.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 |  |
|
+6Charly Shansaa Alice jam EddieCochran Biloulou 10 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/7/2009, 08:44 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Bonjour Biloulou  Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait! |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 21/9/2009, 11:18 | |
| C'est assez surprenant tout de meme, que notre ministre de la Justice Eric Holder ait qualifie les Americains de "laches" parce que selon lui, ils sont incapables d'avoir un discours/un echange sur le racisme et que lorsqu'il y en a un -1) en juillet dernier au sujet du policier BLANC qui avait arrete un professeur d'universite AFRO-AMERICAIN -2) la semaine derniere, suite au commentaire de Carter) il leur est reproche, comme ce w.e. (lors de ses apparitions matinales sur 5 chaines differentes (Mais pas FOX, hein) - a eux mais surtout aux media qui ont ose lancer cet echange...) par le president. Depuis que le gouvernement Obama est en place, j'ai le net sentiment, en tant que citoyenne americaine, d'etre traitee comme une enfant, que l'on dispute constamment; une autre phase de la mise en place de l'" etat nounou"?  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 21/9/2009, 15:47 | |
| Is Lieberman at it again?By LISA LERER | 9/21/09 4:58 AM EDT With a proposal for cash for coal plants and nuclear power, Joe Lieberman may yet again alienate Dems. Photo: AP Sen. Joe Lieberman alienated a lot of Democrats last year when he campaigned for John McCain and dismissed Barack Obama as a “talker” rather than a leader.He may be on the verge of doing it again. - Spoiler:
In an effort to resuscitate some version of the House climate change bill in the Senate, the Connecticut independent is trying to get Republicans and moderate Democrats on board by adding money for coal power and nuclear plants — changes that would infuriate many of the bill’s liberal supporters.
“I don’t think we’re going to [pass a bill] without bipartisan support,” Lieberman told POLITICO last week. “And without a nuclear title that’s stronger than in the House climate change legislation, we’re not going to be able to get enough votes to pass climate change.”
Lieberman’s staff has been meeting quietly with staffers for more than a dozen senators on both sides of the aisle to draft provisions that would increase funding for coal and nuclear power plants.
Republican participants in the bipartisan group include aides to Lieberman’s 2008 traveling companions, McCain and Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, as well as those of Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Richard Burr of North Carolina — all of whom have harshly criticized the climate bill that passed the House in late June.
Lieberman believes that including greater funding for coal and nuclear energy could make the bill more attractive to Republicans and conservative Democrats. The Republicans in his group agree — but some say that increasing support for nuclear power is unlikely to be enough to win their votes.
“There are a lot of things that keep you from having a bipartisan bill,” said Burr. “The bill is flawed, and the way, at least, it will be implemented picks winners and losers state to state.”
But Lieberman risks losing Democrats’ support if he proposes wholesale changes in the bill.
Coal and nuclear plants are reviled by many environmentalists, who see them as dangerous and dirty sources of power.
“There is potentially a limited role for nuclear but nothing like the Republicans want to do,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Lieberman’s efforts mark the fifth time he’s tried to get a climate bill through Congress. But this time, he has to call the plays from the sidelines.
Last year, the Democratic Party stripped the Democrat- turned-independent of his seat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where he chaired a global warming subcommittee, as punishment for his role in the 2008 GOP presidential campaign.
That hasn’t stopped him from opening up his old playbook.
In 2005, Lieberman tried to attract support for a climate bill he sponsored with McCain by including provisions that would have helped the nuclear power industry. The bill failed 38-60, after California Sen. Barbara Boxer and several other Senate Democrats voted against it.
Despite that loss, Lieberman still believes nuclear power could break a climate deadlock.
“On some issues — nuclear is one; coal, even more — the differences are not that partisan. They are more geographic,” he said.
Boxer, chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is expected to introduce a global warming bill by the end of the month. For months, she has resisted proposals that would encourage nuclear power. But more recently, she has said that her bill will include a nuclear title, although Democratic aides said they expect it to offer little more than incentives for research and development.
Nevertheless, Boxer’s move is an indication of the type of compromise Democrats will have to make to get a climate bill through the Senate. The Democratic Caucus is spilt over the climate bill, with Rust Belt senators fearing that the legislation could hurt industry and consumers in their region. The divide among Democrats means supporters will most likely need Republican votes to overcome a Senate filibuster.
Democrats are hoping to persuade a few moderate Republicans, such as Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, to vote for the legislation.
“In terms of getting it across the finish line, having some Republicans on the bill would make it easier to pass,” said Joshua Freed, a policy analyst with the centrist group Third Way. “And having a couple more than Snowe would make the whole process much easier.”
But the vast majority of Senate Republicans oppose the legislation, with their most vehement criticisms reserved for the cap-and-trade system included in the House bill. Democrats consider cap and trade to be the centerpiece of the legislation because it would put a firm limit on greenhouse gas emissions.
Republicans have spent months calling for more federal support for nuclear and coal power and would like to see them have a far more expansive role in the bill. And Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has called for the United States to build 100 new nuclear plants by 2030.
“Nuclear power is a key pathway forward,” Graham said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1376 - 22/9/2009, 09:35 | |
| Apres avoir ete accusee de transformer un simple discours de rentree scolaire en appel au par Barak Obama soutien des enfants et des adolescents de ses idees/de son programme, la Maison Blanche aurait contacte des artistes pour leur demander de produite des oeuvres soutenant elles aussi le president. Audiotape Reveals Artists Being Asked to Support Obama's AgendaAn official at the White House Office of Public Engagement told a group of handpicked artists that they would receive "some specific asks" during a controversial conference call that encouraged production of artwork supporting the administration's agenda in the name of service, a transcript of the call reveals. FOXNews.comMonday, September 21, 2009 An official at the White House Office of Public Engagement encouraged a group of artists on a conference call with the National Endowment for the Arts to produce works that supported the Obama administration's agenda, a transcript of the call reveals.- Spoiler:
The 44-page transcript, which was posted Monday on BigGovernment.com, details an hour-long conference call on Aug. 10 hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement and United We Serve, a nationwide initiative launched by President Obama to increase volunteerism.
"We're going to need your help, and we're going to come at you with some specific 'asks' here," said Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. "But we know that you guys are ready for it and eager to participate, so one we want to thank you, and two, I hope you guys are ready."
Wicks, who did not respond to requests for comment, was one of several officials on the call -- along with then-NEA Director of Communications Yosi Sergant and Michael Skolnik, political director for hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons -- seeking focused efforts by the artists in health care, energy and environment, education and community renewal.
Sergant, who was reassigned by the NEA last week, said on the call that the effort was the first of a "brand new conversation."
He told the artists, "Pick -- I would encourage you to pick something, whether it's health care, education, the environment, you know, there's four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service. My ask would be to apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities' utilities and bring them to the table."
Sergant could not be reached for comment.
Patrick Courrieleche, one of the artists on the call, first wrote about the experience on the blog Big Hollywood. Courrieleche, 39, of Los Angeles, said the ubiquitous Obama "Hope" poster by artist Shepard Fairey and musician will.i.am's "Yes We Can" song and music video were offered as examples of the artist group's clear impact on Obama's landslide election.
"What I heard was a well thought-out pitch to encourage artists to create art on these issues," he told FOXNews.com in August. "We were told were consulted for a reason, and they specifically stated those issues we should focus on, to plant the seed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they're attempting to do."
According to the newly-released transcript, Skolnik told Courrielche and the other artists that he had "been asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA" to participate about a month prior to the call.
"You are the thought leaders," Skolnik told the artists. "You are the ones that, if you create a piece of art or promote a piece of art or create a campaign for a company, and tell our country and our young people sort of what to do and what to be in to; and what's cool and what's not cool. And so I'm hoping that through this group and the goal of all this and the goal of this phone call, is through this group that we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things that we're passionate about as we did during the campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president's initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration."
In a statement to FOXNews.com earlier this month, NEA officials denied that the call was intended to promote a legislative agenda.
"This call was not a means to promote any legislative agenda and any suggestions to that end are simply false," the statement read. "The NEA regularly does outreach to various organizations to inform of the work we are doing and the resources available to them."
