.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: 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) |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/5/2010, 15:04 | |
| Sarkozy a subi un échec pour les Régionales et Obama subira probablement une déroute pour les élections de mi-mandat... mais pour moi, cela restera des votes protestataires.Ben oui, c'est generalement ca un CHANGEment de parti.  Si les gens etaient contents ils ne CHANGEraient pas leur facon de voter. Aux Etats Unis, une chose est certaine un gros tiers a droite, un gros tiers a gauche et un petit tiers au milieu, et c'est le petit tiers qui fait tout basculer. (A part ca, il faut tout de meme savoir que seul un bon quart des Americains est reellement liberal (de gauche/gauche ), les autres sont assez traditionalistes pour ne pas dire conservateurs, alors evidemment, le programme du POTUS...) Donc, si Obama a ete elu c'est que le petit tiers (celui du milieu, les Independants) a cru entendre quelque chose, malheureusement ou il a mal compris ou il a l'impression qu'il a ete eu, resultat: il risque d'y avoir a nouveau un CHANGEment en Novembre au Congres (quand je dis "risque", je me comprends, hein!  ) Ceci dit, ... oui, novembre est encore tres loin... et je ne m'appelle pas Perette. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 27/5/2010, 16:46 | |
| Plus ardente supporter du POTUS que Kirsten Powers etait difficile a trouver.
Where was plan A? O still bumbling on oil spill
Kirsten Powers
Do something, baby, do something: That's the cry from Obama supporters and opponents alike as the oil keeps gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. - Spoiler:
The political firestorm kept growing yesterday, with supporter James Carville ranting that the administraion has been "lackadaisical" and "naive" in its response to the disaster. He urged it to rapidly "move to Plan B." But that suggests there was ever a Plan A. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is so frustrated with the lack of response to his plan to stop the slick with sand barriers that yesterday he called on the White House and BP to either "stop the oil spill or get out of the way."  ReutersWhile the White House dithers, the damage has begun: Veterinarian Heather Nevill washing a pelican soiled with oil from the Gulf spill.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2364 - News Alert 27/5/2010, 17:10 | |
| The Obama administration has fired the head of the U.S. Minerals Management Service in response to blistering criticism over lax oversight of offshore drilling, the Associated Press reports. Elizabeth “Liz” Birnbaum had run the service in the Interior Department since July 2009. Voila du nouveau a annoncer a la conference de presse! Sous le bus, Elizabeth! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2365 - POTUS: Press Conference 27/5/2010, 20:10 | |
| Alors la News Alert avait tort, il ne l'a pas renvoyee, Elizabeth, c'est elle qui a donne sa demission. C'est en tout cas ce qu'il a dit a sa conference de presse. CNN (Londres) a decide d'interrompre la retransmission de la conference, c'est surprenant tout de meme. Un commentaire de la presentatrice: pourquoi avoir convoque les journalistes si c'est pour repondre aux questions avec incertitude et meme, en en evitant certaines.Ceci dit, c'est toujours la meme histoire: c'est pas moi, c'est Bush et l'administration (la, on n'entend pas: "Moi, en tant que President des Etats Unis...", c'est seulement "l'administration", une espece d'organisme dont il est distant...) n'a pas eu le temps de nettoyer la corruption d'avant! En gros les Republicains sont des pourris et des incapables moi c'est pas de ma faute, je fais tout ce que je peux pour nettoyer derriere eux mais ca prend du temps. Breath in - Breath out! Voyons, les jours a venir, si son charisme aura encore fait son effet. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2366 - Obama's Border Security Plan Falls Short, Ranchers Say 27/5/2010, 21:13 | |
| Obama's Border Security Plan Falls Short, Ranchers SayBy Joshua Rhett MillerPublished May 27, 2010FOXNews.comAs President Obama pledges to send 1,200 unarmed National Guard troops to the U.S./Mexico border in an attempt to fight illegal immigration and drug smuggling, ranchers – still reeling from the recent murder of a fellow farmer – tell FoxNews.com that the plan does not provide maximum border security. Arizona Farming & Ranching Hall of FameArizona rancher Robert Krentz, pictured here in 2008, was killed in March on his own property 35 miles outside of the border town of Douglas, Ariz.- Spoiler:
U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual told reporters Wednesday that the 1,200 troops will act as a bridge until more Customs and Border Protection agents are stationed at the 2,000-mile border. They will "review and analyze" intelligence, he said, and will interact with people crossing the border.
But Rancher Wendy Glenn, whose Malpai Ranch just east of Douglas, Arizona, has roughly 4 miles of border fence, says having guardsmen review statistics isn’t enough. While she has noticed an increase in overall border security since the murder of fellow rancher Robert Krentz in March, Glenn says the latest strategy by the Obama administration doesn't address the key issue – stopping illegals from entering the U.S. through Mexico.
"We need more people on the border," she told FoxNews.com. "We don't need people sitting at desks. We would rather see more people on a border road."
Ranchers’ fears have grown since the March 27 murder of Krentz, 58, who cops say was gunned down by an illegal immigrant as the farmer – whose family has been ranching in southern Arizona since 1907 – was tending to fences and water lines on his 34,000-acre cattle ranch.
Investigators believe Krentz encountered a drug smuggler who was likely heading back to Mexico.
Glenn said Krentz's killing, which remains unsolved, has brought "international attention" to illegal immigration and drug smuggling in southeastern Arizona's Cochise County. But that hasn't translated to increased presence where it matters most, she said.
"We're getting the attention, but we're not getting extra people on the border," Glenn said. "It would make more sense to us to get more people on the border and stop people from coming in."
A White House official declined to indicate whether the National Guard troops will assist in securing the border near Glenn's and Krentz's ranches.
"The National Guard will determine the units with the appropriate skills to carry out the missions in support of border protection and law enforcement activities," the official wrote in an e-mail. "As for where, when the decisions are made, they will be made with intel and operational considerations in mind."
Glenn Spencer, founder of American Border Patrol, a nonprofit organization that monitors the border by plane, said he regularly surveys the border and the "major smuggling corridor" where Krentz was killed. Spencer said he flew along a 28-mile stretch of land on Wednesday morning and saw just one Customs and Border Protection vehicle during his trip.
"It isn't enough," he said. "[The border] is not secure."
Spencer said utilizing the National Guard troops as Obama proposes is a "waste of resources" and says U.S. officials should put their energy into focusing on securing a border fence.
According to Customs and Border Protection figures, 646 of roughly 670 miles of pedestrian and vehicle border fencing has been constructed as of March. Just 6 miles of fencing infrastructure is left to be completed along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. The roughly 1,350 miles that will not be protected by a border fence of any kind will be patrolled by border agents or technology -- or a combination of both.
Meanwhile, Roger Barnett, another rancher in the area who knew Krentz, said he has noticed no increase in surveillance near his cattle ranch in Douglas. He doubts that 1,200 troops -- on or off the border -- will make a significant difference.
