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.
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 11/11/2009, 09:45
J'aime beaucoup Lieutenant Colonel Peters mais au sujet de la comparaison des 20 emails reels echanges avec al qaida avec 20 autres emails fictifs avec l'URSS, je rappellerai tout de meme que nous avons eu pour president un homme qui a eu un visa et qui s'est rendu en l'URSS du temps de la guerre froide... (Clinton en 1969)
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/11/2009, 09:46
dernier essai: http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=11500843&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566 Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/11/2009, 09:52
C'est correct cette fois.
Comme il est correct aussi d'appeler un chat un chat...
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 11/11/2009, 09:55
oui, m'sieur!
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1578 - 11/11/2009, 16:00
Comme il est correct aussi d'appeler un chat un chat...
Bonjour Biloulou correct oui, mais pas politiquement correct.
===================
WOW, Rasmussen
meme apres l'attaque de Fort Hood!
Date Presidential Approval Index - Strongly Approve - Strongly Disapprove - Total Approve - Total Disapprove
11/11/2009
-10
30%
40%
46%
53%
11/10/2009
-10
30%
40%
48%
52%
11/09/2009
-8
32%
40%
49%
50%
11/08/2009
-10
30%
40%
49%
50%
11/07/2009
-7
31%
38%
49%
50%
11/06/2009
-8
29%
37%
49%
51%
11/05/2009
-9
30%
39%
48%
52%
11/04/2009
-13
28%
41%
48%
51%
11/03/2009
-13
28%
41%
46%
52%
11/02/2009
-13
27%
40%
46%
52%
11/01/2009
-10
29%
39%
46%
52%
10/31/2009
-10
29%
39%
46%
52%
======
01/22/2009
+30
44%
14%
64%
29%
01/21/2009
+28
44%
16%
65%
30%
et Il va tout-de-meme continuer sur la meme voie et avec autant de force que necessaire.
La gauche reprochait au gouvernement Bush 43 de ne pas ecouter le public. Mais la, c'est pour son bien (au public) alors c'est sans doute ok.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1579 - 13/11/2009, 05:44
Feds Prepare to Seize Four Mosques, Office Building Suspected of Iranian Ties
Thursday, November 12, 2009
NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors took steps Thursday to seize four U.S. mosques and a Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government.
Spoiler:
In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court against the Alavi Foundation, seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets.
The assets include bank accounts; Islamic centers consisting of schools and mosques in New York City, Maryland, California and Houston; more than 100 acres in Virginia; and a 36-story glass office tower in New York.
Confiscating the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which has been accused by the U.S. government of bankrolling terrorism and trying to build a nuclear bomb.
A telephone call and e-mail to Iran's U.N. Mission seeking comment were not immediately answered. Nor was a call to the Alavi Foundation.
FLASHBACK: 5th Avenue Skyscraper Center of Iranian Mystery
It is extremely rare for U.S. law enforcement authorities to seize a house of worship, a step fraught with questions about the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
The action against the Shiite Muslim mosques is sure to inflame relations between the U.S. government and American Muslims, many of whom are fearful of a backlash after last week's Fort Hood shooting rampage, blamed on a Muslim American major.
"No action has been taken against any tenants or occupants of those properties," U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman Yusill Scribner said. "The tenants and occupants remain free to use the properties as they have before today's filing. There are no allegations of any wrongdoing on the part of any of these tenants or occupants."
The mosques and the skyscraper will remain open while the forfeiture case works its way through court in what could be a long process. What will happen to them if the government ultimately prevails is unclear. But the government typically sells properties it has seized through forfeiture, and the proceeds are sometimes distributed to crime victims.
Prosecutors said the Alavi Foundation managed the office tower on behalf of the Iranian government and, working with a front company known as Assa Corp., illegally funneled millions in rental income to Iran's state-owned Bank Melli. Bank Melli has been accused by a U.S. Treasury official of providing support for Iran's nuclear program, and it is illegal in the United States to do business with the bank.
The U.S. has long suspected the foundation was an arm of the Iranian government; a 97-page complaint details involvement in foundation business by several top Iranian officials, including the deputy prime minister and ambassadors to the United Nations.
"For two decades, the Alavi Foundation's affairs have been directed by various Iranian officials, including Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations, in violation of a series of American laws," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement.
