tried college but it didn’t work out and says she was sick of the party life back home. She says she’s learned a lot since she’s been here and become a better person, less selfish and more appreciative of the little creature comforts we all take for granted. She also admits she’s counting the days until she can go home, especially with the temperature topping 110 every day and headed for 130 in a month or two.
Da’Shonda Shedd is a soldier, and she’s as close to war as any female can be.
|
| | | | OmbreBlanche
 Nombre de messages : 11154
Age : 51
Localisation : Nord Franche-Comté (25)
Date d'inscription : 16/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/5/2010, 09:33 | |
| - Citation :
- She says she joined the Army for a change of pace and to prove people wrong, people who said she couldn’t do it. She tried college but it didn’t work out and says she was sick of the party life back home. She says she’s learned a lot since she’s been here and become a better person, less selfish and more appreciative of the little creature comforts we all take for granted. She also admits she’s counting the days until she can go home, especially with the temperature topping 110 every day and headed for 130 in a month or two.
C'est très bien de se prouver des choses à soi-même et de se lancer des défis dans la vie.
A chacun de trouver un chemin à ses rêves.
Peut-être que la vie de mère au foyer ou secrétaire de bureau n'aurait pas convenu à cette jeune femme. Elle s'est épanouie dans l'Armée, c'est son choix. Respectons-le. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2354 - World Cap - Security Warning 27/5/2010, 09:39 | |
| Recu a l'instant confirmant, si doute subsistait pour quiconque, ce que Tsur nous avait decrit a ce sujet: TRAVEL ALERT: SOUTH AFRICA
1. The Department of State alerts U.S. citizens traveling to or residing in South Africa to safety and security issues related to the FIFA World Cup taking place in nine cities across the country from June 11 to July 11, 2010.
This travel alert expires July 31, 2010.
Full information about the World Cup for American visitors is available on the U.S. Mission to SouthAfrica's dedicated World Cup website.- Spoiler:
2. TERRORISM: Large-scale public events like the World
Cup may present a wide range of attractive targets for
terrorists. There is a heightened risk that extremist
groups will conduct terrorist acts within South Africa in
the near future. While a number of terrorist threats
against the World Cup in South Africa have appeared in
the media in recent weeks and months, the U.S. Government
has no information on any specific, credible threat of
attack that any individual or group is planning tocoincide with the tournament. In the event the U.S. Government receives information of any specific and credible threat, the Department of State will provide information on that threat to the public immediately through an updated Travel Alert or Travel Warning. All USC citizens in or traveling to South Africa are urged to register with the U.S. Mission to South Africa in order to receive these alerts as quickly as possible.
3. CRIME: The vast majority of visitors complete their travels in South Africa without problems; however, visitors should be aware that criminal activity, including violent crime, is prevalent throughout the country. Be alert and aware of your surroundings at all times, looking out for your own personal security. While driving, keep doors locked and windows closed, avoid having purses, phones, bags and luggage in plain view, and when stopping at intersections at night or in isolated locations, leave enough space in front of your vehicle for a quick exit. Be wary of street vendors at traffic lights, planted obstacles and staged "accidents" that may be traps for unsuspecting motorists. Do not stop for cars with flashing lights unless they are clearly marked as police or emergency service vehicles. Park your car in secure, gated parking lots or garages wherever possible, and do not leave bags or valuables in plain view. Travellers to South Africa should avoid carrying or displaying expensive items or wearing eye-catching jewelry, stay in a group, and avoid walking at night. Keep a photocopy of your passport with you, leaving the original in a hotel safe or other secure location. Lost or stolen passports should be reported to the local police and nearest U.S. Consulate.
4. PUBLIC DISTURBANCES: Organized or wildcat labor actions and protests in poorer communities against shortfalls in public services may occur during the World Cup. While localized and normally well away from typical tourist destinations, these disturbances can develop quickly and unpredictably, sometimes turning violent. Use caution and avoid any areas where protests, demonstrations or other public disturbances are taking place.