"What a shell game, you might say," Barnett said. "To effectively close the border, I think they need 100,000 troops. I don't think it's going to help. It's just like putting a Band-Aid on that oil well in the Gulf."
T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 17,000 agents, agreed with Barnett's assessment.
"People shouldn't be surprised if the violence continues," Bonner told the Associated Press. "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 they will start playing nice."
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2367 - 27/5/2010, 21:54 | |
| Obama's Katrina [Yuval Levin]
I think it’s actually right to say that the BP oil spill is something like Obama’s Katrina, but not in the sense in which most critics seem to mean it.- Spoiler:
It’s like Katrina in that many people's attitudes regarding the response to it reveal completely unreasonable expectations of government. The fact is, accidents (not to mention storms) happen. We can work to prepare for them, we can have various preventive rules and measures in place. We can build the capacity for response and recovery in advance. But these things happen, and sometimes they happen on a scale that is just too great to be easily addressed. It is totally unreasonable to expect the government to be able to easily address them—and the kind of government that would be capable of that is not the kind of government that we should want.Let’s say a major hurricane hits a large and densely populated American city with five hundred thousand inhabitants. Much of the city is below sea level, and the flood-waters that follow in the wake of the storm quickly overrun it, filling nearly every street with water, in many places fifteen feet in depth. The magnitude of human suffering and destruction of property is mind-boggling. But within six days, everyone is out of the city and in total approximately one thousand people—one in five hundred residents—lost their lives in the calamity. Hour by hour, the government response was messy and ugly—it could hardly be otherwise given the magnitude of the disaster. But looked at with a little perspective, is that really a story of a failure of government response, or is it an example of how to contend with an immense natural disaster in a densely populated urban center? Is it a model of incompetence, or the most effective mass evacuation in human history?Now let’s say a massive oil drilling platform, working with a variety of flammable and explosive liquids and gases in huge amounts more than 40 miles out in the ocean suddenly experiences a catastrophic failure that sets off a fiery explosion, sets the rig on fire, and causes it to sink—releasing an enormous gush of oil into the ocean more than 5,000 feet below sea level. Vast quantities of oil spill into the sea, threatening fish, wildlife, and coastal industries. The company that owns the rig, together with federal regulators, scientists, and engineers, tries a variety of different techniques—from remotely operated vehicles to containment domes to pumping heavy fluids down large pipes onto the well head—some of them invented on the fly, while 80 ships and several thousand people engage in a sophisticated cleanup and containment effort. Is this a failure of regulation and a model of slothful inefficiency, or is it an impressive display of human ingenuity and power in response to a terrible accident? We don’t yet know how long the spill will continue or how bad its consequences will turn out to be. And obviously it would have been great to avert such an accident, or to respond even faster and more effectively when it happened. But can we really say that not having done so is a massive failure of government, or of the oil industry?We seem to think that given our modern powers, there ought to be no accidents and no natural disasters anymore, and when those happen we blame the people in charge. Well, call me crazy but I don’t want a government so powerful that it could move half a million people in mere hours in response to a hurricane, or would have such total control over every facet of every industry that the potential for industrial accidents would be entirely eliminated. Such power would come at enormous cost to a lot of things we care about.We who live in the 21st century West have the least messy, least dangerous, least uncertain lives of any human beings in history. We should be very grateful for that, but we should not let our good fortune utterly distort our expectations of life, and we should not react with unrestrained indignant shock anytime the limitations of our power make themselves seen or the cold and harsh capriciousness of nature overcomes our defenses. We should expect a firm response from the institutions we have built to protect ourselves—science, technology, and modern government—but we cannot expect a perfect response. Not from Bush, and not from Obama.Let’s hope the administration does a better job in response to this spill than it has so far, just as the Bush administration could certainly have done a better job in its response to Katrina. It’s clear they have made mistakes. But let’s not pretend that what we’re witnessing here is fundamentally a colossal failure of the federal government. There are plenty of those going on, but this isn’t one of them.05/27 01:22 PM
Je suis assez d'accord avec cette analyse. La question No.2 du message 2358 : Question No2 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?
s'en approchait d'ailleurs. La verite est que je pense sincerement qu'Obama fasse tout ce qu'il peut et n'ait qu'un souhait, que les fuites soient colmatees le plus rapidement possible. Tout comme je suis convaincue que Pres. Bush a fait absolument tout ce qu'il a pu pendant Katrina. Malheureusement, le POTUS n'acceptera jamais de le reconnaitre, il le verrait comme un suicide politique. Comparer ses difficultes a celles de son precesseur, celui qu'il n'a eu de cesse de critiquer et de ridiculiser. C'est impossible... et pourtant, je pense que les Americains y reagiraient positivement et que ca aiderait a les rassembler. Mais bon. que deviendrait la politique? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2368 - Obama: National Guard Won't Be on Front Lines in Arizona 27/5/2010, 22:29 | |
| Obama: National Guard Won't Be on Front Lines in ArizonaPublished May 27, 2010 FOXNews.com The 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama is dispatching to the U.S.-Mexico border will provide intelligence, reconnaissance and other "back office" support, but one thing they won't be doing is helping a beleaguered Border Patrol and local law enforcement nab illegal immigrants and smugglers flowing into Arizona. - Spoiler:
Speaking at a press conference in the White House East Room Thursday, the president said the Guard won't be on the front lines but will be offering vital support roles. "What we find is, is that National Guards persons can help on intelligence, dealing with both drug and human trafficking along the borders. They can relieve border guards so that the border guards then can be in charge of law enforcement in those areas. So there are a lot of functions that they can carry out that helps leverage and increase the resources available in this area," he said."They can relieve border guards so that guards can be in charge of law enforcement," the president added.Obama said his plan to send as many as 1,200 troops was shaped last year before a national controversy erupted over Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants. The law allows state police to determine whether an individual is in the state legally when he or she is questioned by police on other suspicions. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer repeatedly has said that she signed the law because the federal government has offered no assistance in closing up the gaping border.The State Department on Wednesday described the border plan as "not about immigration," but rather about the unregulated flow of drugs and guns being sent into Mexico from the U.S.as well as humans streaming northward."And let's understand, we're talking about, you know, flows going in both directions. It's not about immigration. It's not about the flow of certain things coming in this direction. We recognize, as the president has said, as the secretary has said, you know, we have responsibilities here, both in terms of the demand for narcotics within our country, the flow of weapons from our country into Mexico that helps to fuel the violence that Mexico is struggling with," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said. Crowley added it's not the first time the Guard have been sent to the border to work in secondary roles. "You know, the rationale is simply to be able to, you know, take some support functions, relieve the civilian law enforcement of certain support functions and establish a broader presence across our border with Mexico," he said. "This frees up some resources that can be used more effectively to directly interdict the flow of illegal drugs, you know."U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual, speaking to journalists Wednesday in Mexico City, said the troops will serve as a bridge until the American government can get more agents on the border. He emphasized that the troops won’t be working on the front lines or interacting with people crossing the border."It's much more back office functions of receiving reports that are coming in from other intelligence entities," he said. The troops will "review and analyze" intelligence, then "feed that to the people who are actually the presence on the border itself." In addition, he said the troops will observe the border from remote surveillance points, then communicate with Customs and Border Protection officers.On Thursday, the Senate voted down an amendment by Arizona Sen. John McCain, who proposed sending 6,000 National Guard troops to the border, saying 3,000 of his proposed sum should go directly to Arizona to help protect his state.Obama said he wants more than just a border security approach to the nation's immigration problems."I don't see these issues in isolation, not solely as a problem of the National Guard," he said, noting he wants a bill in Congress that does "a good job of securing our borders, holds employers accountable, makes sure that those who have come here illegally have to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English and get right by the law." *1Obama and top members of his administration have said they disapprove of Arizona's law, and the Justice Department is weighing civil action against the state. The president would not condemn boycotts of the state over its law, saying it is for private citizens to decide, not the president of the United States."You know, I'm the president of the United States.  I don't endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts," he said. "What my administration is doing is examining very closely this Arizona law and its implications for the civil rights and civil liberties of the people in Arizona, as well as the concern that you start getting a patchwork of 50 different immigration laws around the country in an area that is inherently the job of the federal government."The Associated Press contributed to this report.*1 devenant instantanement Americains, et votent pour moi en 2012. 