White House spokesman Shin Inouye echoed the NEA's statement, saying it was not intended to promote any legislative agenda.
"It was a discussion on the United We Serve effort and how all Americans can participate," Inouye told FOXNews.com on Sept. 10.
Officials from the NEA and the White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
On pourrait peut-etre recycler certains tableaux de la magnificence artistique de l'epoque Mao ou Lenine? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 22/9/2009, 10:29 | |
| September 21, 2009 Pataki: Obama Wrong To Pressure PatersonGeorge Pataki said today that the White House pressuring Gov. David Paterson to not to run for re-election further undermines his ability to right New York's economy in challenging times, and he suggested President Obama's time was better served focusing on policy and not politics.- Spoiler:
"I just think it's wrong," Pataki said when asked about reports that Obama aides are urging Paterson not to run for a full term in 2010. "New York state is facing very difficult times. We're going to have an extraordinarily difficult challenge in dealing with the state's financial situation. ...
To weaken and undermine the governor beyond the weakness that already exists, at a time when he will be the governor for the next 15 months, to me just doesn't serve the interests of the state, doesn't serve the interests of our country."
Pataki, who served as New York's governor for 12 years, said on a conference call hosted by the RNC to rebut Obama's visit to the Albany area that any officeholder or potential candidate's decision to run is a personal one, and should be made not just based on the likelihood of winning, but because a person has the "ideas" and "vision" to lead.
"That's what this decision should be made on, not on poll numbers," said Pataki, who is a potential U.S. Senate candidate.
Asked if he was, indeed, considering a bid, Pataki said he's been flattered by people urging him to run for office again, but would not say what if any office he might seek. He also indicated a decision won't come soon.
"For better or worse people of this state know me pretty well. And so if I am going to make a decision at some point to again enter the elective arena, I can do it a lot further down the road than now," he said.
Asked about a potential run for governor by Rudy Giuliani, Pataki said he believes he is considering it and "if he were going to decide he were going to run it would be a formidable candidate." Rick Lazio, a former U.S. Senate candidate and Long Island congressman, is announcing his candidacy tomorrow.
=====Hier un moment genant: Barack Obama se retrouvant face-a-face avec David Paterson (en anglais)Pour rappel, Paterson (1er Afro-American a la tete de l'etat de New York, 2eme de tous les etats, legalement aveugle, etait le Gouverneur adjoint en mars 2008 lorsqu'il prend le poste de gouverneur, Eliot Spitzer ayant du demissionner pour avoir ete mele a une affaire de prostitution (Client 9 en anglais)  . Il se presente a la candidature mais les resultats de sondage ne sont pas ceux qu'Obama souhaiterait, il est donc demande a Paterson de... laisser la place. Pour le moment, Paterson ne cede pas. Je pense que sans risquer d'etre qualifie(e) d'injuste ni de partial(e), on peut maintenant reconnaitre au president une tendance certaine a la micro-gestion . Peut-etre que s'il s'en tenait a son travail de President des Etats Unis sans y ajouter celui de Secretaire General du Parti Democrate, de bon pere de famille national, de redacteur en chef des media, de predicteur de victoires sportives, de medecin en chef, de leader d'une nouvelle forme de Jeunesse Scout etc... etc... etc... mais bon. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1378 - 22/9/2009, 11:27 | |
| Au sujet du tour mediatique dominical de Barack Obama en evitant soigneusement FOX News mais sans oublier lundi, sa presence chez Letterman (une premiere presidentielle).
O'Reilly
 |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 22/9/2009, 12:37 | |
| Au sujet du tour mediatique dominical de Barack Obama
Il ferait mieux de constituer un cabinet de républicains. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1380 - 22/9/2009, 15:01 | |
| Sen. Barrasso: Baucus' Bill Loaded with "Gimmicks"
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY): "They're going to collect taxes for 10 years, and only give services for six. That's the gimmick they're using to do this budgetary thing where they say they can pay for it in 10 years." |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 22/9/2009, 15:45 | |
| A.D.C. whodunit: Who leaked and why?By BEN SMITH | 9/22/09 4:51 AM EDT Bob Woodward’s Monday-morning exclusive on a 66-page report from Gen. Stanley McChrystal to President Barack Obama about Afghanistan policy was a rite of passage for the new administration: the first major national security leak and a sure sign that the celebrated Washington Post reporter has penetrated yet another administration.- Spoiler:
 Photo: AP Ohh Ohh!! pas la photo de Barack Obama entre les deux hommes, comme c'est de coutume chez Politico? White House officials greeted the leak with a grimace, but none suggested they’d begin a witch hunt for the leaker. Woodward is famous for his access to the principals themselves — he recently traveled to Afghanistan with National Security Adviser James Jones — and leak hunters couldn’t expect with confidence that they’d find themselves disciplining just an undisciplined junior staffer. But inside the White House and out, the leak touched off another familiar Washington ritual: speculation about the leaker’s identity and motives. This is a capital parlor game that, for the Obama administration, has some dire implications. Unless the West Wing somehow orchestrated an elaborate head fake — authorizing what looks at first blush like an intolerable breach of Obama’s internal deliberations — the Woodward story suggests deeper problems for a new president than a bad news cycle. Woodward — like other reporters, only more so — tends to shake loose information when he can exploit policy conflicts within an administration. There is now a big one over a critical national security decision, along with evidence that some people who ostensibly work for Obama feel they can pressure him with impunity. It took several years within former President George W. Bush’s administration before deep personal and policy fissures became visible. So who did it? The simplest theory — and one most administration officials Monday were endorsing — is that a military or civilian Pentagon official who supports McChrystal’s policy put it out in an attempt to pressure Obama to follow McChrystal’s suggestion and increase troop levels in Afghanistan. But not everyone in Washington is a believer in Occam’s razor, so all manner of other theories flourished. There are believers in the reverse leak, in which the leak itself is meant to damage McChrystal’s position by inducing White House anger at the general. There’s the fake leak, in which the White House may have been trying to back itself into a corner. A former government official with ties to the Pentagon said the talk in the building was that a senior military official had given it to the reporter for his book on the Obama White House — not realizing it could end up in print sooner. “That places the ball clearly in the president’s court,” former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen said, noting that Obama had already publicly placed his trust in McChrystal’s judgment. “It’s an effort — whether by [McChrystal] or by somebody in the Pentagon or maybe the White House — to say, ‘You’ve asked the military to give you not what you want to hear but what you have to know. Now it’s up to you as commander in chief to decide if you think you have a better idea.’” The leak is a shot across the bows, he said, of Vice President Joe Biden and of leading congressional Democrats who oppose a buildup in Afghanistan. Another Clinton veteran with experience in national security matters was not so sure, however, that Obama wasn’t helped by a piece that lays the public ground for an inevitable troop escalation. “This thing has to have some airing and consideration by the public — so in the tactical sense, there’s a benefit to considering it,” the official said. But some said all this speculation may be overthinking the matter. Many people in Washington, after all, are motivated by personal vanities as much as by policy convictions. “It’s most likely someone who has or is cultivating a personal relationship with Bob Woodward and positioning himself to look good in Woodward’s next book,” said Matt Bennett, vice president at the Democratic-leaning think tank Third Way, echoing the views of many inside government and out.The history of Woodward sources portrayed as heroes is long, including the likes of Colin Powell and, for a time, George W. Bush. But Woodward’s take on the Bush administration also changed dramatically with time, and some portrayed positively in his early books were savaged in the later ones. Whatever the motive, the appearance of McChrystal’s report makes it more difficult for Obama to defer, through an extensive series of consultations, a decision over which side he will take in a debate over the recommendation of adding more soldiers and civilians to a more robust mission with the goal of giving Afghanistan — perhaps for the first time — a strong, functioning central government. The release follows a letter from a range of Obama’s usual critics — from neoconservative foreign policy thinkers to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Bush adviser Karl Rove — pressing Obama to follow just that policy. “The Pentagon hasn’t changed and there are a lot of people within the Pentagon who understand the strategic use of the leak,” said Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the Democratic-leaning National Security Network. One possibility you have to look at is this being leaked by someone who is in league with the neocon assault on Obama, where anything short of ‘all in’ is framed as weak and a defeat.” In the larger sense, the document’s contents are completely unsurprising — McChrystal’s views were widely known, and the assessment just spells them out. But giving the document to a brand name like Bob Woodward, who has a flair for the dramatic, ensures big play in The Washington Post and broad pickup by other media. “This leak would, by all appearances, be the act of someone who supports an increase in troop strength and resources,” said Kevin Kellems, a communications director for former Vice President Dick Cheney, who noted that “the power of Woodward going on page A1 is exceptional” in its ability to dictate to wire services and cable outlets, a vanishing power of the newspapers. “This is the act most likely of a civilian who is an advocate of this position and believes they were right to do this because lives were at stake.” Third Way’s Bennett, whose group backs a bigger commitment in Afghanistan, said he thought the document would do McChrystal’s position more harm than good. “It’s not going to pressure the president to go the way they want him to go,” he said. “It’s going to annoy people in the White House, and that’s never a good idea.” Others argued that the White House itself benefits from the leak. “It’s a helpful thing to have out in the ether for the White House,” said Dan Senor, a former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, who said the report would help beat back criticism on the left. “I think the White House wants to convey how much pressure they’re under from the military,” he said, adding that he wouldn’t speculate on the source of the leak. Others simply welcomed the fact that the leak might force a quicker decision on an urgent question. “It at least, for the first time, gives people a tangible picture of what the recommended options are, and it to some extent forces the issue,” said Anthony Cordesman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has been critical of an Afghan buildup. “The tendency in the White House is to try and slip this until health care and possibly the economy are taken care of, but nobody has that kind of time.” -- Mike Allen and Kendra Marr contributed to this story.J'espere que vous n'attendiez pas qu'on vous donne reellement le nom de la personne en question...