There were no raids Thursday as part of the forfeiture action. The government is simply required to post notices of the civil complaint on the property.
As prosecutors outlined their allegations against Alavi, the Islamic centers and the schools they run carried on with normal activity. The mosques' leaders had no immediate comment.
Parents lined up in their cars to pick up their children at the schools within the Islamic Education Center of Greater Houston and the Islamic Education Center in Rockville, Md. No notices of the forfeiture action were posted at either place as of late Thursday.
At the Islamic Institute of New York, a mosque and school in Queens, two U.S. marshals came to the door and rang the bell repeatedly. The marshals taped a forfeiture notice to the window and left a large document sitting on the ground. After they left a group of men came out of the building and took the document.
The fourth Islamic center marked for seizure is in Carmichael, Calif.
The skyscraper, known as the Piaget building, was erected in the 1970s under the shah of Iran, who was overthrown in 1979. The tenants include law and investment firms and other businesses.
The sleek, modern building, last valued at $570 million to $650 million in 2007, has served as an important source of income for the foundation over the past 36 years. The most recent tax records show the foundation earned $4.5 million from rents in 2007.
Rents collected from the building help fund the centers and other ventures, such as sending educational literature to imprisoned Muslims in the U.S. The foundation has also invested in dozens of mosques around the country and supported Iranian academics at prominent universities.
If federal prosecutors seize the skyscraper, the Alavi Foundation would have almost no way to continue supporting the Islamic centers, which house schools and mosques. That could leave a major void in Shiite communities, and hard feelings toward the FBI, which played a big role in the investigation.
The forfeiture action comes at a tense moment in U.S.-Iranian relations, with the two sides at odds over Iran's nuclear program and its arrest of three American hikers.
But Michael Rubin, an expert on Iran at the American Enterprise Institute, said the timing of the forfeiture action was probably a coincidence, not an effort to influence Iran on those issues.
"Suspicion about the Alavi Foundation transcends three administrations," Rubin said. "It's taken ages dealing with the nuts and bolts of the investigation. It's not the type of investigation which is part of any larger strategy."
Legal scholars said they know of only a few cases in U.S. history in which law enforcement authorities have seized a house of worship. Marc Stern, a religious-liberty expert with the American Jewish Congress, called such cases extremely rare.
The Alavi Foundation is the successor organization to the Pahlavi Foundation, a nonprofit group used by the shah to advance Iran's charitable interests in America. But authorities said its agenda changed after the fall of the shah.
In 2007, the United States accused Bank Melli of providing services to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and put the bank on its list of companies whose assets must be frozen. Washington has imposed sanctions against various other Iranian businesses.
jam
Nombre de messages : 1404 Age : 69 Localisation : saint-nectaire land Date d'inscription : 02/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/11/2009, 15:13
Sylvette a écrit:
Le texte a change entre deux....
Ca aussi c'est INTERDIT?
Les pauvres et les moins pauvres vont maintenant etre obliges de s'assurer sous peine de penalites, des millions annoncent deja preferer payer les penalites en question plutot que de s'assurer. En quoi cela est-il une amelioration?
J'ai ete appelee l'autre jour pour participer a une reunion d'hotel de ville par telephone. Une dame etait au bord des larmes expliquant qu'elle avait paye toute sa vie les cotisations necessaires et esperait pouvoir compter sur medicare et que maintenant a l'heure de la retraite, medicare passant sous le controle des etats l'annee suivant la signature de ce projet de loi elle avait de grandes chances de se retrouver sans assurance. En quoi oter a Pierre pour donner a Jacques en matiere de sante est-il une amelioration?
Il n'etait absolument pas necessaire de voir Washington s'emparer d'une telle partie de l'economie. Il etait necessaire que les primes d'assurance baissent. oui!
.........