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2369 - A Bad Case of the Bitters 27/5/2010, 23:07 | |
| A Bad Case of the BittersBy Andrew Cline on 5.27.10 @ 6:08AM With oil from the still-gushing, five-week-old Deepwater Horizon leak lapping unimpeded into the marshes of Louisiana, on Tuesday the President of the United States jetted past the oily Gulf to a San Francisco fund-raiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer, held, incredibly, at the home of the 350th richest person in America -- Gordon Getty, inheritor of the Getty Oil fortune. Hollywood satirists couldn't make this stuff up. - Spoiler:
If nothing else, Barack Obama has his priorities. This was the president's second trip to California to raise money for Sen. Boxer in two months. His first was the day before the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Then, he went to Los Angeles and held three fund-raisers that collected more than $3 million for Boxer and the DNC. His Tuesday haul, 35 days after the start of the as yet uncontained leak, was a reported $1.7 million for Boxer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Extinguishing emergencies is not this president's strong suit, but he is one fine raiser of cash.
Understandably, California is where the president goes to raise money for Democrats. Compared to the rest of America, it is a hotbed of vibrating passion for the Party of Big Government. (It also is on the verge of bankruptcy, but never mind.) In the last four years, Democratic registrations in California have risen from 42.7 percent of registered voters to 44.6 percent, while Republican registrations have fallen from 34.6 to 30.8. The especially friendly territory, though, is San Francisco, where this president retreats when it's time to vent about those retrograde elements elsewhere in this country too backward and ignorant to support his far-sighted agenda.
The median household income in San Francisco is $72,000 -- a mere $20,000 higher than the national average. Twenty-eight percent of San Franciscans age 25 or older have a bachelor's degree, compared to 17 percent of Americans, and 16 percent have a post-graduate degree, compared to 10 percent of Americans. More than a quarter (27 percent) of all registered Democrats in California live in or around San Francisco, which hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1964. If you want to mock the philistines of middle America, this is the place to do it.
On Tuesday, the president did just that, in his own, unique "what fools these mortals be" kind of way. Speaking to the adoring crowd of donors, the president mocked the mouth-breathers of the hinterlands, saying, "There are members of their base who think if somebody even smiles at me, they think, 'You're a traitor. You smiled at Obama.'"
I would venture to say that exactly no one in America thinks that. But it is a tasty morsel to toss to the Super-Rich Elitists Club of the Greater Bay Area. How many of them have ever met a Republican, after all? They probably gather at Masa's and regale each other with stories of the time they saw some demented, poorly attired plebian hop the streetcar with a copy of Sarah Palin's book protruding offensively from her cheap handbag.
It is no mystery why the president chooses to belittle his opposition from the enlightened hills of the city by the bay. The ideals that motivate average Americans to resist the president's Great Remaking of American society -- independence, self-reliance, individual liberty -- are as foreign there as alien death rays. In San Francisco, he can let his guard down. They are his people.
Remember, it was in San Francisco -- at a fund-raiser -- that candidate Obama said, "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
He wasn't speaking of the locals who shop at Fillmore Street. He was talking about hick Pennsylvanians, safely out of sight 2,800 miles away.
When the president tells San Franciscans, as he did on Tuesday, that he just can't work with Republicans because they are so intent on irrationally blocking his agenda, how are they to know any better? What context do they have? Who do they know who disagrees with the president on anything save the speed with which he has chosen to disassemble "don't ask don't tell"? How many of their friends listen to Rush Limbaugh, read the Wall Street Journal editorial page, or have ever held a hunting rifle?
After complaining to the roomful of wealthy donors that Republicans refuse to cooperate or work with him in a bipartisan manner, Obama, apparently without any awareness of contradiction, had the crowd chanting happily back at him when he said of Republicans, "if you want to get in, we'll give you a ride. But we're not going to let you drive."
Because that is the spirit of bipartisanship on vivid display: you can sit helplessly in the back as we rocket this baby wherever our heavily Europhile sense of direction takes us, but you'd better keep your yap shut.
And although that is the attitude with which the administration governs, neither the president nor his friends can fathom why anyone would be upset with him. The philistines want to drive? Well isn't that cute. Listen, they can hold on to those Bibles and guns -- for now, anyway -- but they are NOT clinging to the steering wheel.
|
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
 Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/5/2010, 00:25 | |
| 370 - Sujet: 2368 - Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise Jeu 27 Mai 2010 à 22:29
- Citation :
- Obama: National Guard Won't Be on Front Lines in Arizona
Lu sous le clapet magique :
"It's much more back office functions of receiving reports that are coming in from other intelligence entities," he said. The troops will "review and analyze" intelligence, then "feed that to the people who are actually the presence on the border itself." In addition, he said the troops will observe the border from remote surveillance points, then communicate with Customs and Border Protection officers. De bons mauvais esprits persiffleraient qu'attendre de l'intelligence de la part d'un bidasse c'est comme attendre qu'un lapin tue un chasseur. Trêve de plaisanteries à part, à quoi cela rime-t-il de mettre des soldats - soient-ils simples miliciens - sans armes sur un terrain aussi miné ? Cela me mets en perspective cette désolante affaire de l'assassinat d'une femme policier municipal qui s'est fait dessouder par des malfrats qui s'en prirent courageusement à elle non pas parce qu'elle était sans armes mais parce qu'elle portait un uniforme honni. J'espère qu'une force de sécurité quelconque veillera sur la Garde nationale. L'armée d'active peut-être ? Je suggère d'introduire l'ADN des héros d'Alamo que furent Davy Crockett, James Bowie et William Barret Travis dans les fœtus des futurs petits étatsuniens qui auront vocation à veiller sur la borderline... . Sujet: 2369 - Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise Jeu 27 Mai 2010 à 23:07
- Citation :
- A Bad Case of the Bitters
Lu sous le clapet magique (avant dernier §) :
[...)our heavily Europhile sense of direction takes us (...) C'est que nous autres Européens nous devons puer le mazout grave !!! | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2371 - Obama: The sludge stops here 28/5/2010, 08:37 | |
| Obama: The sludge stops here By GLENN THRUSH & JOSH GERSTEIN | 5/27/10 10:49 PM EDT On Thursday, President Barack Obama’s damage control message was, I’m in control. - Spoiler:
The president — so stern he didn’t crack a smile for the entire 63-minute East Room news conference –- met the press to dispel the notion that he was disengaged, distracted and willing to let BP take the reins on the Gulf oil spill.