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1382 - 22/9/2009, 17:48 | |
| Ca devrait plaire a Biloulou  Obama: Climate Change an "Irreversible catastrophe" If Not AddressedA failure to address climate change could create an "irreversible catastrophe," President Obama warned Tuesday in a speech at the United Nations. FOXNews.comTuesday, September 22, 2009 - Spoiler:
A failure to address climate change could create an "irreversible catastrophe," President Obama warned Tuesday in a speech at the United Nations in which he promised a renewed American commitment to the problem and urged developing nations to do their part in reducing emissions.
"No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change," the president said.
Obama said time is "running out" to fix the problem but that, "we can reverse it."
But the United States has been greeted with skepticism on pledges to advance climate change legislation.
A sweeping climate change bill passed the House this year, but it has been held up in the Senate as health care reform dominates the domestic agenda in Washington.
European officials have criticized the United States for being slow to act and expressed doubt about its ability to match the efforts of other countries.
Obama on Tuesday acknowledged that developed nations including the United States have contributed most to climate change and been slow to respond.
But he did not specifically address the current hold-up in the Senate. He generally touted progress that has been made in the U.S. in recent months, including new standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles and the House version of the so-called cap-and-trade bill.
"Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations."
He then put pressure on developing nations to "do their part as well."
"They will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own. We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together," he said, adding that wealthy nations have a responsibility to help developing nations financially to make the changes.
China and the United States contribute the most greenhouse gas emissions of all countries, with each accounting for about 20 percent of the global total.
|
| | | | Biloulou
 Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 22/9/2009, 18:41 | |
| Monsieur le Président ignore probablement que : Les vaches plus nocives que les voitures
(AFP, le mercredi 29 novembre 2006, 16:52)
L'élevage des bovins produit davantage de gaz à effet de serre que le trafic routier, affirme l'Organisation mondiale pour l'agriculture et l'alimentation qui tire le signal d'alarme dans un rapport sur les dégâts provoqués par l'élevage dans le monde.
"Le secteur de l'élevage émet des gaz à effet de serre qui, mesurés en équivalent CO2, sont plus élevés que ceux produits par les transports", indique l'agence des Nations unies. L'élevage "représente 9% du CO2 dérivant des activités humaines", mais il produit cependant "une bien plus grande part des gaz à effet de serre les plus nocifs".
Le secteur "est responsable de 65% des émissions d'hémioxyde d'azote - imputables essentiellement au fumier - qui a un potentiel de réchauffement global (PRG) 296 fois plus élevé que le CO2", souligne-t-elle. En outre, l'élevage représente 37% de tout le méthane rejeté par les activités humaines (agissant sur le réchauffement 23 fois plus que le CO2) en grande partie produit par le système digestif des ruminants, et 64% de l'ammoniac qui contribue sensiblement aux pluies acides. [...] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mais il a rasion, certains effets sont irréversibles. C'est du moins l'avis des dinosaures, disparus bien avant que l'homme existe...  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 22/9/2009, 20:11 | |
| I thought it would....  Ah Mais, pour lui, si on est sage et qu'on l'ecoute, le probleme EST reversible. Evidemment aucun des media ne presente les scientifiques qui ne partagent pas l'avis de ces messieurs. Comment expliquer une nouvelle taxe, si le doute existe! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1385 - 22/9/2009, 20:18 | |
| Obama's Befudding Afghan PolicyWhy is the president hesitating on more troops to fight his 'war of necessity'?
I'm lost on President Barack Obama's Afghanistan policy—along with most of Congress and the U.S. military. Not quite eight months ago, Mr. Obama pledged to "defeat" al Qaeda in Afghanistan by transforming that country's political and economic infrastructure, training Afghan forces and adding 21,000 U.S. forces for starters. He proclaimed Afghanistan's strategic centrality to prevent Muslim extremism from taking over Pakistan—an even more vital nation because of its nuclear weapons. And a mere three weeks ago, he punctuated his commitments by proclaiming that Afghanistan is a "war of necessity," not one of choice. White House spokesmen reinforced this by promising that the president would "fully resource" the war.
- Spoiler:
Yet less than one week ago, Mr. Obama said the following about troop increases: "I'm going to take a very deliberate process in making those decisions. There is no immediate decision pending on resources, because one of the things that I'm absolutely clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make a determination about resources." He repeated that on Sunday's talk shows.
Are we now to understand that he made all those previous declarations and decisions without a strategy he was committed to? Prior to his recent statements, it seemed clear that the president and his advisers had adopted a strategy already—the counterinsurgency one—and that Gen. Stanley McChrystal was tapped precisely because he would implement that plan. The idea, to repeat, was to deploy forces sufficient to clear territory of Taliban threats, hold that territory, and build up the sinews of the country behind that.
Nothing significant has changed to account for the shift from Mr. Obama's confident policy proclamations to his temporizing statements of recent days. The president certainly understood before last week that the situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating. And he knew when he was inaugurated and when he first uttered his colorful "war of necessity" phrase that his party, and the public generally, were increasingly opposed to the war.
Americans are now confused and caught somewhere between remembering the president's insistence on Afghanistan's importance to U.S. security and rapidly rising pressure from his party to bring the troops home.
What is to be done? Even though I strongly believe that the United States does not have vital interests in Afghanistan, I also believe that Mr. Obama can't simply walk away from the war. A lot of Democrats don't seem to fathom this. At a minimum, the president has got to give Afghan allies a fighting chance to hold their own and prepare the ground to blunt the Taliban and al Qaeda. That will take time.
For their part, Republicans and others who advocate an open-ended U.S. commitment can't simply ignore the fact that political time is running out at home. It would be utterly irresponsible of them to simply shake their fingers at the Democrats and wait for them to fail in Afghanistan. Despite President George W. Bush's rhetoric on Iraq, he saw the writing on the wall and agreed to an American withdrawal. And if the hard-headed realists among conservatives aren't just playing political games, they also have to honor the time problem.
Democrats have to realize that more time is needed, and Republicans must acknowledge that America's combat commitment cannot be indefinite. If political leaders accept these underlying political realities, the Obama administration can craft a strategy along the following lines:
• Surge two additional combat brigades, or roughly 10,000 troops, to lift the U.S. total to about 78,000 from 68,000.