à mon avis cette "dame ... au bord des larmes" a réussi son coup !!
parce que "medicare" est un système de protection santé pour les vieux et il a toujours été dirigé par les états
il n'y a aucune cotisation nécessaire pour en bénéficier il faut être vieux et résident américain en fait c'est en grande partie financé par un impot sur les salaires, en théorie pour en bénéficier faut avoir payé l'impot 10 ans mais il y a des exceptions, donc elle pleure pour rien de toute manière tous les vieux ont été salariés et l'ont payé au moins 10 ans (à moins d'avoir été chômeur toute sa vie ce qui doit pas être courant tout de même)
mais je suis "au bord des larmes" de voir tous ces hystériques au bord des larmes qui croient aux bobards qu'on leur raconte sur la télé républicaine larmoyante c'est vrai que finalement vaut mieux envoyer les petits gars se faire flinguer pour les intérêts pétroliers au moins ça fait des larmes patriotes des larmes capitalistes des "bonnes" larmes quoi !
jam,
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/11/2009, 15:53
parce que "medicare" est un système de protection santé pour les vieux et il a toujours été dirigé par les états
Jam
Medicare n'est pas paye au niveau des etats mais il est paye par l'etat federal.
Les Democrates l'annee prochaine vont rendre chacun des 50 etats responsables des paiements or a l'heure actuelle, plus des 2/3 sont en faillite et le reste n'est pas en excellente sante financiere.
Ce qui me ferait rire si ca n'etait pas si triste, c'est que vous soyez le seul a ne pas accepter ce fait, meme les Democrates se tiennent coi a ce sujet.
Jam , ce n'est pas beau d'essayer de disseminer des mensonges a moins que vos assertions ne soient des erreurs parce que basees sur un manque complet de comprehension de la situation en ce cas, ce serait de la betise, pas reellement moins dangereux.
Donc, si j'ai bien compris il faut de la compassion pour les "non-assures" qui sont soignes gratuitement aux frais des contribuables mais pas pour ceux qui ont paye toute leur vie et qui du jour au lendemain ne seront plus assures. C'est vraiment le monde a l'envers, mais bon, ca va avec la mentalite actuelle.
jam
Nombre de messages : 1404 Age : 69 Localisation : saint-nectaire land Date d'inscription : 02/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/11/2009, 19:24
Sylvette a écrit:
parce que "medicare" est un système de protection santé pour les vieux et il a toujours été dirigé par les états
Jam
Medicare n'est pas paye au niveau des etats mais il est paye par l'etat federal.
Les Democrates l'annee prochaine vont rendre chacun des 50 etats responsables des paiements or a l'heure actuelle, plus des 2/3 sont en faillite et le reste n'est pas en excellente sante financiere.
Ce qui me ferait rire si ca n'etait pas si triste, c'est que vous soyez le seul a ne pas accepter ce fait, meme les Democrates se tiennent coi a ce sujet.
Jam , ce n'est pas beau d'essayer de disseminer des mensonges a moins que vos assertions ne soient des erreurs parce que basees sur un manque complet de comprehension de la situation en ce cas, ce serait de la betise, pas reellement moins dangereux.
Donc, si j'ai bien compris il faut de la compassion pour les "non-assures" qui sont soignes gratuitement aux frais des contribuables mais pas pour ceux qui ont paye toute leur vie et qui du jour au lendemain ne seront plus assures. C'est vraiment le monde a l'envers, mais bon, ca va avec la mentalite actuelle.
mais "ceux qui ont payé toute leur vie" n'ont pas payé pour eux mais pour les malades l'assurance maladie c'est les gens en bonne santé qui paient pour les malades et c'est autant valable en france d'ailleurs ils peuvent mourir d'un accident et ne jamais "bénéficier" de l'assurance en question (c'est même le principe des assurances vie!!)
je dis pas que c'est juste, je dit que c'est le principe et le monde n'est pas à l'envers pour autant
pour ce qui est de medicare, je reviens effectivement sur ma phrase, un tour sur wikipedia confirme effectivement que c'est pas "les états" mais 'l'état fédéral" qui s'en charge
cela dit, ça ne change pas le fait qu'une cotisation à une assurance quelconque ne donne aucun droit une assurance c'est un système de solidarité où ceux qui n'ont pas de problème (mais qui ont peur d'en avoir) paient pour ceux qui ont des problèmes (et n'avaient pas forcément prévu de les avoir)
il existe même des assurances que les gens paient pour se protéger des non assurés ou des dégâts naturels je crois que la seule chose contre quoi on peut pas s'assurer c'est si une centrale nucléaire pète près de chez soi récemment l'industrie pharmaceutique vient de rajouter un cas de figure, c'est si le vaccin contre la grippe vous rend malade, ben vous n'aurez aucun recours possible
mais nous sommes dans un monde libre et personne n'est obligé d'avoir une centrale qui se construit près de chez lui ou qu'on lui impose de se vacciner contre quoique ce soit à moins que je me trompe?
jam,
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/11/2009, 21:23
pour ce qui est de medicare, je reviens effectivement sur ma phrase, un tour sur wikipedia confirme effectivement que c'est pas "les états" mais 'l'état fédéral" qui s'en charge
Incroyable!