As anonymous BP workers struggled with placing a "top kill" on the gushing well, Obama kept repeating variations on that theme for an hour: the feds are in charge of the operation, not BP. He convened a meeting on Day One to plot the response to the leak. He’s briefed every day. He’s going back himself Friday.
Surrogates weren’t getting the job done, so Obama took the podium to make his own case, his first full-on presser in months. But in the process, Obama sent a few mixed messages of his own.
Obama bristled at the notion that the White House response has “lacked urgency” – only to admit, minutes later, that planned reforms of the federal agency monitoring deep water exploration, in fact, lacked “sufficient urgency.”
After he assumed unequivocal responsibility for the spill response, he proceeded to equivocate — blaming Bush-era deregulation, his predecessor’s failure to draft an adequate spill response plan and BP’s arrogance in overlooking flaws in their safety systems.
And he seemed downright uncertain on the circumstances surrounding the departure of Minerals Management Service director S. Elizabeth Birnbaum. “C’mon, I don’t know,” he said at one point, when pressed on whether she quit or was fired.
Here’s a look at what Obama said at the news conference and a POLITICO translation of what he may have been trying to convey:
ON THE “LACKADAISICAL” FEDERAL RESPONSE:
What he said: “Those who think we were either slow in our response or lacked urgency don’t know the facts… Personally, I'm briefed every day. And I probably had more meetings on this issue than just about any issue since we did our Afghan review.”
What he meant: Put a sock in it, James Carville.
No single individual has been a more effective critic of the administration’s “lackadaisical” efforts (Carville’s description) on the Louisiana coast – or posed a more potent political threat — than Bill Clinton’s bayou-bred former political guru.
It’s one thing for conservatives like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to proclaim the spill “Obama’s Katrina.” It’s another if the Times web site runs the headline “Obama’s Spill?” – as they did on Thursday — or for Carville, a pro-Obama cable warrior to implore the president: "Man, you got to get down here and take control of this! Put somebody in charge of this thing and get this moving! We're about to die down here!”
Pressure has been building on the White House for days. Florida’s Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson has been making angry noises and recent polls show a majority of Americans disapproving Obama’s performance.
Obama had to do something to show he’s listening to critics, but that something didn’t necessarily have to be in prime time, which would have invited comparisons to President Bush’s post-Katrina Jackson Square speech in September 2005
ON WHO’S RUNNING THE SHOW:
What he said: “In case you were wondering who’s responsible? I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure everything is done to shut this down… There shouldn’t be any confusion here: the federal government is fully engaged and I’m fully engaged… Make no mistake: BP is operating at our direction.”
What he meant: My name isn’t George W. Bush.
The administration itself is largely to blame for any misunderstanding among the public about who’s in charge of the cap-and-clean effort.
The administration’s first impulse was to blame BP and emphasize the oil giant’s responsibility for the clean-up – and a confusing April 29th press conference with administration officials did little to clear up the lines of authority.
By Thursday, though, Obama tried to dispense with the oil-spill org chart to say the feds are running the show.
Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, Obama disclosed, was intimately involved planning BP’s “top kill” operation to try to plug the leak – and the process didn’t start until the Nobel laureate gave the go-ahead.
Still, Obama related a Situation Room briefing where Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser Adm. Mike Mullen told him, “The federal government does not possess superior technology to BP” – and had to rely on the oil company’s crews and equipment.
ON EMPATHY:
What he said: “This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about… It's not just me, by the way. You know, when I woke up this morning and I'm shaving, and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head and she says, did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?”
What he meant: I feel your pain.
Obama skipped the memorial service for the 11 workers killed on the rig earlier this week to fly to California, where he collected $1.7 million for Democrats and toured a solar panel plant. On the day when the significant clots of oil started appearing on the Louisiana coast, Obama was sitting down for an interview to talk hoops with TNT’s Marv Albert.
Obama’s cool, rational approach to presidential problem solving was coming across as cold – and there was a growing sense in the White House that he needed to reestablish his emotional connection with people in the Gulf region.
Maybe it was his pre-presser lunch with Bill Clinton, but Obama was more effective in projecting his personal concern than at any time since touring the Gulf earlier this month.
“I grew up in Hawaii, where the ocean is sacred,” he added, empathetically.
ON MISTAKES, HE’S MADE A FEW:
What he said: “This is an area by the way where I do think our efforts fell short – and I’m not contradicting my prior point that people were working as hard as they could… I think that it took too long for us to stand up our flow tracking group that has now made these more accurate ranges of calculation."
What he meant: The White House didn’t push BP hard enough for an accurate estimate of the spill.
Obama is often most convincing when he admits error – it bolsters the credibility of his other assertions and lends credence when he levels criticism at others.
Never mind that Obama’s two main mea culpas Thursday – failing to grasp the size of the spill earlier and lax oversight of deep water drilling – were actually slams at BP and the Bush administration, respectively.
Obama’s most serious charge: The oil company wasn’t “fully forthcoming” about the disaster and failed to share real-time video with federal officials.
ON THE FUTURE OF OFFSHORE DRILLING:
What he said: While announcing that he was extending a 30-day moratorium on new offshore drilling for six months, Obama mentioned, almost in passing, that he was pausing plans for new test wells in Alaska. “We will suspend the planned exploration of two locations off the coast of Alaska,” he said before moving to discussion of other actions.
What he meant: You wouldn’t have known it from Obama’s presentation but his decision to block drilling in Alaska may be the most politically significant of any of the actions he took on Thursday.
A coalition of major environmental groups has been pressing the administration in newspaper and TV ads to halt the planned drilling by Shell near the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The groups were watching Obama closely on this. Some analysts said they had been holding back criticism of the government’s response to the Gulf spill as they awaited word from the White House about whether the drilling planned for this summer would go forward.
“The environmental groups have been saying: if Obama allows Shell to drill, we’re abandoning his presidency. But if he says no to Shell, it’s a turning point,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University who closely follows the environmental movement.