• Deploy an additional 5,000 to 10,000 troops strictly for the purpose of training and supporting Afghan police and armed forces, and embed U.S. advisers with heavy intelligence backup. As important as increasing troop numbers is changing the American attitude toward the war. Our armed forces can't continue to treat most problems as American problems, and they must begin to turn over real authority to the Afghans.
• Provide support to leaders in Kabul and tribal leaders around the country who will oppose the Taliban and fight for their independence.
• Put money on the table to divide Taliban from Taliban, and Taliban from al Qaeda. We know many of them respond to financial—as well as security—inducements.
• Build alliances to contain the Taliban and other regional extremists. Focus on India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, China, and yes, even Iran, which cooperated with Washington at the outset of the Afghan war. These states share common interests with America in combating al Qaeda-like terrorism and the drug trade.
• Set up tough and credible deterrence capabilities. It's particularly critical to retain special operations forces in Afghanistan with the ability to fire from drones and perform other operations. Capabilities for missile and air attacks launched from beyond Afghanistan need to be honed as well. Token attacks won't be enough.
Putting this strategy and the attendant capabilities in place would take two to three years. But doing so would make this war Afghanistan's responsibility. It must be this way in order to avoid defeat. If the war remains essentially America's, it will guarantee failure. As almost always in such situations, the Afghans will tire of their American saviors. Even more certainly, Americans will eventually lose all patience and demand immediate pullouts, leaving Afghans unprepared to defend themselves.
The U.S. now faces many very serious troubles abroad. These were all born before the Obama presidency. The president's failure in Afghanistan would be America's failure, and we cannot allow this to happen. Defeat for America in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be avoided only if Democrats acknowledge that the Afghans need major help for two to three more years, and Republicans admit that the political clock at home won't give them much more time than that.
Mr. Gelb is author of "Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy" (HarperCollins, 2009) and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A25
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 22/9/2009, 23:19 | |
| Compter sur les Democrates pour imposer leurs desirs. Craignant de ne pouvoir obtenir les 60 voix necessaires au passage du projet de loi concernant l'assurance medicale, Le leader Democrate du Senat a l'intention d'utiliser un outil qui leur permettra de le forcer a une simple majorite. Ahhhh si les Republicains avaient fait ca! Reid Threatens 'Nuclear Option' to Pass Health Care Reform as Panel Starts WorkFOXNews.comTuesday, September 22, 2009 The Nevada senator threatened to use a budgetary tool called reconciliation -- also known as the "nuclear option" -- which would allow Democrats to pass key parts of health care legislation with a simple majority, as opposed to the 60 votes usually needed to avoid a filibuster. - Spoiler:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatened on Tuesday to use a procedural maneuver to steamroll opponents of health care reform, even as a Senate panel began delicate negotiations over a package that could have the best chance at passing.
The Nevada Democrat, who has issued similar threats before, spoke as the Senate Finance Committee began debate over Chairman Max Baucus' reform plan. Reid threatened to use a budgetary tool called reconciliation -- also known as the "nuclear option" -- that would allow Democrats to pass key parts of the legislation with a simple majority, as opposed to the 60 votes needed to avoid a Republican filibuster.
"If we can't work this out to do something within the committee structure, then we'll be forced to do the reconciliation," Reid said, adding that he views that as a "last resort."
"It remains to be seen as to whether we will have to do reconciliation. I am confident and hopeful we won't have to do that, but time will only tell," Reid said.
Republican Sen. Richard Burr, N.C., said reconciliation would be a "grave mistake," and that Reid underestimates the public concerns over the bill.
"I don't think it's a threat. I think that's what Harry Reid intends to do," Burr told FOX News.
But the Senate Finance Committee pushed through tense and intensive talks Tuesday to reach common ground on the Baucus plan. Senators have filed 564 amendments, and on Tuesday afternoon Baucus released a slew of changes.
Among them, Baucus agreed to cut in half the penalty attached to a government-mandated requirement to buy health insurance. Under the changes, families could be charged a maximum of $1,900 for failing to meet the requirement -- as opposed to $3,800.
Baucus also agreed to raise the threshold for insurance plans that would be subject to an excise tax. Under the revisions, plans worth $8,750 for individuals and $23,000 for families would be subject to the tax -- the thresholds were previously $8,000 for individual plans and $21,000 for family plans.
And he agreed to increase the value of tax credits low- and middle-income people would receive toward insurance. Officials said Baucus decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working class families.
The Finance Committee is the last of five panels to have a say before the full Senate debates legislation.
Baucus' legislation is designed to make coverage more available and affordable, while restraining the growth in the cost of medical care generally. Its 10-year price tag is below $900 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Baucus made numerous concessions to Republicans in his unsuccessful stab at bipartisan compromise, jettisoning calls for the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry, as well as a proposed requirement for large companies to offer insurance to their workers.
In his opening remarks, Baucus sought to preempt Republican criticism.
"Despite what some may say, this is no 'government takeover' of health care," Baucus said. "Our plan does not include a public option. We did not include an employer mandate. And we have paid for every cent."
But Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the panel's ranking Republican, said the White House and Democratic leaders short-circuited the bipartisan talks by imposing a mid-September deadline. "I find it utterly and completely appalling," he said.
Grassley criticized many of the plan's key components, from a requirement that all Americans get insurance, to the taxes that would pay for subsidies to make the coverage affordable. He also said the bill falls short in guaranteeing that illegal immigrants won't get government help to buy insurance, as well as in preventing funding for abortion.
The concerns are bipartisan.
A number of committee Democrats had raised concerns about whether subsidies in Baucus' bill are generous enough to make insurance truly affordable for low-income people. There also are worries about the new tax on high-cost insurance plans, which critics fear would hit some middle-class workers, including many union members in risky occupations such as mining and police work.
Those concerns were shared by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whose support could become even more critical if legislation makes it to the Senate floor.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1387 - 22/9/2009, 23:31 | |
| Poll: Americans Angry at FedsFOXNews.comTuesday, September 22, 2009 Americans are overwhelmingly angry at the U.S. government and is nearly as let down by the lack of ideas from both political parties, a new poll by Rasmussen Reports revealed Tuesday.- Spoiler:
Sixty-six percent of voters in a national poll said they're angry at the policies of the federal government, including 36 percent who counted themselves as very angry.Thirty percent are not really angry, including 10 percent of whom say they aren't angry at all.Among those most angry are Republicans -- 90 percent of whom say they are somewhat or very angry. Seventy-seven percent of independents are angry and just 44 percent of Democrats are peeved. Among those suggesting anger abounds falls a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents -- 59 percent overall -- who say the anger is greater now than it was during the Bush administration. But few believe that the political parties have an answer. Of those surveyed, 60 percent said neither Republicans nor Democrats understand what is needed and among those who claimed to be very angry, that number rises to 80 percent.Forty-three percent of people say they are at least partly concerned that the anger could turn violent. That fear breaks down among party lines with 63 percent of Democrats saying they are concerned and 71 percent of Republicans saying they are not concerned. Sixty-one percent of independents are also not concerned.*Additionally, those who are most angry are least concerned about violence. Among the 36 percent who are very angry at the government, only 15 percent say they are very concerned about the possibility of violence. But 51 percent of those who are not angry at all say they fear violence. The poll of 1,000 adults was taken Sept. 20-21 and has a margin of error of 3 points.* 
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1388 - 23/9/2009, 08:35 | |
| Qaddafi Pitches Tent on Trump Land; N.Y. Town Orders StopWednesday, September 23, 2009  Evan Schneider / The United NationsSept 22: Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi walks the grounds of United Nations Headquarters in New York.WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — The Libyan government has pitched a tent in suburban New York that leader Muammar Qaddafi may use for entertaining, according to a State Department official.And it appears the property was rented from Donald Trump.- Spoiler:
However, an attorney for the town of Bedford, around 43 miles north of Manhattan, said the town ordered work to be stopped at the site late Tuesday."We believe the erection of a tent on the ... property violates several codes and laws of the town of Bedford," Attorney Joel Sachs said.Sachs said officials found workers constructing the tent but could not communicate with them because they didn't speak English. He said they gave the order to stop the work to the property's caretaker."There is no such thing as diplomatic immunity when it comes to complying with local laws and ordinances," Sachs said. "This is a private piece of property and they have to comply with the laws of this municipality."Town officials will return to the site Wednesday to make sure the Libyans are complying with the order, Sachs said.The State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivity and protocol concerns, said the property was obtained for the duration of this week's United Nations General Assembly. The official said no one would be staying there overnight.Meanwhile, Ghadafi's motorcade arrived at the Libyan Mission to the United Nations in Manhattan, just blocks from U.N. headquarters Tuesday evening. Dozens of police and Secret Service officers blocked off the venue.Several dozen pro-Qaddafi demonstrators rallied near the office building housing the mission, carrying his portraits and chanting pro-Libyan slogans.No-parking signs were going up near Trump's Seven Springs estate in Bedford, where residents include Martha Stewart and Ralph Lauren. TV helicopters showed a tent on the Trump property. Police would not comment, and Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan would say only that the agency does not discuss the schedules or logistics of people it's protecting.As word got out, local officials quickly objected to Qaddafi's anticipated presence. Qaddafi will likely face protests over Scotland's recent release of Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which killed 270 people.The Trump Organization said Qaddafi would not be coming to Trump's estate and insisted that Trump has not rented property to him. But it said part of the estate "was leased on a short-term basis to Middle Eastern partners, who may or may not have a relationship to Mr. Qaddafi. We are looking into the matter." Qaddafi had wanted to pitch a tent at Libya's five-acre estate in Englewood, N.J., and live and entertain there during the UN assembly. But local opposition turned him away.Later, the Libyan government asked to use Manhattan's Central Park for a tent, but the request was denied.*U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey said Qaddafi had shown a lack of remorse for the bombing and was "unwelcome throughout the New York area."
