Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Citation :

Suppôt de satan,ton fonds de pension,on s'en tappe!
Occupe toi de ton fond de pantalon.

C'est ça. T'as bu.

Pauvre c(h)réti(e)n va... T'as vraiment l'esprit de Jésus en toi...

[quote="Pétard"]

Citation :

Suppôt de satan,ton fonds de pension,on s'en tappe!
Occupe toi de ton fond de pantalon.[/quote]

C'est ça. T'as bu.

Pauvre c(h)réti(e)n va... T'as vraiment l'esprit de Jésus en toi...

normal Charly est charpentier comme quelqu'un de très connu

Au cas ou les illuminés du coin croiraient à un montage des socialistes du parti Démoncrasse ( pour s'inspirer de Charly ou paraphraser sa bouteille ) voilà un peu plus de viande sur l'os:

Cà glisse sur la carapace de mon indifférence,canard de mes deux.
Mais je signale que je n'ai plus avalé une goutte d'alcool depuis
plus de 10 ans.
Fourth!!!

C'est bien ca qui est le plus drole.

Mais bon, le caneton voit le monde a son image...

Zut! On m'a démasqué!

J'aurais bien dû me méfier de Madame et cet avatar qui est le sien...

Sherlock, l'éléphantisme, le violon, Sherlock et la cocaïne, l'héroïne... Il y a toujours un brin de soi dans son avatar, non?

Moi? C'est le béret! Si, si...

Pétard a écrit:

(...)Il y a toujours un brin de soi dans son avatar, non?

Moi? C'est le béret! Si, si...

Pourtant je vous ai déjà vu en tuque !

Citation :

pourtant je vous ai déjà vu en tuque !

C'est vrai, j'ai déjà porté.

L'avatar de l'invité, lui, c'est le vide absolu. À chacun son truc, peut-être, mais pas de truc c'est encore moins que rien.

L'establisment du Parti Républicain a un sérieux problème: l'extrême-droite des Tealibans en en train d'investir la place!

Même Karl Rove, le manipulateur génial derrière le duo BaBush/Cheney, avoue s'inquiéter fortement sur les résultats des élections du Mid-Term qui pointent à l'horizon.

Entéka, dans le Delaware, Mme O'Donnell, la favorite de Palin, a emporté l'élection primaire pour déterminer qui sera le candidat du GOP dans ces prochaines élections...

Étrangement, on assiste là à un profond exercice de masturbation ( au grand déplaisir de Mme O'Donnell ) intellectuelle de la part des dirigeants Repu$ qui tiennent à garder au bercail leur clientèle modérée traditionnelle:

Citation :

Usually when a candidate like Christine O'Donnell wins a primary -- and begins the tough slog to a general election -- you expect emails from her party like "MEDIA: Tea Party Express Congratulates Christine O'Donnell !!!". That, however, is not the subject line from the Republican Party's email: It's from the Tea Party Express email.

The TPE message from Chairman Amy Kremer went on to say, "Christine O'Donnell overcame the entire political establishment to achieve victory tonight because she stood for the constitutional conservative principles that voters are craving during this election cycle," and predict her certain victory in November.

Citation :

The National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) held its annual fall Board of Directors meeting in Charleston, S.C. last weekend – a decision the organization is likely regretting after several controversial pictures from one of the meeting’s sponsored events began surfacing on the internet. One of the pictures shows S.C. Senate President Glenn McConnell – who FITS readers will recall enjoys dressing up as a Confederate General – posing in his Rebel garb with a pair of African-Americans dressed in, um, “antebellum” attire.

Contre qui l'Arabie Saoudite veut-elle se défendre?

Citation :

The Pentagon has announced a $60 billion arms package to the repressive family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, the largest arms sale of its kind in history. Rejecting the broad consensus of arms control advocates that the Middle East is too militarized already and that the Saudis already possess military capabilities well in excess of their legitimate security needs, the Obama administration is effectively insisting that this volatile region does not yet have enough armaments and that the United States must send even more.

Making Ignorance Chic
By Maureen Dowd

Casanova’s rule for seduction was to tell a beautiful woman she was intelligent and an intelligent woman she was beautiful.