Invité Invité
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 15/11/2009, 01:58
A man was sick and tired of going to work every day while his wife stayed home.
He wanted her to see what he went through so he prayed: 'Dear Lord:
I go to work every day and put in 8 hours while my wife merely stays at home.
I want her to know what I go through.
So, please allow her body to switch with mine for a day.
Amen!'
God, in his infinite wisdom, granted the man's wish.
The next morning, sure enough, the man awoke as a woman.
He arose, cooked breakfast for his mate, Awakened the kids,
Set out their school clothes,
Fed them breakfast,
Packed their lunches,
Drove them to school,
Came home and picked up the dry cleaning,
Took it to the cleaners
And stopped at the bank to make a deposit,
Went grocery shopping,
Then drove home to put away the groceries,
Paid the bills and balanced the check book.
He cleaned the cat's litter box and bathed the dog.
Then, it was already 1P.M.
And he hurried to make the beds, Do the laundry, vacuum,
Dust,
And sweep and mop the kitchen floor.
Ran to the school to pick up the kids and got into an argument with them on the way home.
Set out milk and cookies and got the kids organized to do their homework.
Then, set up the ironing board and watched TV while he did the ironing.
At 4:30 he began peeling potatoes and washing vegetables for salad, breaded the pork chops and snapped fresh beans for supper...
After supper,
He cleaned the kitchen,
Ran the dishwasher,
Folded laundry,
Bathed the kids,
And put them to bed.
At 9 P.M .
He was exhausted and, though his daily chores weren't finished, he went to bed where he was expected to make love, which he managed to get through without complaint.
The next morning, he awoke and immediately knelt by the bed and said: - 'Lord, I don't know what I was thinking.
I was so wrong to envy my wife's being able to stay home all day.
Please, oh! Oh! Please, let us trade back.
Amen!'
The Lord, in his infinite wisdom, replied:
'My son, I f eel you have learned your lesson and I will be happy to change things back to the way they were. You'll just have to wait nine months, though.
You got pregnant last night.'
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1585 - 15/11/2009, 09:59
NOVEMBER 14, 2009
KSM Hits Manhattan-Again
Eric Holder's decision to move a trial on war crimes to American soil is morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault.
Spoiler:
Coming soon to a civilian courtroom blocks from Ground Zero: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the four other al Qaeda planners of 9/11. Be sure to get your tickets early, and don't forget to watch out for the truck-bomb barricades and rooftop snipers.
Attorney General Eric Holder, who dropped this legal bomb on New York yesterday, called his decision to move their trial on war crimes from a military courtroom at Guantanamo Bay to American soil "the toughest" he has had to make. Other words come to mind. For starters, intellectually and morally confused, dangerous and political to a fault.
This decision befits President Obama's rushed and misguided announcement on his second day in office that he would close Gitmo within a year. This was before the Administration had thought through what to do with the 215 prisoners there, though it did win him applause in Europe and on the American left. Yesterday's decision rids Gitmo of these meddlesome detainee cases in order to speed up this entirely political shutdown.
Associated Press
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Please spare us talk of the "rule of law." If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal "enemy combatants" captured since 9/11.
Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren't a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday's decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence.
As it happens, Mr. Holder acknowledged their worth himself by announcing that the Guantanamo detainee who allegedly planned the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off Yemen and four others would face military commission trials. (The Pentagon must now find a locale other than the multimillion-dollar, state-of-the-art facility at Gitmo for its tribunal.)
Why the difference? Mr. Holder seemed to suggest that the Cole bombers struck a military target overseas and thus are a good fit for a military trial, while KSM and comrades hit the U.S. and murdered civilians and thus deserve a U.S. civilian trial. But this entirely misunderstands that both groups are unlawful enemy combatants who are accused of war crimes, whatever their targets. Mr. Holder's justification betrays not a legal consistency but a fundamentally political judgment that he can make as he sees fit.