* ca aurait peut-etre ete une solution pour s'en defaire?  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 23/9/2009, 09:48 | |
| NYPD Source's Role Fuels Questions About Terror ProbeWednesday, September 23, 2009 AP/Chris Schneider, Denver PostSept. 19: Terrorism suspect Najibullah Zazi is arrested by FBI agents in Aurora, Colo.NEW YORK — If Najibullah Zazi had any doubts he was a prime suspect in a terror investigation, authorities say, they were quickly erased by a local imam."They came to ask me about your characters," the Queens imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, told Zazi in a Sept. 11 phone conversation, according to a secret recording. "They asked me about you guys."The "they" referred to in a recently unsealed criminal complaint were New York Police Department detectives who had considered Afzali a reliable ally. At least one works for a division that operates independently from an FBI-run terrorism task force. - Spoiler:
Afzali's alleged tipoff has fueled questions about whether the NYPD, without the FBI's knowledge, inadvertently helped blow the surveillance of Zazi by reaching out to the imam and compromised a bomb plot probe at a sensitive stage.
The complaint also suggests investigators may have tipped off Zazi, a 24-year-old Denver airport shuttle driver, by covertly towing and searching a rental car he was using on a trip to New York City that heightened fears of an attack.
The maneuver, authorities say, produced evidence of bomb-making instructions retrieved from a hard drive on Zazi's laptop.
But it also apparently didn't get by the suspect: In the same conversation with Afzali, Zazi said the car's disappearance convinced him he was being watched.
NYPD and FBI officials have denied reports that the potential missteps forced their hand in a series of high-profile raids last week, prompted Zazi to abort his New York visit and caused friction between the two agencies, which work together through the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Asked Tuesday if he had any concerns about the handling of Afzali, NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly declined comment on the investigation beyond what was in court papers, saying the probe was classified.
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne insisted Tuesday that the NYPD and the FBI "worked closely and successfully in this case, and in scores of others." He declined further comment.
Zazi, his father and Afzali were arrested over the weekend on charges they lied to the FBI. But none was charged with terrorism, and the scale and scope of the plot remains unclear. They have denied the charges against them.
Afzali's attorney, Ron Kuby, has said his client had a history of giving police information as a "community liaison" and religious leader in his neighborhood.
Kuby claimed Afzali was doing their bidding by talking to Zazi and finding out what he was up to.
"My client is being blamed for an investigation botched by the authorities," Kuby said Tuesday. "It's much easier to blame some obscure Afghan imam."
The complaint, filed in federal court in Brooklyn, says NYPD detectives first visited Afzali at his Queens home on Sept. 10.
Around that time, the public was unaware that federal authorities were tracking a suburban Denver man with possible links to Al Qaeda who had driven to New York City — Zazi. The complaint says that unnamed detectives showed Afzali photos of Zazi and that Afzali admitted he recognized him.
Kuby said one of the detectives was his client's usual police contact, an investigator assigned to the police department's Intelligence Division, not the terrorism task force.
The day after police spoke to Afzali, the FBI intercepted his phone call with Zazi discussing the NYPD's inquiry. The next day, Afzali's lawyer said, his client had his first-ever contact with the FBI, when he agreed to answer questions at their Manhattan headquarters.
On Sept. 14, Afzali also agreed to a search of his home, then gave DNA samples and a written statement on Sept. 17, the attorney said.
Afzali was arrested on Sunday on charges he lied in the statement by denying that he had tipped off Zazi.
 |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1390 - 23/9/2009, 10:01 | |
| For CBC, the joy is tempered by worryBy JOHN BRESNAHAN | 9/22/09 8:36 PM EDT
For the Congressional Black Caucus and its 42 members, these should be the best of times.
The caucus boasts unprecedented power on Capitol Hill, with four of its members chairing major House committees and 18 others wielding subcommittee gavels. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) serves as majority whip, and African-American lawmakers find themselves a key bloc of votes on everything from health care reform to climate change to ethics rule revisions. Mega-corporations like Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola and Toyota will shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars this week to sponsor the annual legislative conference hosted by the CBC Foundation, the group’s nonprofit arm.
- Spoiler:
And, of course, the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, now resides in the White House. Obama is scheduled to speak to the group Saturday night.
“This is a triumphant moment,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the CBC’s chairwoman. “After all, a member of the CBC was elected president.”
Yet for many CBC members, there’s also an underlying sense of nervousness and concern about the shifting political landscape in the eight months since Obama was sworn in. The sudden explosion of tea party groups, with right-wing protesters carrying signs depicting Obama as an African witch doctor or in a Nazi uniform, has infuriated some black lawmakers, who say such behavior wouldn’t be tolerated for a white president.
Following Rep. Joe Wilson’s now infamous outburst — the South Carolina Republican screamed out “You lie!” during Obama’s recent address to Congress — Clyburn led the charge to have Wilson punished. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), another CBC member, speculated that Wilson’s scream could signal the return of “folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside.”
And the GOP attacks on the anti-poverty group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now*, which registered hundreds of thousands of new voters last cycle, many of them African-Americans, have also angered some black Democrats.
Obama has downplayed the question of whether race plays a role in the opposition to his policies, suggesting that “anti-government” views and media hype are more likely culprits than racism. But to thousands of African-American leaders who will attend the four-day CBC conference, the specter of resurgent racism is more than media hype or anti-government sentiment. For many of them, the talk of a “post-racial America,” so prevalent in the period following Obama’s Inauguration, is unrealistic.
“It is a great year for the CBC to be celebrating. Many of us have spent a lifetime getting where we are now,” Clyburn said in an interview with POLITICO. “But people who think the election of Barack Obama puts us in a post-racial world are being a bit naive at best.”
Clyburn said the U.S. economic downturn has made it easier for those who seek to exploit racial tension for their own political goals, and he suggested that some of the opposition to Obama’s health care reform proposal is racism “hiding behind something else.”
“I would say that those of us who study the history of this country, we know that it was economic conditions in the South that gave cover to Nathan Bedford Forrest after the Civil War,” Clyburn said, referring to the former Confederate general who helped found the Ku Klux Klan. “Without the economic conditions of the South, he would never have been successful in organizing the Ku Klux Klan, who terrorized so much of that region of the country.”