Postponing the Alaskan drilling, which can take place only over a short season each summer, buys Obama some time, but likely avoids the expense and legal battle of yanking Shell’s permits altogether. “He pauses the issue until after this election season. That will keep the environmental community at bay,” Brinkley said.
As recently as two weeks ago, Shell wrote to the Interior Department arguing that its Alaska plans should be allowed to proceed because conditions are “much different” than the deepwater drilling that led to the Gulf spill. Shell said it would be drilling not a mile underwater, but 150 feet below the water’s surface and that divers could intervene at that depth.
The company had a muted reaction to Obama’s move scuttling their drilling hopes for the year. “We respect and understand today’s decision in the context of the tragic spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but we remain confident in our drilling expertise, which is built upon a foundation of redundant safety systems and company global standards,” Shell said Thursday.
ON THE DEPARTURE OF ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM:
What he said: I found out about her resignation today. Ken Salazar has been in testimony throughout the day, so I don’t know the circumstances in which this occurred.”
What it means: Who knows?
Kendra Marr contributed to this report
Ce W.E. (Memorial Day W.E.  ), le POTUS laisse a Vice-President Biden, la charge d'assister, en son nom, aux ceremonies du souvenir qui se derouleront a Arlington. Il avait ete annonce hier qu'il se rendrait a Chicago, Chez Lui, un repos pour bien merite de 4 jours La vive reaction occasionnee par la nouvelle (de joyeux drilles resumaient la situation ainsi: Ce W.E., Golf ou le Golfe?) l'a convaincu de CHANGEr d'emploi du temps. Il se rendrait donc aussi se rendre egalement sur la cote. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2372 - Stressed Out or Tone Deaf? Obama Chicago Vacation Raises Eyebrows 28/5/2010, 09:07 | |
| Stressed Out or Tone Deaf? Obama Chicago Vacation Raises EyebrowsPublished May 27, 2010| FOXNews.com President Obama boards Air Force One to San Francisco in Washington May 25. (Reuters Photo)To attend a fundraiser- Spoiler:
On "vacation," Obama still holds staff meetings, occasionally attends local events and often gets his "relaxation" time swallowed up by pressing national and international business -- his vacation to Hawaii in December coincided with the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing. The retreat this weekend is marked by a side-trip to Louisiana to inspect the damages from the oil spill.But some conservatives, still smarting over the criticism George W. Bush fielded for his frequent trips to Crawford, Texas, say Obama's trip to Chicago over Memorial Day weekend is conspicuously poor in its timing.Obama, who was headed to Chicago Thursday night, will not be at Arlington National Cemetery for the Memorial Day ceremony -- which he attended last year. Instead, the president plans to be at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Ill., while Vice President Biden takes his place in Arlington for the wreath-laying at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Pete Hegseth, director of the conservative Vets for Freedom, said he doesn't want to "extrapolate too much," but questioned why a war-time president would not pencil in that ceremony. "It doesn't mean he doesn't care, but I think it is a reflection of priorities," he said. "We're still at war ... and he's not called out to the carpet on that." Dana Perino, former Bush White House press secretary, called the decision a "curious choice." "I do think that symbolically that probably was not a very good choice," she told Fox News. The Arlington visit is a fairly recent tradition. Former President Ronald Reagan attended four of them in his eight years in office, while former President George H.W. Bush sent Vice President Dan Quayle to every one. Former President Bill Clinton, though, attended every year and George W. Bush missed only one, in 2002, when he was in France. Philip Molfese, a Chicago-based Democratic political consultant, said Obama will still be able to "pay tribute" at the Lincoln National Cemetery. And he dismissed the idea that Obama would somehow be stepping away from the oil spill crisis in the Gulf while in Chicago. The president plans to visit the Gulf coast Friday before returning to the Windy City. "He's never really out of touch with what's happening," said Molfese, president of the political firm Grainger Terry, Inc. "These guys are never off the clock. ... They're constantly surrounded by people, they're constantly getting updates. Whether they're operating in Chicago or they're operating in the White House, they're still going to be getting constant communication." *1The White House has tried to fend off suggestions that it has not acted forcefully enough to mitigate the damage from the oil spill -- Obama held a full-scale press conference Thursday afternoon where he spoke extensively about mitigation efforts. The Obamas have not made an extensive visit to Chicago in more than a year and in a sense are trying to make good on prior pledges to visit their home town more often. But critics point out that the trip is their second since the Gulf oil rig exploded April 20 -- the first family traveled to Asheville, N.C., that weekend*1 Bien evidemment, mais c'est marrant comme lorsqu'un president est Republicain, la chose est tellement bien moins comprise! 
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2373 - Ombre 28/5/2010, 10:27 | |
| Ombre, je reprends cette phrase d'un de vos messages de la page precedente: Finalement, je me demande quel pays est le plus réticent au changement: la France ou les USA ?  S'il faut bien reconnaitre qu'Obama souhaite voir instaurer aux Etats Unis les programmes sociaux "a la francaise" (alors que nous sommes deja dans une situation precaire avec un deficit gigantesque pour lequel nous ne payons, et encore avec difficulte que les interets a nos crediteurs) et qu'en France (pour ne parler que d'elle) Nicolas est en train de reduire les meme benefices, le pays ne pouvant plus faire face, ne croyez-vous pas que les Americains aient du mal a comprendre que leur president, qu'on leur a presente comme un etre intelligent, capable, eduque etc...etc..., souhaite pousser ses compatriotes sur le chemin ardu que tous les autres leaders sont en train d'abandonner. Vous soutenez Nicolas et vous soutenez Obama, j'ai du mal a vous suivre. Le CHANGEment pour le CHANGEment, Ombre, est-ce bien raisonnable? |
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/5/2010, 11:34 | |
| 374 - - Citation :
- Le CHANGEment pour le CHANGEment, Ombre, est-ce bien raisonnable?
C'est sûrement pour donner le change. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2375 - He Was Supposed to Be Competent The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy.By PEGGY NOONAN 28/5/2010, 14:50 | |
| He Was Supposed to Be Competent The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy.By PEGGY NOONAN I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.- Spoiler:
There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this. The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.  Reuters President Obama promised on Thursday to hold BP accountable in the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill and said his administration would do everything necessary to protect and restore the coast.Evidemment le dernier paragraphe etait inevitable!
|
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 28/5/2010, 17:12 | |
| 376 - Sujet: 2375 - He Was Supposed to Be Competent The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy.By PEGGY NOONAN Ven 28 Mai 2010 à 14:50 - Sous le clapet magique à la fin du 2° § Peggy a écrit:
- The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.