The false choice between intellectualism and sexuality in women has persisted through the ages. There was no more poignant victim of it than Marilyn Monroe.
She was smart enough to become the most famous Dumb Blonde in history. Photographers loved to get her to pose in tight shorts, a silk robe or a swimsuit with a come-hither look and a weighty book — a history of Goya or James Joyce’s “Ulysses” or Heinrich Heine’s poems. A high-brow bunny picture, a variation on the sexy librarian trope. Men who were nervous about her erotic intensity could feel superior by making fun of her intellectually.
Marilyn was not completely in on the joke. Scarred by her schizophrenic mother and dislocated upbringing, she was happy to have the classics put in her hand. What’s more, she read some of them, from Proust to Dostoyevsky to Freud to Carl Sandburg’s six-volume biography of Lincoln (given to her by husband Arthur Miller), collecting a library of 400 books.

Miller once called Marilyn “a poet on a street corner trying to recite to a crowd pulling at her clothes.”
“Fragments,” a new book of her poems, letters and musings, some written in her childlike hand with misspellings in leather books and others on stationery from the Waldorf-Astoria and the Beverly Hills Hotel, is affecting. The world’s most coveted woman, a picture of luminescence, was lonely and dark. Thinking herself happily married, she was crushed to discover an open journal in which Miller had written that she disappointed him and embarrassed him in front of his intellectual peers.
“I guess I have always been deeply terrified to really be someone’s wife since I know from life one cannot love another, ever, really.”

Her friend Saul Bellow wrote in a letter that Marilyn “conducts herself like a philosopher.” He observed: “She was connected with a very powerful current but she couldn’t disconnect herself from it,” adding: “She had a kind of curious incandescence under the skin.”

The sad sex symbol is still a candle in the wind. There’s a hit novel in Britain narrated by the Maltese terrier Frank Sinatra gave her, which she named “Maf,” for Mafia, and three movies in the works about her. Naomi Watts is planning to star in a biopic based on the novel, “Blonde,” by Joyce Carol Oates; Michelle Williams is shooting “My Week With Marilyn,” and another movie is planned based on an account by Lionel Grandison, a former deputy Los Angeles coroner who claims he was forced to change the star’s death certificate to read suicide instead of murder.

At least, unlike Paris Hilton and her ilk, the Dumb Blonde of ’50s cinema had a firm grasp on one thing: It was cool to be smart. She aspired to read good books and be friends with intellectuals, even going so far as to marry one. But now another famous beauty with glowing skin and a powerful current, Sarah Palin, has made ignorance fashionable.

You struggle to name Supreme Court cases, newspapers you read and even founding fathers you admire? No problem. You endorse a candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate seat who is the nominee in West Virginia? Oh, well.

At least you’re not one of those “spineless” elites with an Ivy League education, like President Obama, who can’t feel anything. It’s news to Christine O’Donnell that the Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. It’s news to Joe Miller, whose guards handcuffed a journalist, and to Carl Paladino, who threatened The New York Post’s Fred Dicker, that the First Amendment exists, even in Tea Party Land. Michele Bachmann calls Smoot-Hawley Hoot-Smalley.

Sharron Angle sank to new lows of obliviousness when she told a classroom of Hispanic kids in Las Vegas: “Some of you look a little more Asian to me.”
As Palin tweeted in July about her own special language adding examples from W. and Obama: “ ‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!”

On Saturday, at a G.O.P. rally in Anaheim, Calif., Palin mockingly noted that you won’t find her invoking Mao or Saul Alinsky. She says she believes in American exceptionalism. But when it comes to the people running the country, exceptionalism is suspect; leaders should be — as Palin, O’Donnell and Angle keep saying — just like you.

In Marilyn’s America, there were aspirations. The studios tackled literary novels rather than one-liners like “He’s Just Not That Into You” and navel-gazing drivel like “Eat Pray Love.” Walt Disney’s “Fantasia” paired cartoon characters with famous composers. Even Bugs Bunny did Wagner.

But in Sarah’s America, we’ve refudiated all that.