Suite non formatee:
5. IMMIGRATION, CUSTOMS, PUBLIC HEALTH: Scrutiny of[/size]
foreign travelers arriving at South African ports of
entry will be tightened during the World Cup. U.S.
citizens should ensure they have two blank pages marked
"Visas" in their passports as required for South African
entry formalities. Those travelers with criminal records
should consult the nearest South African Consulate or the
South African Embassy in Washington, D.C., before
traveling. Questions about carrying firearms or other
unusual items into the country may also be directed to
the nearest South African embassy or consulate. Any
traveler coming from or passing through the so-called
"yellow fever belt" of Africa and South America must
carry certification of having received a yellow fever
vaccination upon entry into South Africa. The yellow
fever belt is defined to include the following
countries/territories:
Africa: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Central African Republic, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-
Kinshasa, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,
Gambia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ghana, Kenya,
Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao
Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Tanzania, Togo, and Uganda.
South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia,
Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Panama, Peru, and
Suriname.
6. LODGING: Extreme shortages of hotel rooms are likely
during the World Cup, particularly in the smaller World
Cup host cities including Bloemfontein, Nelspruit,
Polokwane, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, and Rustenburg.
Visitors are urged to book rooms well in advance. See
the FIFA 2010 World Cup Fan Guide for commercial
accommodation services covering all World Cup host
cities. Assistance with last-minute accommodation needs
can also be obtained by calling South Africa Tourism at
087-803-INFO (4636), or from outside South Africa at 27-
87-803-4636 (available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day).
7. TRANSPORTATION: While South Africa has adequate and
generally safe intercity air and surface transportation
including planes, buses, and trains, public
transportation within cities is poorly developed and not
nearly up to U.S. standards. Travelers are advised to
use rental cars or book private transport from one of the
many commercial operations available. While park-and-
ride and park-and-walk facilities are being established
around all 10 World Cup stadiums, space for parked cars
is expected to be extremely limited. The website Find
Your Way, operated by the South African Department of
Transport and still under construction as of mid-May,
promises to provide useful transportation-related
information in time for the opening of the tournament.
Assistance with transportation can also be obtained by
calling South Africa Tourism at 087-803-INFO (4636), or,
from outside South Africa, at 27-87-803-4636 (available 7
days a week, 24 hours a day).
8. U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad are
encouraged to register with the nearest U.S. Embassy or
Consulate through the State Department's travel
registration website so that they can obtain updated
information on travel and security. U.S. citizens
without Internet access may register directly with the
nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate. By registering, U.S.
citizens make it easier for the Embassy or Consulate to
contact them in case of emergency. For additional
information, please refer to "A Safe Trip Abroad."
9. For the latest security information, U.S. citizens
traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Bureau of
Consular Affairs web site where the current Worldwide
Caution, travel warnings, and travel alerts can be found.
Up-to-date information on security can also be obtained
by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the United States
and Canada or, for callers outside the United States and
Canada, a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444. These
numbers are available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal
holidays). Additional travel-related information may
also be found in the State Department's Country Specific
Information for South Africa, and the World Cup Fact
Sheet.
etc ...
|
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/5/2010, 10:01 | |
| Juste Ciel ! Et moi qui croyais que depuis que ses pères fondateurs et défricheurs de ce pays avaient abdiqué, l'Afrique du Sud n'était que miel, nectar et félicité... bref, un paradis non contaminé par l'homme blanc. Que c'est dur de se sentir berné ! 
Dernière édition par Biloulou le 27/5/2010, 10:28, édité 1 fois | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/5/2010, 10:07 | |
| |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2358 - Seven questions for President Obama- Part 1 27/5/2010, 14:23 | |
| Ouff... Seven questions for President ObamaBy JOSH GERSTEIN & CAROL E. LEE | 5/27/10 8:09 AM EDT The president's performance at the Q-and-A will determine if the spill will plague him for months. AP - Spoiler:
By pegging it to the BP oil spill, Obama has upped the ante even further.
He’s putting an issue that appears increasingly out of his control up for discussion in what has not always been his most successful forum. (At the last East Room session, he said Cambridge cops acted “stupidly” in arresting a Harvard professor, and the “beer summit” was born.)
Obama isn’t coming to the Q-and-A session empty-handed: officials say he’ll announce he’s extending a 30-day moratorium on new offshore drilling for the next six months, and cancel drilling in waters near the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, along with pending lease sales off Virginia and in the Western Gulf. He’ll also tighten the permitting and inspection process.
But there’s no indication yet that he’ll do what some critics say he should – take control of the spill fix away from BP and make it a federal project.
Obama’s performance at the presser could go a long way toward determining whether the spill will continue to plague him for months, or an unwieldy problem that he managed to wrestle under control just when it seemed to be slipping away.