The Military Commissions Act, by contrast, devised a careful, consistent legal process for every detainee. Remember when critics blamed President Bush for exercising too much executive discretion?
Mr. Holder expressed confidence that KSM and the rest will be convicted, but it is telling that he also delayed filing formal charges. Will KSM be formally charged with the 9/11 murders, or merely with "material support" for terrorism or some lesser offense? The specific charges may depend on how much evidence is admissable in a civilian courtroom. The MCA allowed for the reality that much of the evidence against enemy combatants may be classified, and it allowed for some hearsay evidence on grounds that they have been picked up on a battlefield, not in Brooklyn. There is no CSI: Kandahar. A civilian court has far tighter rules of evidence.
KSM and his co-conspirators so far have refused legal counsel and at one point tried to plead guilty. They may again. But an army of self-declared defenders of human rights from Yale Law and Shearman & Sterling will clamor to represent them. Those lawyers are certain to challenge all evidence obtained after KSM's March 2003 capture on grounds that it was produced by "torture," if you call waterboarding torture.
As he said at a hearing in 2007, "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z." But even that admission will probably be challenged on grounds that the trauma of his "torture" means he wasn't capable of "informed consent." Oh, and once he got to Gitmo in 2006, he may not have been read his Miranda rights in full. The possibility exists that one or more of these detainees could be acquitted on procedural grounds, which would be a travesty of justice.
One certain outcome is that an open civilian trial will provide valuable information to terrorists across the world about American methods and intelligence. Precisely because so much other evidence may not be admissable, prosecutors may have to reveal genuine secrets to get a conviction. Osama bin Laden learned a lot from the 1995 prosecution in New York of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the first World Trade Center attack. His main tip was that the U.S. considered bin Laden a terrorist co-conspirator, leading him to abandon his hideout in Sudan for Afghanistan.
Terrorists also love a big stage, and none come bigger than New York. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, made his civilian trial a spectacle. Not even the best judge can entirely stop KSM and others from doing the same. And Mr. Holder has invited grave and needless security risks by tempting jihadists the world over to strike Manhattan while the trial is in session.
Most Americans, we suspect, can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1586 - 15/11/2009, 10:12
NOVEMBER 14, 2009
Obama Is Losing Independent Voters
A number of recent polls show the president would be wise to shift right. By SCOTT RASMUSSEN AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
The announcement a week ago of 10.2% unemployment is a significant political event for President Barack Obama. It could well usher in a particularly serious crisis for his political standing, influence and ability to advance his agenda.
Spoiler:
Double-digit unemployment drove Ronald Reagan's disapproval ratings in October 1982 up to a record high 54%. It was only when unemployment dropped to 7.3%, roughly two years later, that he was able to win a landslide victory over Democratic challenger Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election.
Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt's success in the 1930s in reducing the 25% unemployment rate he inherited down to the mid-teens was almost certainly responsible for his success in the 1934 midterm elections and in the 1936 presidential elections.
Associated Press
Mr. Obama faces a similar challenge. A detailed look at the available survey data suggests that the difficulties may be more substantial than those suggested by the recent off-year elections.
Mr. Obama's approval among likely voters has dropped to the low-50s in most polls, and the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters shows him slightly below the 50% mark. This is a relatively low rating for new presidents. Mr. Obama's approval rating began to slide in a serious way in early July, triggered by a bad unemployment report.
A look at more detailed data shows why Mr. Obama's ratings are likely to drop even further.
A CNN poll released Nov. 6 found that 47% of Americans believe the top issue facing the country is the economy, while only 17% say its health care. However, the bulk of the president's efforts over the past six months have been not on the economy but on health care, an issue in which he continues to draw negative ratings.
In a Rasmussen Reports poll taken after the House of Representatives passed health-care reform by the narrowest of margins last Saturday night, 54% of likely voters say they are opposed to the plan with only 45% in favor. Furthermore, in the all-important category of unaffiliated voters, 58% oppose the bill. That's one of the reasons why so many moderate Democratic House members opposed it.
The CNN poll also shows that in addition to health care, a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit. Put simply, there isn't a critical problem facing the country on which the president has positive ratings.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from Oct. 22-25 found that the president's personal ratings have suffered a similar decline. His rating for being honest and straightforward has fallen eight points from January to 33% and his rating for being firm and decisive has fallen 10 points to 27%.