Special pour Biloulou :

US chief Iraq arms expert quits
The head of the team searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, David Kay, has resigned.

Mr Kay said he did not believe Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. He is being replaced by a former deputy head of the United Nations weapons inspections team, Charles Duelfer. Mr Duelfer said earlier this month he believed the chances of finding chemical or biological weapons in Iraq were now "close to nil". Mr Kay gave no reason for leaving, but the BBC's Jon Leyne in Washington says sources there speak of a mixture of personal reasons and his disillusionment with the weapons search. His resignation had been expected for a few weeks.

'No stockpiles' The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) team leader was appointed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) last June to head the post-war search for chemical, nuclear and biological weapons in Iraq.
The issue of banned weapons was the central element of the US case for invading the country. In an interview with Reuters news agency after his resignation was announced, Mr Kay said he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. "I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s." "I think we have found probably 85% of what we're going to find." Our correspondent says these are powerful remarks from someone who once strongly believed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) represented a major threat.

Democrat criticism In his recent State of the Union address, US President George W Bush quoted the conclusion of Mr Kay's interim report, which said only that WMD-related programme activities had been found in Iraq. The Bush administration has not officially reacted to Mr Kay's latest remarks but correspondents say this is a serious embarrassment for the White House. On Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney said he still had not given up hope of finding WMDs in Iraq.


Leading Democrats have seized on Mr Kay's remarks. "It increasingly appears that our intelligence was wrong about Iraq's weapons, and the administration compounded that mistake by exaggerating the nuclear threat and Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda," said Senator John Rockefeller, the seniorDemocrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "As a result, the United States is paying a very heavy price."

Jane Harman, of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, said Mr Kay's comments pointed to a massive intelligence failure and could not be ignored. On Friday, the new ISG group head, Mr Duelfer, distanced himself from his comments on US television earlier this month in which he expressed doubts that banned weapons would ever be found. "I have now been given the responsibility of being in charge of the investigation and I don't know what the outcome will be. I don't want to pre-judge that," he said.

Mr Duelfer, 51, served as deputy executive chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq from 1993 to 2000.
Story from BBC NEWS:

Pour Biloulou et pour un peu de realisme par rapport a ce qui a ete rapporte.
Pour devancer certaines mauvaises reflexions, personne ne souhaite que les Occidentaux se plantent, simplement qu'ils s'en aillent, et vite.

America's Failed War of Attrition in Afghanistan

Jeremy Scahill | November 22, 2010


At the end of the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal this weekend, the leadership of the Afghan Taliban issued a statement characterizing the alliance's adoption of a loose timeline for a 2014 end to combat operations as "good news" for Afghans and "a sign of failure for the American government." At the summit, President Barack Obama said that 2011 will begin "a transition to full Afghan lead" in security operations, while the Taliban declared: "In the past nine years, the invaders could not establish any system of governance in Kabul and they will never be able to do so in future."
While Obama claimed that the US and its allies are "breaking the Taliban’s momentum," the reality on the ground tells a different story. Despite increased Special Operations Forces raids and, under Gen. David Petraeus, a return to regular US-led airstrikes, the insurgency in Afghanistan is spreading and growing stronger. "By killing Taliban leaders the war will not come to an end," said the Taliban's former foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, in an interview at his home in Kabul. "On the contrary, things get worse which will give birth to more leaders."

Former and current Taliban leaders say that they have seen a swelling in the Taliban ranks since 9/11. In part, they say, this can be attributed to a widely held perception that the Karzai government is corrupt and illegitimate and that Afghans—primarily ethnic Pashtuns—want foreign occupation forces out. "We are only fighting to make foreigners leave Afghanistan," a new Taliban commander in Kunduz told me during my recent trip to the country. "We don’t want to fight after the withdrawal of foreigners, but as long as there are foreigners, we won't talk to Karzai."
"The Americans have very sophisticated technology, but the problem here in Afghanistan is they are confronting ideology. I think ideology is stronger than technology," says Abdul Salam Zaeef, a former senior member of Mullah Mohammed Omar's government. "If I am a Taliban and I'm killed, I'm martyred, then I'm successful. There are no regrets for the Taliban. It's very difficult to defeat this kind of idea."