Peut-être que O'Barraca, tellement imprégné d'européanisme, a suivi les enseignements de l'ENA à distance en cachette, car sa façon de procéder est strictement celle en usage chez nos hautes têtes diplômées passées à la politique. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2378 - White House admits effort to keep Sestak out of Senate race 29/5/2010, 05:00 | |
| ON LUI DIRAAAA A PEGGY! -----White House admits effort to keep Sestak out of Senate raceBy Alan Silverleib, CNN
Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pennsylvania, reportedly turned down the White House offer and challenged Sen. Arlen Specter. Washington (CNN)-- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary last year as part of a failed administration effort to dissuade Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak from running for the U.S. Senate, according to a publicly released memorandum from the White House legal counsel's office.- Spoiler:
Top White House lawyer Robert Bauer conceded that "options for Executive Branch service were raised" for Sestak, but insisted that administration officials did not act improperly. He characterized the attempt to influence Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary -- ultimately won by Sestak -- as no different from political maneuvers by past administrations from both political parties. Key Republicans disagreed with Bauer's assessment. Several House GOP members sent a letter to the FBI Friday asking for an investigation.The White House was instrumental in last year's switch by Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter from the GOP to the Democratic Party. President Barack Obama backed Specter in his bid for a sixth term in the Senate, and the administration was eager to clear the field of any primary opponents.Bauer stated in the memo that efforts "were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity."Sestak would not have been paid for any advisory work, Bauer insisted.Emanuel "enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with ... Sestak options of service," Bauer said. Sestak declined the suggested options, he said."Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton," Sestak confirmed Friday in a written statement. "During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. ... He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a presidential board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no."Bauer said that the White House, contrary to one widely circulated rumor, did not offer Sestak the position of secretary of the Navy. He noted Obama nominated Ray Mabus for the position on March 26, 2009, more than a month before Specter switched to the Democratic Party.Bauer insisted there was no impropriety in the White House's efforts. "The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the congressman vacating his seat in the House," he wrote. The White House's attempt to keep Sestak out of the Senate race was "fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements." California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, who has pushed for the appointment of a special prosecutor to examine the incident, vehemently disagreed with Bauer's conclusions.The White House "has admitted to a misdemeanor ... and co-opted President Clinton" in it, Issa insisted. "Is Rahm Emanuel going to stay if in fact he violated the law?"Clinton "of all people would be held to a standard of knowing exactly where the line is," Issa said. "If he crossed it, he crossed it knowingly."Issa said that it is "not the job offer [but] the quid pro quo. ... It's the 'I will give you this job to clear a primary.' "Issa joined several other House Republicans in urging the FBI to investigate allegations of bribery."Assurances by the Obama White House that no laws were broken are like the Nixon White House promising it did nothing illegal in connection with Watergate. Clearly, an independent investigation is necessary to determine once and for all what really happened," they wrote in a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller.Sestak, a former Navy admiral and two-term Philadelphia-area congressman, first said in February that someone in the White House had offered him a job on the condition that he not mount a primary challenge to Specter.Obama said Thursday that he can "assure the public that nothing improper took place." The president, however, refused to give any more details, even as some Democrats have demanded the White House be more forthcoming about the matter. *1Since Sestak's May 18 primary victory, Republicans have been relentless in keeping the controversy in the news. On Wednesday, all seven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for a special prosecutor to look into the matter.One of the unpaid positions that the White House suggested offering Sestak was an appointment to the president's Intelligence Advisory Board, which gives the president independent oversight and advice. But it was determined that Sestak could not serve on the board, since he was an active a member of Congress.It appears that Emanuel picked Clinton as a go-between with Sestak because of the former president's stature as an elder statesman and prominent figure in the Democratic Party, and because Sestak worked on the National Security Council during Clinton's years in the White House. Sestak backed former first lady and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries.According to a source at the State Department, Emanuel remains on a trip to Israel and is not expected to be back in the country until Monday.CNN's Dana Bash, John King, Suzanne Malveaux and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report. *2*1 C'est sur qu'a Chicago... *2 Apparemment, cette fois-ci CNN ne laisse pas cette histoire a Fox News
Breath in - Breath out!
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 30/5/2010, 18:15, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2379 - Clinton 'whiff of scandal' returns 29/5/2010, 05:21 | |
| Clinton 'whiff of scandal' returnsBy JOSH GERSTEIN | 5/28/10 11:00 PM EDT  Bill Clinton is a fixture on cable news, Republicans are calling for a special prosecutor. It feels like 1997—but it’s 2010. And Barack Obama can’t be happy. | AP Photos AP Republicans are sternly demanding a special prosecutor. - Spoiler:
And legal commentators are bickering over the finer points of federal criminal statutes on bribery and graft.
It feels like 1997—but it’s 2010. And Barack Obama can’t be happy.
The White House’s confirmation Friday that it enlisted former President Bill Clinton in an effort to get Rep. Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary has sent the regular players in Washington’s scandal industry to their battle stations – to pick over the very sort of insider special dealing that Obama had promised to make a thing of the past.
“That’s not the image he wants to project right now with all the things that are going on,” said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University professor who has written at length on the Clinton-era scandals.
The use of Clinton as the conduit to offer Sestak an advisory board position is like catnip for cable television and for Republicans who have plenty of experience painting the former president as ethically challenged.
“I’m sure there’s substantial precedent for an administration to subtly suggest to a potential candidate, ‘Maybe you’d like to step aside.’ But [the fact that] this controversy involves a former president who just happens to be married to a member of his Cabinet just moves this to a whole different level,” Rozell said. “Clinton’s administration was involved in a number of ethics controversies and investigations just like this……This looks like a rookie administration type of mistake.”
A good part of Obama’s appeal to the Democratic electorate in 2008 was that he didn’t carry the baggage of scandal that rival Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill did. Obama and his aides actively sought to stoke that perception by repeatedly insisting on full transparency from the Clinton camp and making pointed legislative proposals like mandating disclosure of all donations to presidential libraries and all lobbying for presidential pardons.
At the time the Clintons maintained that the “whiff-of-scandal” standard was deeply unfair when there was no substance to many of the charges leveled during the Clinton years. They also grumbled that Obama was aligning himself with right-wingers who built an industry out of accusing the Clintons of everything ranging from real estate scams to murder.
Now, Obama aides find themselves complaining that their White House is being tarred by unsubstantiated allegations and erroneous legal conclusions.
Part of the White House’s defense Friday was to claim, in essence, that offering administration posts to get a candidate out of a primary race is politics as usual. “There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations—both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals—discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaign for public office,” White House counsel Bob Bauer wrote in a brief memo released Friday. “Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the White House’s main tormentor in the Sestak flap, said history was largely irrelevant.
“The defense by the administration is this is business as usual, other people did this. Well, if previous Republican and Democratic administrations committed crimes, if the governor of Illinois has committed crimes, what does that have to do with the campaign pledge and the repeated pledges by the president this would be a more ethical White House?” Issa asked
Others said the case for any legal violation was so weak and so widely rejected by legal commentators that the controversy would quickly die out.
“I think it’s an exaggeration to even call this an ethics issue,” said Jeffrey Toobin, legal writer for the New Yorker and a member of the independent counsel team that investigated the Iran-Contra scandal.
Toobin said the call for an investigation was at odds with Republicans’ prior complaints about the “criminalizing” of politics. He also noted that, unlike the Clinton era, the Congress is in Democratic hands and there’s no independent counsel law on the books that could trigger an outside investigation.