“One thing it shows us is that we don’t live in a post-racial society,” agreed Elsie Scott, president and CEO of the CBC Foundation. Scott believes that the conservative movement is using the same playbook in attacking Obama that it used on Bill Clinton when he was president — vilify Obama and his allies personally while simultaneously attacking them politically.
As evidence, she cites the successful effort to oust Van Jones, an African-American adviser to Obama on environmental policy. Jones resigned his White House post two weeks ago, claiming he was the victim of a “vicious smear campaign” by Fox News’s Glenn Beck and other conservative commentators.
“The president was fully vetted in the campaign, so they’re looking at other people around the president,” Scott said. “Many people feel there’s a whole master plan to take back the Congress.”
Lee, in her first term as CBC chairwoman, was cautious when asked whether racism is behind the deluge of anti-Obama rhetoric. “It’s hard to say,” she said. She would rather talk about the “huge structural inequities” that still face blacks and other minority groups in U.S. society.
Another issue facing the CBC is the ethics problems of some of its most senior members. Members of the caucus have long complained that black lawmakers are targeted for ethics or criminal investigations at a far higher rate than are their white colleagues, and the group formed its own task force earlier this year to look into this issue.
Six black House Democrats — Reps. Charles Rangel of New York, Donald Payne of New Jersey, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan and Maxine Waters of California and Delegate Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands — are under investigation for ethics allegations, while another member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), has been linked to the criminal case against indicted former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
The most serious allegations so far are against Rangel, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. While Rangel has denied any wrongdoing in his personal finances, he has been forced to pay thousands of dollars in back taxes and has had to file amended disclosure reports showing hundreds of thousands of dollars in previously unreported assets. Democrats have resisted GOP calls for Rangel to step down as committee chairman, but a negative report by the ethics committee could force Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand, say Democratic insiders.
The CBC conference, which runs Wednesday to Saturday, is heavy on politics and policy, but there will be plenty on nonwork events, too. A jazz concert and gospel extravaganza are scheduled for Thursday night, as well as a big gathering known as the Black Party Xperience. A fashion show will take place Friday night. It’s also heavy on corporate dollars.
Thanks to the growing power of black lawmakers, the CBC Foundation has become a fundraising magnet, raking in millions from corporate sponsors in tax-deductible contributions. In 2007, the last year for which records are available, the foundation took in more than $8.5 million and had assets worth over $9.4 million, including its headquarters by Dupont Circle.
For this year’s conference, drug giant Eli Lilly & Co. ponied up at least $500,000 to be a “premier donor” for the four-day conference. AstraZeneca and Coca-Cola are “presidential donors,” meaning they gave $250,000 or more to the foundation. Altria, Anheuser-Busch, State Farm, Verizon, Pfizer, Wal-Mart, Dell, Fannie Mae and Lockheed Martin are all “congressional donors,” at $100,000 each.
“We know many corporations are attending our [conference] because members of Congress will be there,” admitted Scott. “They may not be able to use us to buy influence with them. They use us to have access.”
* ACORN |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1391 - 23/9/2009, 10:24 | |
| Condi: The should-be face of the GOPShe's smart. She's experienced. She's worldly. Republican strategists worried about their party's future should take heed. By Nina Easton, Washington editorSeptember 22, 2009: 9:17 AM ETWASHINGTON (Fortune) -- Successful candidates follow a simple fundamental rule: Define yourself before your opponent can define you. The Republican Party, which mustered a thumbs-up from only 38% of voters in last week's Bloomberg poll, sorely needs to brush up on the very rule it counsels in candidate-training sessions.- Spoiler:
To skeptics in search of a political home, the GOP's image has devolved into that of a minority collection of name-calling, "no"-saying, backward-looking, talk-show bullying cranks -- a definition gleefully perpetuated by Democratic pols. So next time the eloquent and elegant figure of Condoleezza Rice strides onto a stage, GOP strategists worried about their party's future should pull out their notebooks.
I interviewed Rice onstage last week on the closing day of Fortune's Most Powerful Women's Summit, where she achieved a star-turn -- and did so while mounting a vigorous defense of former President Bush's oft-vilified foreign policy, and delivering a pointed critique of President Obama and congressional Democrats.
After praising President Obama and his team as "patriots who are going to try to do what's best for the country," she nevertheless warned about letting down our guard against another terrorist attack. "I am grateful -- I don't say proud, just 'grateful' -- that there wasn't another attack over the past eight years," she said. "But every day terrorists plot and plan to try to attack us. They only have to be right once. We have to be right 100% of the time. But I know, too, that can only happen because men and women in uniform are fighting on the front lines."
0:00 /17:57Rice: Iranian 'regime is done'
She offered sharp words for Democrats in Congress who want President Obama to begin making plans to pull out of Afghanistan, a war that is becoming increasingly unpopular with the American public.
"The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan," she said, "that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.
"It's that simple," she declared, "if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."
Rice acknowledged flaws in Afghanistan's recent elections but quickly inserted an addendum bolstered by her personal credentials: "Our democracy wasn't so perfect at the beginning either.
My ancestors were three-fifths of a man. My father tried to vote in 1952. You couldn't guarantee voting rights for blacks in the South until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. So don't tell me these people can't get it right because their democracies are struggling."
That said, Rice stressed the importance of setting "goals" in Afghanistan and bringing civilians in alongside troops -- as both administrations have done -- to pursue reconstruction and development in local communities. That strategy was late in coming to Iraq, she conceded.
On Iran, Rice tactfully questioned the Obama strategy of engaging the Tehran regime in direct talks about its nuclear program. "I don't have any problems with engaging bad guys. We did our share of it," she recalled. "The problem is that engagement is a tactic not a strategy. You have to ask yourself what the end is. When you go into the room with an adversary, you had better have sticks in your bag as well as carrots."
Obama officials, she warned, will be speaking to leaders not likely to survive the current internal political turmoil. "The Iranian regime is vulnerable right now," she declared, "I don't know whether it's a year from now or five years from now, but that regime is done. It has split the clerics...It has made [the brutal post-election crackdown] the formative political memory" of young people, who make up 70% of the population, she added.
Rice is mostly known as George W. Bush's Secretary of State. But she is also a concert pianist who once dueled with Yo-Yo Ma and played solo for the Queen of England; a Russian scholar and football fanatic who once listed NFL commissioner as her dream job; a black woman who grew up in the segregated South and is now something of a rock star among the 'tween girl set. (She plans to edit a version of her book about her parents for young girls.)
In other words, her appeal is broad. Onstage, Rice sounds alarms about the threat of terrorism while still sounding reasonable. She offers compassion for women in oppressive societies while hard-headedly tying their plight to America's national security. "I think that societies that treat women badly are dangerous societies," she insists.
Rice is not the only woman counter-acting the GOP's narrow image these days. All the unflattering attention paid to Sarah Palin has overshadowed the likes of former eBay (EBAY, Fortune 500) chief Meg Whitman running for governor of California, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe gamely trying to broker a health care deal in Congress, and that other Cheney -- Liz -- relentlessly making the case for a vigorous "war on terror" to TV and radio audiences.
Rice quashed rumors of a 2008 presidential run and who knows whether she'll reconsider after she decides to move on from grading papers at Stanford. As Bush's national security adviser at the launch of the Iraq War, she will never appeal to hardcore Democrats. But to those millions of independents and soft Republicans who pulled Obama over the top in last year's election -- a familiar brand of voter at this Fortune gathering -- Rice has allure.
At the end of our interview, as I stood to shake Rice's hand, I glanced over my shoulder at this audience of women-CEO's and senior business and government leaders, media opinion-makers and entertainment stars, ground-breaking academics and committed philanthropists. It was an audience I knew, first-hand, viewed the Bush administration with doubts and, in some cases, outright hostility. So what I saw was telling.
Every single woman in that San Diego hotel ballroom was on her feet-giving Condi Rice a standing ovation.