But it is not simply a matter of ideology versus technology. The Taliban is not one unified body. The Afghan insurgency is fueled by fighters with a wide variety of motivations. Some are the dedicated jihadists of which Zaeef speaks, but others are fighting to defend their land or are seeking revenge for the killing of family members by NATO or Afghan forces. While Al Qaeda has been almost entirely expelled from Afghanistan, the insurgency still counts a small number of non-Afghans among its ranks. Bolstering the Taliban's recruitment efforts is the perception in Afghanistan that the Taliban pays better than NATO or the Afghan army or police.

The hard reality US officials don't want to discuss is this: the cultural and religious values of much of the Pashtun population--which comprises 25–40 percent of the country--more closely align with those of the Taliban than they do with Afghan government or US/NATO forces. The Taliban operate a shadow government in large swaths of the Pashtun areas of the country, complete with governors and a court system. In rural areas, land and property disputes are resolved through the Taliban system rather than the Afghan government, which is widely distrusted. "The objectives and goal of the American troops in Afghanistan are not clear to the people and therefore Afghans call the Americans 'invaders,'" says Muttawakil. "Democracy is a very new phenomenon in Afghanistan and most people don’t know the meaning of democracy. And now corruption, thieves and fakes have defamed democracy. Democracy can’t be imposed because people will never adopt any value by force."

The US strategy of attempting to force the Taliban to surrender or engage in negotiations rests almost exclusively on attempts to decapitate the Taliban leadership. While Taliban leaders acknowledge that commanders are regularly killed, they say the targeted killings are producing more radical leaders who are far less likely to negotiate than the older-school Taliban leaders who served in the government of Mullah Mohammed Omar. "If today Mullah Omar was captured or killed, the fighting will go on," says Zaeef, adding: " It will be worse for everyone if the [current] Taliban leadership disappears."

In October, there were a flurry of media reports that senior Taliban leaders were negotiating with the Karzai government and that US forces were helping to insure safe passage for the Taliban leaders to come to Kabul. The Taliban passionately refuted those reports, saying they were propaganda aimed at dividing the insurgency. Last week the Taliban appeared vindicated on this point as Karzai spoke in markedly modest terms on the issue. He told The Washington Post that three months ago he had met with one or two "very high" level Taliban leaders. He characterized the meeting as "the exchange of desires for peace," saying the Taliban "feel the same as we do here—that too many people are suffering for no reason.

"UPDATE: [On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that NATO and the Afghan government have held a series of "secret" peace negotiations with a man who posed as a senior Taliban leader, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour. A Western diplomat involved in the discussions told the Times, "[W]e gave him a lot of money.” It is unclear who, if anyone, the impostor was working for, though the Times speculated that he could have been deployed by Pakistan's ISI spy agency or by the Taliban itself. “The Taliban are cleverer than the Americans and our own intelligence service,” said a senior Afghan official who is familiar with the case. “They are playing games.” Last month, the White House asked the Times to withhold Mansour’s name "from an article about the peace talks, expressing concern that the talks would be jeopardized—and Mr. Mansour’s life put at risk—if his involvement were publicized. The Times agreed to withhold Mr. Mansour’s name," according to the paper.

This incident is significant on a number of levels. If true, it underscores the ineffective and inaccurate nature of US, NATO and Afghan government intelligence. It also confirms what Taliban leaders have stated publicly and to The Nation, namely that it has not negotiated with the Afghan government or NATO and that it will not negotiate unless foreign troops leave Afghanistan. The fake Mullah Mansour, according to the Times, "did not demand, as the Taliban have in the past, a withdrawal of foreign forces or a Taliban share of the government."

In October, an American official said that reports in US media outlets of senior Taliban negotiating are propaganda aimed at sowing dissent among the Taliban leadership. "This is a psychological operation, plain and simple," the official with firsthand knowledge of the Afghan government's strategies told the McClatchy news service. "Exaggerating the significance of it is an effort to sow distrust within the insurgency."