“The great gift to Obama of the expiration of the independent counsel law is that the decision [on a special prosecutor] is completely within the attorney general’s discretion. There’s no more special court.
There’s no requirement that he has to satisfy,” Toobin said.
“I think this is a curiosity of political junkies and the tiny, small group of people who are following it will appreciate the oddity of Bill Clinton being involved. I’m not prepared to say it has any great significance,” Toobin added.
Another veteran political analyst said there was no question that Republicans were seeking to resurrect what they view as the golden age of scandal, but he warned that it could backfire.
“This is just a ridiculous diversion back to the future,” said Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia. “They’re trying to regenerate negative feelings about Bill Clinton that have long since disappeared in the electorate. They might want to remember what happened the last time they did this,” Sabato said, alluding to the beating Republicans took in the polls over Clinton’s impeachment.
Yet even some impartial observers said Obama’s promises to rise above typical Washington shenanigans is sure to give added life to even the slightest claim of impropriety.
“He has established an impossibly high standard for political Washington,” Rozell said. “Now he has to live with the consequences of being called out on it.”
So... CHANGE or business as usual?
Voila le CHANGEment dont les Americains voulaient, Ombre, le nettoyage de Washington (naif, sans doute, mais bon)... ce qu'Obama avait promis d'ailleurs pas la mise-en-place du socialisme sur le territoire americain.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 30/5/2010, 18:15, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2380 - Refusing the Entitlement Lollipop 29/5/2010, 05:34 | |
| Refusing the Entitlement Lollipop
By Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON -- In closing the deal on health care reform, Democratic leaders assured wavering legislators that the plan would grow more popular with time as its benefits became clear. "We have to pass the bill," argued House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, so that the public "can find out what is in it." Presidential adviser David Axelrod predicted that Republicans would pay a political price for their opposition. "Let's have that fight," he said. "Make my day." Consistent with this belief, the administration recently has been rolling out attractive elements of the law, including coverage for dependents up to age 26.
One cause is simply economic. At a time when Americans are focused on recovery and job creation -- and how deficits and debt may eventually undermine both -- the economic case for Democratic health reform has been weak, contrived, even deceptive. Recent events in Congress make the point. Two months after passing a law that supporters claimed would reduce federal deficits, largely through Medicare cuts, the House is moving toward a temporary "doctor fix" that would add tens of billions in Medicare costs. Even more expensive fixes are likely in the future. Congressional leaders knew this spending would be necessary when they passed health reform in March. Yet they didn't include this liability in the law, in order to hide the overall cost of the entitlement. In a failing corporation, this would be a scandal, investigated by Congress. In Congress, this is known as legislative strategy.
... Suite
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 30/5/2010, 18:08, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2381 - 29/5/2010, 05:42 | |
| et Ombre qui ne souhaite pas repondre a mon 2373. 
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 30/5/2010, 18:10, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2382 - How Obama Baffles on Bipartisanship 30/5/2010, 08:52 | |
| How Obama Baffles on BipartisanshipPosted by Tom Bevan
Like many in the GOP, Senator Lamar Alexander is baffled as to how a President who is generally regarded by members as nice, amiable, and a likable person can be so clueless and tone deaf when it comes to the actual process of bipartisanship- Spoiler:
In the big issues, on healthcare, on so-called financial regulation, the stimulus, the White House has been absolutely tone-deaf to bipartisanship,” Alexander said. [snip]
“I have a good, personal relationship with the president. I served with him. I like him,” Alexander said. “But as far as my ability to be involved in his objectives, they're limited.”
The former Tennessee governor did give credit to Obama's education and energy secretaries for working with him on various issues, but said the White House is the problem.
“Either the White House doesn't want to work in a bipartisan way on the big issues or doesn't know how,” he said.
The President has always talked the talk of bipartisanship, but he clearly hasn't walked the walk during his first year in office. Part of the reason, as Alexander notes, is due to process: the President hasn't done a good job of engaging with Republicans in a serious way to hash out compromises at the start of the sausage making process. That's no small deal, especially when the pieces of legislation (like the stimulus, health care, cap and trade, etc) are massive, transformational, and cut straight to core ideological differences between the two parties.
But the other reason is clearly stylistic: Republicans appear tired of Obama's rhetorical and political tricks. He's repeatedly made bipartisanship more difficult by employing straw man arguments and attacking the motives of his opposition. He's stoked the ire of the GOP by saying - untruthfully - that they were offering no solutions, then belatedly acknowledging the GOP did have solutions worth looking at, and then declaring most of those ideas illegitimate and ignoring them. And on a few occasions he's done what he did this past Tuesday when he made a plea for bipartisanship to Republicans during the day, and then turned right around and attacked the GOP before a highly partisan audience that night at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer in San Francisco.
In fact, Obama made a revealing comment about his view of bipartisanship on Tuesday night. According to the New York Times, Obama related the following to the Democratic crowd about part of his lunch conversation with Republicans regarding the issue of immigration:
"You've got to meet me on solving the problem long-term. It's not enough just to talk about the National Guard down at the border,” Mr. Obama said he told the lawmakers. “You don't even have to meet me halfway. I'll bring most Democrats on these issues. I'm just looking for 8 or 10 of you.”
Notice how Obama frames himself as the bipartisan bridge builder who's willing to travel great political distances - well beyond "halfway" - to reach a compromise with Republicans. Yet in the very next breath Obama reveals he's really only interested in traveling a bare minimum in a quest for bipartisanship.
Obama would argue that Republicans have been the ones feigning bipartisanship while remaining utterly devoted to killing his agenda, and there's obviously some truth to that. But let's face it, when the President cannot win the votes of moderates like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe on his signature pieces of legislation, whatever he claims to be doing to generate bipartisanship is clearly failing.
Furthermore, the President is the one who ran on rising above petty political arguments and bridging the old political divides in the country, which makes his thin-skinned reactions over the past 15 months more surprising and noticeable.
At this point, it's hard to see a political detente in the near future.
Even a serious thumping for the President's party in the midterms may not lead to any bipartisan course correction on the part of the White House. It certainly didn't after Massachusetts, and the President still managed a political victory on health care, despite forcing it through on the most narrow, partisan lines imaginable. And the White House continues to cling to the notion that the political anger swirling in the country isn't directed at the President but exists because change isn't coming fast enough:
Americans are increasingly optimistic about the economy, but that brightening outlook hasn't softened their outrage over the country's direction and its political leadership, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds..[snip]
White House adviser David Axelrod says that's not surprising. "There's been a lot of frustrations and grievance building up for years," he says. "For many Americans, it (the recovery) still hasn't touched their lives."