Even more fundamentally, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from Oct. 15-18 shows that the president has now reached a point where less than a majority of Americans believe he will make the right decisions for the country.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Oct. 26 shows that only one-third of likely voters believe the stimulus package has helped the economy. And two separate Rasmussen Reports polls from earlier this month showed that less than half of likely voters approve of the health-care initiative, while a majority (55%) expect politics to become even more partisan in the coming year. Meanwhile, almost half of respondents told Rasmussen Reports that since Mr. Obama has been in office they are doing worse economically. Respondents by a 62%-27% majority respondents say they trust themselves over the president to make economic decisions facing the nation.
Until recently, Mr. Obama has been able to blame George W. Bush for the country's economic problems. October's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that while this is still a credible argument, it is less persuasive as the president's time in office increases.
The percentage of respondents who believe that Mr. Obama "inherited" the economic situation has dropped steadily over the year from a high of 84% in February down to 63% in this latest poll. This week's Rasmussen Reports poll shows an even bigger drop, with 49% of respondents blaming Mr. Bush and 45% blaming Mr. Obama. This is the first time in Rasmussen Reports' polls that less than 55% blame Mr. Bush for the country's economic problems. It is fair to conclude that by the beginning of next year, the problems of America will be Mr. Obama's problems, and references to his predecessor will increasingly fall on deaf ears.
What then, is Mr. Obama to do?
He has found himself in a false and arguably artificial conundrum on health care, with the two alternatives being his bill with a public option and a trillion-dollar price tag, or no bill at all. While the failure to pass a health-care bill could be devastating for his administration, polling suggests that ramming through an expensive bill with a public option (potentially using procedural techniques in the Senate) could divide America and not improve his standing with the public.
Voters would like to see compromises on key elements of health care to reduce costs, while the Democrats' plan has appeared to focus largely on expanding coverage. According to a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports from Oct. 2-3, 61% of likely voters want Congress to act this year but only 45% favor the current plan. There is a clear, bipartisan majority who favor a less costly bill that incrementally increases coverage, provides insurance reform involving pre-existing conditions, and experiments with tort reform and competition across state lines.
Deficit reduction and reining in spending are critically important priorities for the vast majority of the electorate. Indeed, according to a Rasmussen Reports Poll conducted at the end of last month, voters say deficit reduction is most important and health care is a distant second.
Moreover, according to a poll released by the Kaufman Foundation in September, a plurality of voters (32%) think the federal government should cut tax rates on payrolls and businesses to stimulate employment, particularly at a time when unemployment is at double-digits. Mr. Obama campaigned on tax cuts for 95% of the American people, but according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released in mid-August, just 6% of likely voters expect to get a tax cut. Over 40% of respondents believe that they will get a tax increase.
The off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia were indeed a warning sign to Mr. Obama. While the presidents ratings aren't likely to dip much further by year's end—given the size and support of his base—by focusing exclusively on his base he could create lasting political problems that plague the remainder of his term.
Unless Mr. Obama changes his approach and starts governing in a more fiscally conservative, bipartisan manner, the independents that provided his margin of victory in 2008 and gave the Democrats control of Congress will likely swing back to the Republicans, putting Democratic control of Congress in real jeopardy.
Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company. Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008).
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1587 - 15/11/2009, 10:26
NOVEMBER 13, 2009, 11:47 P.M. ET
Our "Constitutional Moment"
The New York newspaperman says our founding document is especially vital today, in an age of expanding state power. By JAMES TARANTO
New York Seth Lipsky has a knack for seeing the bright side of things. A nearly 20-year veteran of this newspaper, including its editorial page, he cheerfully acknowledges the obvious: This is far from a golden age of free-market conservatism. Of President Obama, he tells me over lunch, "I sense that he has a very leftist, socialist-oriented worldview."
Spoiler:
Yet this makes Mr. Lipsky anything but grim: "I for one find this very exciting. . . . We're just at a great moment."
Why? Because, he says, "America is in what I call a constitutional moment." Mr. Obama's efforts to expand government power raise basic questions about the constitutional limits of that power. "The enumerated-powers argument is enormous," Mr. Lipsky says. "It's just enormous, the ground that is open for contest here. . . . Right now, we're at a moment where we're not going to be able to turn to either the Congress or the executive branch for help on this." He believes "the only defense now, the only tool we have now, is the Constitution. That's why I call it a constitutional moment, as opposed to a political moment."