Today on MSNBC, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell continued to insist that US and NATO forces have facilitated safe passage for Taliban leaders for reconciliation meetings in Kabul. The Taliban maintain there have been no meetings.The Taliban imposter incident also calls into question scores of deadly night raids that have resulted in the deaths of innocent Afghans. Several survivors of night raids recently told The Nation that they believed they were victims of bad intelligence provided by other Afghans for money or to settle personal grudges.Contrary to the rhetoric emanating from NATO and Washington, the Taliban are not on the ropes and, from their perspective, would gain nothing from negotiating with the United States or NATO. As far as they are concerned, time is on their side. "The bottom line for [NATO and the US] is to immediately implement what they would ultimately have to implement…after colossal casualties," stated the Taliban declaration after the recent NATO summit. "They should not postpone withdrawal of their forces."

Depending on whom you ask, the fact that General Petraeus has brought back the use of heavy US airstrikes and is increasing night raids and other direct actions by Special Operations Forces could be seen as a sign of either fierce determination to wipe out "the enemy" or of desperation to prove the United States and its allies are "winning." Over the past three months, NATO claims that Special Operations Forces' night raids have resulted in more than 360 "insurgent leaders" being killed or captured along with 960 "lower-level" leaders and the capture of more than 2400 "lower-level" fighters. In July, Special Operations Forces averaged five raids a night. Now, according to NATO, they are conducting an average of seventeen. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the raids "intelligence-driven precision operations against high value insurgents and their networks," adding, "There is no question that they are having a significant impact on the insurgent leadership."

The raids undoubtedly have produced scores of successful kill or capture operations, but serious questions abound over the NATO definitions of Taliban commanders, sub-commanders and foot soldiers. Most significantly, the raids consistently result in the killing of innocent civilians, a fact that is problematic for NATO and the Karzai government.

"A lot of times, yeah, the right guys would get targeted and the right guys would get killed," says Matthew Hoh a former senior State Department official in Afghanistan who resigned in 2009 in protest of US war strategy. "Plenty of other times, the wrong people would get killed.Sometimes it would be innocent families." Hoh, who was the senior US civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban stronghold, describes night raids as "a really risky, really violent operation," saying that when Special Operations Forces conduct them, "We might get that one guy we’re looking for or we might kill a bunch of innocent people and now make ten more Taliban out of them."Hoh describes the current use of US Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan as a "tremendous waste of resources," saying, "They are the best strike forces the world’s ever known. They’re very well trained, very well equipped, have a tremendous amount of support, and we’ve got them in Afghanistan chasing after mid-level Taliban leaders who are not threatening the United States, who are only fighting us really because we’re in their valley."

In an interview with the Washington Post in mid-November, President Karzai called for an end to the night raids. "I don't like it in any manner and the Afghan people don't like these raids in any manner," Karzai said. "We don't like raids in our homes. This is a problem between us and I hope this ends as soon as possible.... Terrorism is not invading Afghan homes and fighting terrorism is not being intrusive in the daily Afghan life."

Karzai's comments angered the Obama administration. At the NATO summit, President Obama acknowledged that civilian deaths have sparked "real tensions" with the Karzai government, but reserved the right to continue US raids. "[Karzai's] got to understand that I've got a bunch of young men and women...who are in a foreign country being shot at and having to traverse terrain filled with IEDs, and they need to protect themselves," Obama said. "So if we're setting things up where they're just sitting ducks for the Taliban, that's not an acceptable answer either." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham blasted Karzai's statement calling for an end to night raids, saying, “it would be a disaster for the Petraeus strategy.”

Along with Afghan government corruption, including a cabal of war lords, drug dealers and war criminals in key positions, the so-called Petraeus strategy of ratcheting up air strikes and expanding night raids is itself delivering substantial blows to the stated US counterinsurgency strategy and the much-discussed battle for hearts and minds. The raids and airstrikes are premiere recruiting points for the Taliban and, unlike Senator Graham and the Obama administration, Karzai seems to get that. In the bigger picture, the United States appears to be trying to kill its way to a passable definition of a success or even victory. This strategy puts a premium on the number of kills and captures of anyone who can loosely be defined as an insurgent and completely sidelines the blowback these operations cause. "We found ourselves in this Special Operations form of attrition warfare," says Hoh, "which is kind of like an oxymoron, because Special Operations are not supposed to be in attrition warfare. But we’ve found ourselves in that in Afghanistan."