 ----- Rice: Iranian 'regime is done' (Video) |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1392 - 23/9/2009, 20:33 | |
| Obama: Obama: U.S. Does Not Recognize 'Legitimacy of Continued Israeli Settlements'"Obama's stark declaration, which drew applause, was coupled with a call for Palestinians to end their "incitement of Israel."FOXNews.comWednesday, September 23, 2009 In declaring that it is time for Middle East peace "without preconditions," President Obama used his speech to the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday to fire a warning at Israel that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."- Spoiler:
Obama's stark declaration, which drew applause, was coupled with a call for Palestinians to end their "incitement of Israel."
But it was the use of the U.N. forum to carry the settlement message to Israel that drew the most enthusiastic response on the floor -- and incredulous reaction outside its walls.
Obama just put Israel "on the chopping block," said former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.
Obama said he met Tuesday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was not in attendance at the speech, and agreed that the two have made some progress in both strengthening security and facilitating freedom of movement, which have allowed the economy in the West Bank to grow.
But more progress is needed, he said.
"We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," he said.
Obama said four issues separate the two sides: security, borders, refugees and Jerusalem, but the goal is clear: a secure, Jewish state for Israel and "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
He also said a new order is needed in dealing with the dispute.
"The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security," he said.
In his first speech to the world body, Obama applied his campaign slogan to the international community and challenged the global community to step up and fix the world's problems both at home and abroad.
He said it is no longer plausible to be bad actors and then blame the United States.
"The people of the world want change," he said, noting that "just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own government."
The world's problems are not "solely America's endeavor," Obama said, noting the threats from poverty, global warming, disease pandemics and overpopulation.
"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said.
Obama said he's led by example by prohibiting torture of detainees and ordering the closure of the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He added that he is committed to removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2011 and is working to reach the goal of "a world without nuclear weapons."
He said the G-20 industrialized nations have spent $2 trillion to keep the world from the brink of an economic collapse, and the U.S. has demonstrated its commitment to the world body by paying its bills and joining the Human Rights Council.
"Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that. Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demands more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold," he said.
Speaking to the 59th opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, Obama laid out four pillars for the world community -- peace in the Mideast and elsewhere, a reduction in nuclear weapons, preservation of the environment and global economic opportunity.
Obama said he wants a post-atomic age, and he will hold countries accountable for threatening the rest of the globe with nuclear weapons as the United States tries to reduce its arsenal.
Saying the United States will work with Russia to reduce its strategic warheads through an update of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Obama pledged to move to ratify the Test Ban Treaty, work with others so that "nuclear testing is permanently prohibited," begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end fissile material production and host a summit in April that reaffirms each nation's responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory.
Obama said he was not going to single out any nation, but in the next sentence he called out North Korea and Iran as threats to world cooperation.
"Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations -- it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities," he said, adding "the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope."
"I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations. ... But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards ... then they must be held accountable."
As Obama spoke, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, who followed Obama in delivering a speech from the dais, scribbled notes as he listened to the U.S. president through a translation ear piece. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also sat in the chamber, his hands cusped together in his lap. He did not take notes. Neither applauded during the speech, though Qaddafi clapped when the president ended his remarks. Ahmadinejad did not.
In his 38-minute speech, Obama pressed the world to cooperate on carbon emissions reduction, saying the "wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead" but "the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth."
Obama also pledged continued aid through the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and polio, and by contributions of H1N1 vaccines to the World Health Organization.
He also talked about greater integration of economies through global trade and the Millennium Development Goals.
"Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibility. Wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice. Developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to progress ... That's why we will support honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector," he said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1393 - 23/9/2009, 23:14 | |
| McConnell Blasts Government Over 'Gag Order' on Private Health Care ProviderU.S. health officials launched an investigation into Humana after the Louisville-based company mailed a letter to patients enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans, alerting them that President Obama's health overhaul could eliminate important benefits of the program. FOXNews.comWednesday, September 23, 2009 The federal government resorted to bullying tactics when it ordered an investigation of Humana -- one of the country's biggest private insurers -- for its decision to send customers a letter alerting them about pending health reform legislation, a leading Republican charged Wednesday.- Spoiler:
U.S. health officials launched the probe after the Louisville-based company mailed a letter to patients enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans -- private options that replace standard Medicare -- warning that President Obama's health overhaul could eliminate important benefits of the program.
Humana said in its letter that if Medicare Advantage funding gets cut, "millions of seniors and disabled individuals ... could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable."
Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell blasted the investigation of Humana on Wednesday, calling it a "federal gag order" that seeks to silence a health provider that disagrees with the administration. McConnell said he's called for a complete legal justification of the probe.
"This is so clearly an outrage," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "For explaining to seniors how legislation might affect them, the federal government has now issued a gag order on that company, and any other company that communicates with clients on the issue, telling them to shut up -- or else.
"This is precisely the kind of thing Americans are worried about with the administration's health care plan. They're worried that government agencies which were created to enforce violations even-handedly will instead be used against those who voice a different point of view," he said.
The investigation was first suggested by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, whose committee has jurisdiction over Medicare. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) -- which officiates over the Medicare program for seniors and Medicare Advantage options -- ordered a "cease and desist" order on all of Humana's health care mailings until the investigation is concluded.
Baucus has called the Humana letter a "scare tactic" meant to distort the current reforms under consideration. The CMS alleges that Humana's letter may have violated federal regulations, but the information distributed by the health provider was supported by the nonpartisan, independent analysis of the Congressional Budget Office.
Obama has insisted that despite planned cuts to Medicare providers, seniors would not see their benefits reduced under a health care overhaul. But CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf contradicted that Tuesday under questioning by Finance Committee Republicans, saying seniors in the private Medicare Advantage plans could see reduced benefits under Baucus' legislation. Proposed changes "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans," Elmendorf said.
Humana spokesman Jim Turner said Wednesday that the company is cooperating with CMS in its investigation. But, Turner added, "We also believe Medicare Advantage members deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums."
A Republican aide told FOXNews.com that the investigation is a clear breach of First Amendment rights and said the Republican leader is asking the CMS to provide legal justification for its investigation. The aide said CMS's investigation follows a pattern of intimidation put forth by the administration for any kind of dissent in the health care debate.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee lashed out at McConnell's charges Wednesday, saying, "If there was ever any doubt who Republicans are looking out for in the health care debate, Mitch McConnell has offered conclusive proof: the insurance companies.
"Republicans jeopardize their own credibility when they choose to defend big insurance companies trying to make false claims about senior citizens," the DSCC said in a press release.
Nine months into Obama's administration, no administrator of the CMS has been named -- leading some Republicans to question whether the White House had a direct hand in silencing Humana.
While the administration referred all questions about the investigation to CMS, White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said the confirmation of a CMS administrator "is a priority for the administration." CMS did not immediately answer requests for comment.
House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., has called on CMS to provide additional information on the so-called gag order, including the person or persons who authorized the agency to issue it.
"I have never seen anything like this and I question if politics was the deciding factor," Camp said in a press release. "Given that the administration has failed for more than eight months to nominate a director for CMS, I wonder if undue political pressure may have been applied on the CMS staff.
"It is Congress' responsibility to find out the facts and protect the interests of the American people. We need to know who contacted CMS, when they did it and what was said," he said.
FOX News' Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
 |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1394 - 24/9/2009, 09:45 | |
| World First: Vaccine Helps Prevent HIV InfectionThursday, September 24, 2009  AFP A researcher extracts fluid from a vial at the AIDS Vaccine Design and Development Laboratory in New York.BANGKOK — For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists to think such a vaccine might never be possible.- Spoiler:
The vaccine cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.
Even though the benefit is modest, "it's the first evidence that we could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine," Col. Jerome Kim said in a telephone interview. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army, which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not the end of the road," but said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome.
"It gives me cautious optimism about the possibility of improving this result" and developing a more effective AIDS vaccine, Fauci said in a telephone interview. "This is something that we can do."
Even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day, 7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of AIDS in 2007, the U.N. agency UNAIDS estimates.
"Today marks an historic milestone," said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, an international group that has worked toward develping a vaccine.
"It will take time and resources to fully analyze and understand the data, but there is little doubt that this finding will energize and redirect the AIDS vaccine field," he said in a statement.