Here are some questions on the questions likely to dominate the exchange:
1. Mr. President, in light of the fact that your administration was responsible for approving the permit for BP’s offshore oil drilling and waiving an environmental impact statement, do you think someone needs to be fired? And shouldn’t you have addressed the misconduct and undue coziness with industry that seems to have been rife at the Minerals Management Service before you moved in March to give the same agency authority to open new areas to offshore drilling?
Obama is expected to announce tougher safety standards for offshore drilling, but he can't completely fault the previous administration, as he has been inclined to do about other issues. The federal government’s fault for the oil spill is falling on Obama, and he has got some explaining to do.
Just 18 days before the April 20 explosion on the oil rig, Obama touted his plan to allow oil drilling 50 to 100 miles off the coast, where it’s “not risky.” He touted the safety record as he tried to sell his new drilling plan to the public.
“It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills,” Obama said at an event in North Carolina. “They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.”
The will-heads-roll? question is sure to come up early, but it seems unlikely he’ll have a high-level pink slip in hand at the presser. In fact, he seems to be embracing one person whose performance on this has been panned, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who did the report Obama is announcing Thursday
2. Q: Mr. President, You were a fierce critic of Bush’s handling to Katrina, as a senator you cited his “unconscionable ineptitude” in his response. Do you now feel your criticism of Bush was at all unfair? Do you have any more sympathy for his predicament during Katrina?
Even after Obama took office the criticism of Bush over Katrina continued. A post in the “agenda” section of the White House website cited the “unconscionable ineptitude” remark and vowed to “keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.”
All mention of Bush has since been scrubbed from the site, and the White House has rejected any comparison – vigorously disputing the notion of “Obama’s Katrina.”
For candidate Obama, “Katrina” became like a one-word epithet that encapsulated all that he saw wrong with Bush – managerial incompetence, cronyism and indifference to the plight to people, including minorities. By the end of Bush’s term, many voters saw it the same way – and that’s why it’s such a dangerous term for Obama as well.
Now that Obama faces heat over a disaster in the Gulf, it’s a wonder if he sees things differently from inside the Oval Office.
3. Q: Mr. President, the White House has insisted for weeks that the federal government is providing every resource needed to combat the spill. However, it’s clear that oil is nevertheless coming ashore in some areas. Is it time to start dispatching federal personnel, including the military, to do the manual cleanup and shore protection work?
The White House has been boasting in recent days that Obama has sent 1,000 federal employees to the gulf, mostly managers and technical experts. But there are 2.8 million civilian employees in the federal government and 1.6 million men and women in uniform. And coordinating the frontline response has been left largely to BP.
At the same time, federal officials have said they lack the equipment and expertise to handle the deep sea efforts to get the well under control—a battle being fought a mile below the ocean’s surface. But it’s clear that, as with Katrina or other disasters, the military could quickly put more boots on the ground if Obama gave the order. While the armed forces are stretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some like Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) are urging the president to do just that.
Some are also pressing the federal government to give permission for dredging work to erect sand berms off the Louisiana coast. Local officials say doing that could protect some of the most sensitive areas from oil, but some experts doubt the plan will work
.../...
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2359 - 27/5/2010, 14:32 | |
| .../... - Spoiler:
4. Mr. President, why not just take over from BP? Does the law and the established practice of putting oil companies in charge of cleaning up any spill need to be changed, especially for spills of the magnitude the country is now facing in the Gulf?
As the spill unfolded, the White House seemed pleased to pass the buck to BP and to downplay the federal role in the response. But as the crisis has spiraled out of control, Obama’s aides have discovered that shifting the blame to BP is not a strategy that is likely to satisfy Gulf residents in the long term.
After the Exxon Valdez spill in 1990, Congress rushed to fix the problem by passing a law that formally designated ship and offshore well owners as the “responsible party” for cleaning up any spill (a term the public has heard a lot from Team Obama about BP). The law also required companies to create a “response plan” for any mishap.
The idea was that taxpayers wouldn’t get stuck with the tab for costly cleanups. In practice, however, it’s left oil companies in charge of containing and remediating the damage they’ve caused.
Experts say the system has worked pretty well for small spills and even larger ones from tankers and refineries. But with a spill from a powerful well like the one in the gulf, this quickly becomes a triage situation where decisions have to be about to proceed and environmental concerns. These are decisions that seem fundamentally governmental, not corporate. Yet, the current system seems to put a foreign petroleum company in charge of that process, with the government looking over its shoulder. Some say that, at least with a spill of this magnitude, that system needs to change.