En attendant de pouvoir inserer un lien:

Netanyahu to U.S.: Don't second-guess me on Hamas

By ASSOCIATED PRESS | 8/2/14 7:12 AM EDT
  
WASHINGTON — Following the quick collapse of the cease-fire in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the White House not to force a truce with Palestinian militants on Israel.

Sources familiar with conversations between Netanyahu and senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, say the Israeli leader advised the Obama administration "not to ever second guess me again" on the matter. The officials also said Netanyahu said he should be "trusted" on the issue and about the unwillingness of Hamas to enter into and follow through on cease-fire talks.

Spoiler:

Finalement!!!

President approves mission to drop humanitarian aid in Iraq
Published August 07, 2014


President Obama has approved a mission to to drop humanitarian aid in Iraq for the 40,000 or so religious minorities stranded on a mountaintop in the country's north after Islamic militants forced them to flee, senior U.S. officials told Fox News Thursday night.

However, the officials said the air drops had not yet begun.

Spoiler:

foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/07/Iraq-air-drops/

14 -

Il ne reste plus qu'à prier qu'en raison d'un manque d'orthodoxie les officiels ne finissent pas par mettre une
croix sur ce programme de parachutage d'une aide humanitaire aux minorités chrétiennes.

It’s the Loyalty, Stupid
Maureen Dowd

WASHINGTON — I talked to Robin Williams once, about breasts.

Spoiler:

So when I think of Williams, I think of Kelly. And when I think of Kelly, I think of Hillary, because Michael was the first American reporter to die in the Iraq invasion, and Hillary Clinton was one of the 29 Democratic senators who voted to authorize that baloney war.
The woman who always does her homework, the woman who resigned as president of Wellesley College’s Young Republicans over the Vietnam War, made that vote without even bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate with its skimpy evidence.
It was obvious in real time that the Bush crew was arbitrarily switching countries, blaming 9/11 on Saddam so they’d get more vivid vengeance targets and a chance to shake up the Middle East chessboard, and that officials were shamelessly making up the threat as they went along. For me to believe that Hillary would be a good president, I would need to feel that she had learned something from that deadly, globe-shattering vote — a calculated attempt to be tough and show that, as a Democratic woman, she was not afraid to use power.
Yet, she’s still at it.
With the diplomatic finesse of a wrecking ball, the former diplomat gave an interview to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, a hawk, in a calculated attempt to be tough and show that, as a Democratic woman, she’s not afraid to use power.

Channeling her pal John McCain, she took a cheap shot at President Obama when his approval rating on foreign policy had dropped to 36 percent, calling him a wimp just as he was preparing to order airstrikes against ISIS.
As one Democrat noted, citing the callous Clintonian principle that unpopular things make foolish investments: “If Obama was at 63 instead of 36, she’d be happy to be Robin to his Batman.”
It’s not that she’s too old, despite nasty cracks on conservative websites like the Washington Free Beacon. It’s that she’s too old-think, thrusting herself forward as a hawk at a time when hawks — in the season of Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul — aren’t so cool. Americans are sick of the idea that we should plunge in and plant our flag in the ground and work out the details later. It’s a complicated world, where you cross the border from Syria to Iraq and your allies are the enemy.


Les Etats Unis subiront eventuellement une nouvelle attaque terroriste (la question n'est pas de savoir "si" mais "quand") et a ce moment la, les Americains opposes a l'heure actuelle a une action au Moyen Orient changeront rapidement d'avis. Pas besoin d'etre cynique pour etre convaincue qu'Hillary joue la dessus.

Mais bon, c'est interessant de voir qu'elle n'est pas forcement la candidate Democrate de predilection. (Moveon.org a fait egalement connaitre son mecontentement..)