The Thailand Ministry of Public Health conducted the study, which used strains of HIV common in Thailand. Whether such a vaccine would work against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is unknown, scientists stressed.
The study actually tested a two-vaccine combo in a "prime-boost" approach, where the first one primes the immune system to attack HIV and the second one strengthens the response.
They are ALVAC, from Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of French drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis; and AIDSVAX, originally developed by VaxGen Inc. and now held by Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, a nonprofit founded by some former VaxGen employees.
ALVAC uses canarypox, a bird virus altered so it can't cause human disease, to ferry synthetic versions of three HIV genes into the body. AIDSVAX contains a genetically engineered version of a protein on HIV's surface. The vaccines are not made from whole virus — dead or alive — and cannot cause HIV.
Neither vaccine in the study prevented HIV infection when tested individually in earlier trials, and dozens of scientists had called the new one futile when it began in 2003.
"I really didn't have high hopes at all that we would see a positive result," Fauci confessed.
The results proved the skeptics wrong.
"The combination is stronger than each of the individual members," said the Army's Kim.
The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.
All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.
Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.
Results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.
The vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood of those who did become infected. That had been another goal of the study — seeing whether the vaccine could limit damage to the immune system and help keep infected people from developing full-blown AIDS.
That result is "one of the most important and intriguing findings of this trial," Fauci said. It suggests that the signs scientists have been using to gauge whether a vaccine was actually giving protection may not be valid.
"It is conceivable that we haven't even identified yet" what really shows immunity, which is both "important and humbling" after decades of vaccine research, Fauci said.
Details of the $105 million study will be given at a vaccine conference in Paris in October.
This is the third big vaccine trial since 1983, when HIV was identified as the cause of AIDS. In 2007, Merck & Co. stopped a study of its experimental vaccine after seeing it did not prevent HIV infection. Later analysis suggested the vaccine might even raise the risk of infection in certain men. The vaccine itself did not cause infection.
In 2003, AIDSVAX flunked two large trials — the first late-stage tests of any AIDS vaccine at the time.
It is unclear whether vaccine makers will seek to license the two-vaccine combo in Thailand. Before the trial began, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said other studies would be needed before the vaccine could be considered for U.S. licensing.
Also unclear is whether Thai volunteers who received dummy shots will now be offered the vaccine. Researchers had said they would do so if the vaccine showed clear benefit — defined as reducing the risk of infection by at least 50 percent.
Those issues, plus how to proceed with future studies, will be discussed among the governments, study sponsors and companies involved in the trial, Kim said. Scientists want to know how long will protection last, whether booster shots will be needed, and whether the vaccine helps prevent infection in gay men and injection drug users, since it was tested mostly in heterosexuals in the Thai trial.
The study was done in Thailand because U.S. Army scientists did pivotal research in that country when the AIDS epidemic emerged there, isolating virus strains and providing genetic information on them to vaccine makers. The Thai government also strongly supported the idea of doing the study.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1395 - 24/9/2009, 10:02 | |
| Tent Trouble Jonathan Hunt! Le meme qui s'est accroche au dossier Petrole contre Nourriture annoncant les details et denoncant les participants jusqu'a ce que ce scandale ne puisse plus etre ignore. A l'epoque FOX News et le NY Times font fait un travail remarquable, pas facile de s'en prendre a l'ONU.
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 24/9/2009, 10:35, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 24/9/2009, 10:06 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- World First: Vaccine Helps Prevent HIV Infection
C'est Jam qui va être contrarié, lui qui soutient que la recherche pharmaceutique n'a rien apporté après l'aspirine, et encore... | |
| | | | Charly
Nombre de messages : 23689
Localisation : belgique
Date d'inscription : 30/11/2008
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1398 - 24/9/2009, 10:20 | |
| Si les discours de Barack Obama sont souvent tres apprecies a l'exterieur des Etats Unis, ils ne le sont pas par tous les Americains, loin de la. Le gouvernement de notre 44eme president rappelerait-il de plus en plus celui de Carter? Obama’s UN Speech, DissectedPeter Wehner - 09.23.2009 - 5:30 PMIn the UN speech earlier today, President Obama once again succumbed to what has become almost a clinical addiction: criticizing the United States in front of an international audience.- Spoiler:
In the latest stop on his American Apology Tour, Obama aimed his fire at America on the issue of global warming (“the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over”) and democracy (“in the past America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy”). And Obama, after humbly declaring at the outset of his speech that “I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world . . . they are also rooted in hope—the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change,” went on to say this:
I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.
Where oh where to begin? How about by pointing out that America did not act unilaterally in Iraq or anywhere else during the Bush presidency. For example, and for the record, more than 35 countries gave crucial support—from the use of naval and air bases to help with intelligence and logistics to the deployment of combat units. President Bush answered the “unilateral” charge in his 2004 State of the Union address:
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.
Second, the United States actually did have in mind the interests of others—beginning with 25 million Iraqis—when it acted. The Iraq war, whatever you think about its wisdom and execution, was in part a war of liberation, undertaken for noble purposes: to liberate a captive people and to depose an aggressive dictator. We know about the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein; it was one of the most brutal and malevolent in modern history. The fact that we believed the Iraq war advanced America’s national interests doesn’t mean it was a war waged without regard for the interests of others. And for Obama to allow this misperception of America to go unchallenged—indeed, to give such a false and malicious charge legitimacy—is disturbing.
Third, in his speech the President said, “I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights.” Oh really? If so, then why was he so reluctant to speak out for the brave Iranians who rose up against the brutal rule of President Ahmadinejad? Because of his fear not to offend the Iranian regime, he essentially put America on its side rather than on the side of the Iranians who stood up for their dignity and rights. In addition, Obama and his secretary of state are purposefully downplaying human rights in their dealings with China—including refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama. It is no secret that Obama—in an effort to distance himself from his predecessor—has very few words, and none memorable, to say on behalf of basic human rights. He will from time to time mouth empty slogans so he can check off the “human-rights box,” but he does not give any evidence that he feels these values deep in his bones.
There is more to be said about the Obama speech—including the president’s tiresome pretense that he and he alone will lead the world out of its cul-de-sac, where “we bicker about outdated grievances.” But I cannot escape a depressing thought, one I hope is proved to be wrong over time: that Barack Obama, even though he is the leader of America, is constantly placing himself above it. His criticisms of our country are now part of a troubling routine, so much so that Obama is now winning the applause of people who genuinely hate America (like Fidel Castro, who complimented Obama for his “brave gesture” and “courage” in criticizing the United States at the UN).
Obama not only fails to strongly defend the United States; he is actually adding brush strokes to a portrait of our country that diminishes its achievements and standing. He seems unable or unwilling to speak out—in a heartfelt and passionate way—on its behalf. He is, of course, too clever not to ever say a word of praise for America; no, this sophisticated wordsmith and smooth politician, this cool customer ever in search of The Golden Mean, can speak in both text and subtext. He says just enough to deny the charge that he is not a strong defender of the country he leads. But by now we’re on to the game.
No one believes America’s history is pristine; we are all familiar with the catalogue of our own sins, beginning with slavery. Other presidents have recognized them, and a few have given voice to them. But it was done in the context of a reverence for America—for what it has been and stands for, for what it is and can be. Think of the words of George Washington, who said of America, “I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love.” That is a noble sentiment from a man whose love of country knew no bounds. They are also words that I cannot imagine President Obama saying, at least with conviction. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t like his country or admire things about it; it means that he has yet to really speak out for it. And it means that he has shown, so far at least, that he is more interested in advancing his interests than in speaking on behalf of the nation that elected him. There are enough critics of America in the world; we don’t need to add America’s president to that list.
Perhaps Mr. Obama will come to understand that there is a problem when the president of the United States—an “inestimable jewel,” Lincoln called her—has harsher things to say about his own country than he does about many of the worst regimes on Earth.
It is all quite disturbing, and to have to say this about an American president almost makes me sick.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1399 - 24/9/2009, 10:37 | |
| Erreur de manipulation en 1395, je pensais ouvrir un nouveau message, j'ai edite l'ancien. Pas grave. |
| | | | 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
| |
| |
| |
|