5. Mr. President, your senior adviser David Axelrod said this week that it would be a “serious breach of the law” if a White House official offered Rep. Joe Sestak a job, like Secretary of the Navy, in order to get him out of the Senate primary in Pennsylvania. However, Axelrod also said that the White House had concluded the allegations were “unwarranted.”
Are they “unwarranted” because no one ever discussed a job with Sestak or are they “unwarranted” because lawyers decided there’s nothing legally or ethically wrong with such an offer? And do you support the call all seven Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans made this week for appointment of a special counsel to investigate?
It’s become an intriguing D.C. whodunit where everyone’s said a little, no one’s said a lot and Obama's never said a word. It seems clear that some White House official, reportedly Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, at least hinted at the possibility of a job for Sestak. Sestak himself has public described this sort of offer, which he said seemed to be aimed at getting him out of the primary race with Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), to whom Obama had pledged “full support.” More than a week after Sestak handily dispatched the five-term incumbent and former Republican Specter, Obama has yet to comment on the flap, or the White House’s inability to forestall Specter’s loss.
The alleged job offer has drawn sternly worded complaints from Republicans, along with demands for a special counsel. But a variety of Republican and Democratic lawyers say that even if such a job offer might run afoul of the letter of some federal statutes, such cases are never prosecuted. “This is just goofy stuff,” said veteran defense attorney Stan Brand. “People make deals all the time in politics. It’s not all criminal.”
Regardless of the legalities, Obama has particular vulnerability here because of the purer-than-driven-snow image his administration has sought to cultivate on ethics. A continuing swirl of questions about the issue could also taint Sestak in what's looking to be a tougher-than-expected race. With Axelrod indicating that the facts will come out soon, now might be as good a time as any for Obama to try to put this one to rest.
6. Mr. President, when you announced Elena Kagan as your nominee for the Supreme Court, you praised her for bringing intellectual diversity to the Harvard law faculty by recruiting conservative professors. If she deserves credit for bringing intellectual diversity to the school, why shouldn’t she be held responsible for failing to recruit any African-American or Latino professors to Harvard’s tenured faculty during her six years as dean?
When Obama introduced Kagan back on May 10, he praised her for bringing some ideological balance to his alma mater. “At a time when many believed that the Harvard faculty had gotten a little one-sided in its viewpoint, she sought to recruit prominent conservative scholars and spur a healthy debate on campus,” the president said.
However, as Duke professor Guy-Uriel Wright and colleagues observed in Salon: “She did not hire a single African American, Latino, or Native American tenured or tenure track academic law professor. She hired 25 men, all of whom were white, and seven women, six of whom were white and one Asian American.”
White House officials and Kagan allies have responded that her commitment to diversity is evidenced by increases in minority student rolls at Harvard while she was dean. Kagan’s colleagues insist that she urged faculty offers to minority scholars, but that few took them. Still, it’s not clear why Kagan’s powers of persuasion proved more effective with conservatives than minorities.
7. Mr. President, how do you plan to operate differently next year if Republicans control the House or the Senate?
The notion of Republicans winning the House or the Senate is something Obama will increasingly have to contend with, as polls show the GOP likely to make major inroads in both houses of Congress. The president’s contentious meeting with Senate Republicans this week raises the question of whether he would be able to accomplish much of anything if Democrats are no longer in charge on Capitol Hill.
Mike Allen and Glenn Thrush contributed reporting
Je n'ai aucun doute que le POTUS arrivera pret et arme pour cette rare conference de presse. |
| | | | OmbreBlanche
Nombre de messages : 11154
Age : 51
Localisation : Nord Franche-Comté (25)
Date d'inscription : 16/11/2008
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/5/2010, 14:53 | |
| C'est votre opinion, Ombre, et vous y avez droit bien entendu.
Je connais peu les Socialistes francais (alors le fait qu'ils aient ou non des idees..), mais je sais une chose vous vous trompez completement au sujet des Republicains.
Ignorer les idees Republicaines (comme le fait le gouvernement Obama parce qu'elles ne collent pas avec une certaine ideologie) ne signifie pas pour autant qu'elles n'existent pas. (ex: les plans assurance-sante) |
| | | | 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
| |
| |
| |
|