It appears that, regardless of the outcome in November, if Republicans are expecting President Obama to change his political behavior or to chart a more sincerely bipartisan course after November, they're going to be sadly mistaken.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2383 - House passes defense policy bill 31/5/2010, 01:52 | |
| Ahaa! House passes defense policy bill By JEN DIMASCIO | 5/29/10 5:22 PM EDT  The passed bill includes language authorizing funding for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. AP The House on Friday passed its version of the defense policy bill for fiscal 2011, drawing a veto threat from President Barack Obama, even though the legislation includes language that would allow the Pentagon to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
- Spoiler:
The bill, which passed by a vote of 229-186, also includes language authorizing funding for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Earlier this week, Obama, through the Office of Management and Budget, said if funding for the second engine was included in the final version of the bill, his senior advisers would recommend a veto, endorsing a warning from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
“I stand squarely behind Secretary Gates' position on the JSF second engine and C-17 programs,” Obama said. “As the statement of administration policy made clear, our military does not want or need these programs being pushed by the Congress, and should Congress ignore this fact, I will veto any such legislation so that it can be returned to me without those provisions.”
The Senate is working on its own version of the bill
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2385 - Israeli Army: More Than 10 Activists Killed in Commando Operation Against Gaza Flotilla 31/5/2010, 10:08 | |
| Israeli Army: More Than 10 Activists Killed in Commando Operation Against Gaza FlotillaPublished May 30, 2010FOXNews.comJerusalem -- The Israeli military says more than ten pro-Palestinian activists have been killed after attacking naval commandos who were halting an aid flotilla heading toward the blockaded Gaza Strip.- Spoiler:
The army says the soldiers were attacked with knives and clubs as they boarded the six vessels Monday. It says soldiers opened fire after a protester grabbed a weapon from one of the commandos.
The army says dozens of people were wounded, both soldiers and activists, and it is evacuating the casualties from the Mediterranean by helicopter
But Israeli security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity under military guidelines, said activists attacked the Israeli forces with knives and iron rods as they boarded the boats.
"The people on the boats were very, very violent toward the soldiers," said Israeli military spokeswoman Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich.
A Turkish website showed video of pandemonium on board one of the ships, with activists in orange life jackets running around as some tried to help an activist apparently unconscious on the deck. The site also showed video of an Israeli helicopter flying overhead and Israeli warships nearby.
"These savages are killing people here, please help," a Turkish television reporter said.
The al-Jazeera broadcast ended with a voice shouting in Hebrew, "Everybody shut up!"
There were no details on the identities of the casualties, or on the conditions of some of the more prominent people on board, including a Nobel peace laureate and an elderly Holocaust survivor.
Satellite phones on board the ships were turned off, and communication with a small group of reporters embedded with the Israeli military was blocked.
In Turkey, which had unofficially supported the aid mission, news of the attack sparked violent protests.
Police blocked dozens of stone-throwing protesters who tried to storm the Israeli consulate in Istanbul. The CNN-Turk and NTV televisions showed dozens of angry protesters scuffling with Turkish police and shouting, "Damn Israel."
The Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned the Israeli raid and said it was summoning the Israeli ambassador for an "urgent explanation." It says Israel violated international law and will suffer consequences.
The Israeli military denied its forces attacked the boats, saying soldiers were under orders only to use fire if their lives were in danger.
Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists were on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, European legislators and Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, 85.
The flotilla, which includes three cargo ships and three passenger ships, is trying to draw attention to Israel's blockade of Gaza, home to 1.5 million Palestinians. The boats are carrying items that Israel bars from reaching Gaza, like cement and other building materials. The activists said they also were carrying hundreds of electric-powered wheelchairs, prefabricated homes and water purifiers.
The head of the Gaza Hamas government, Ismail Haniyeh, condemned the "brutal" Israeli attack.
"We call on the secretary-general of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, to shoulder his responsibilities to protect the safety of the solidarity groups who were on board these ships and to secure their way to Gaza," Haniyeh told The Associated Press.
The reports came just after daybreak, with the flotilla still well away from the Gaza shore. Israel had declared it would not allow the ships to reach Gaza.
The violent takeover threatened to deal yet another blow to Israel's international image, already tarnished by war crimes accusations in Gaza and its three-year-old blockade of the impoverished Palestinian territory.
The flotilla began the journey from international waters off the coast of the east Mediterranean island of Cyprus on Sunday afternoon after two days of delays.
After nightfall Sunday, three Israeli navy missile boats left their base in Haifa, steaming out to sea to confront the ships. Two hours later, Israel Radio broadcast a recording of one of the missile boats warning the flotilla not to approach Gaza.
"If you ignore this order and enter the blockaded area, the Israeli navy will be forced to take all the necessary measures in order to enforce this blockade," the radio message continued.
This is the ninth time that the Free Gaza movement, an international group of pro-Palestinian activists, has tried to ship in humanitarian aid to Gaza since August 2008.
Israel has let ships through five times, but has blocked them from entering Gaza waters since a three-week military offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers in January 2009.
The latest flotilla was the largest to date.
Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade on Gaza after Hamas militants violently seized control of the seaside territory in June 2007.
Israel says the measures are needed to prevent Hamas, which has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, from building up its arsenal. But U.N. officials and international aid groups say the blockade has been counterproductive, failing to weaken the Islamic militant group while devastating the local economy.
Israel rejects claims of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, saying it allows more than enough food and medicine into the territory. The Israelis also point to the bustling smuggling industry along Gaza's southern border with Egypt, which has managed to bring consumer goods, gasoline and livestock into the seaside strip.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Ca rappelle les critiques du blocus contre l'Iraq avant la reprise de la guerre en 2003 et la realite des choses mise a jour apres la chute de Sadam.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 2386 - From CBSnews.com 31/5/2010, 15:06 | |
|  From a distance they're just pictures of a flag, or an eagle, or the Liberty Bell. But look again . . . Only when you get closer do you realize that these images are actually formed by people. Here, 100 officers and 9,000 enlisted men at Parris Island formed the Marine Corps' symbol. (Photo: Hammer Gallery)----------  Unbelievably, it took 30,000 men at Camp Custer in Battle Creek, Mich., for this "human shield" photo created by photographers Arthur Mole and John Thomas in 1918. Frank Maresca, owner of New York's Ricco/Maresca Gallery, told CBS News correspondent Serena Altschul this picture holds the record for the largest number of people posing in a picture: "From the tip of the shield to the bottom of the stars you might have 2,000 people. But if you are talking about the last row of stars, you would probably have 20,000 people at least, just in the last row." That's because to maintain proper perspective, many more men had to be placed in the distance than up close. (Photo: Library of Congress)---------- Mole and Thomas lived outside Chicago, and started off shooting religious images with members of their church. Later, soldiers on military bases volunteered for the cause. Here, 25,000 officers and men at New Jersey's Fort Dix form the Liberty Bell (with crack). (Photo: Hammer Gallery)---------- Most of the people in the Mole/Thomas photos create military formations of American symbols. "Mole and Thomas were just patriotic people," Maresca said. (Photo: Hammer Gallery) |
| | | | 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
| |
| |
| |
|