That makes it an auspicious moment for Mr. Lipsky's new book, "The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide." The U.S. Constitution is a brief document, taking up just 42 pages in a popular pocket-size edition from the Cato Institute. Mr. Lipsky expands it to 287 pages of 5 by 8 inches, by way of 327 lengthy footnotes in which he discusses each and every constitutional clause in the context of history, case law and current events. There are an additional 36 pages of bibliographic references, making it the only book I've seen in which the footnotes have endnotes.
Mr. Lipsky doesn't remember exactly when he thought of the idea, but he believes it was in the late 1980s. "I got into an argument over abortion and was talking to someone about the right to privacy," he recalls. "I looked at a pamphlet the government had issued with a text-only edition of the Constitution, and I realized I couldn't find the word 'privacy' in the Constitution. I began to think about a better edition." Mr. Lipsky's edition has an index, where the listing for "privacy, right to" directs the reader to the chapters on the Third, Ninth and 14th amendments.
As a newspaperman for 40-plus years—in addition to working for the Journal, he founded two papers of his own—Mr. Lipsky has built a career on the First Amendment. But his enthusiasm extends as well to the preamble, the original seven articles and the 26 other amendments.
Zina Saunders
"For years I've been sending memos to people who worked for me—desk editors, reporters, editorial writers—constantly trying to raise their consciousness about the usefulness of the Constitution in editorial work," he says. "Usually these memos that I would send would be simple memos, like, 'Where the hell does the Congress get the power to do that?' or, 'The New York Sun will not carry a dispatch about the Second Amendment which does not quote Justice Story as saying the Second Amendment is the palladium of our liberties.'"
In 1968, after graduating from Harvard, Mr. Lipsky took a reporting job at the Anniston Star in Alabama. He was there just seven months before he was drafted and sent to Vietnam, but it was long enough to provide a formative experience. He visited Frank Johnson, then a federal district judge, who had been a member of the three-judge panel that ordered the desegregation of Montgomery buses after Rosa Parks's arrest. Johnson also presided over Lee v. Macon County, a school-desegregation case that began in 1963.
He told Mr. Lipsky about the trial: "The school board was ready to accede when Gov. [George] Wallace heard about it and ordered them not to. So Johnson gets [Wallace] into court, and he says, 'On what basis are you objecting to this order?' [The governor] says, 'Well, I'm the ex officio chairman of the state board of education, and under that authority, I'm telling them not to integrate the schools.'
"Johnson says, 'As ex officio chairman of the state board of education, you have the power to tell the school board of Macon County, Alabama, that they can't integrate the school?' And the governor says, 'Yes, your honor, I do.' The judge says, 'Well, then, I'm ordering you to integrate all 67 counties in Alabama.'"
In Vietnam, Mr. Lipsky worked as a combat reporter for Pacific Stars and Stripes. Returning to civilian life, he joined the Journal in Detroit, with later postings in Hong Kong, New York and Brussels. He left in 1990 to start an English-language weekly edition of the Forward, a venerable Yiddish newspaper. In 2002, he founded the daily New York Sun—or rather he revived it, the original Sun having folded in 1950. The new Sun attracted a small but influential readership and gave many aspiring writers their start. It ceased publication last year, although Mr. Lipsky and a small stable of writers still publish occasional stories at nysun.com.
The optimism that drove Mr. Lipsky to start a daily newspaper in the Internet age also informs his view of the prospects for American governance. "One of the wonderful things about the Constitution is that anybody can play," he says. "Ordinary people asking simple questions have affected the country in enormous ways using this document. . . . It's just astounding the way individual predicaments and problems are used by the [Supreme] Court to lay down broad principles in the country."
To prove his point, he cites examples from the 1930s, the 1960s and the current decade. The 1935 case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. was decided at a time when the liberal political juggernaut looked even more unstoppable than today. Mr. Lipsky describes the facts: Enforcing the National Industrial Recovery Act, which gave the president vast powers to regulate business, "government thugs went into the kosher butcher shop of the Schechter family in Brooklyn, and they arrested its proprietor on criminal charges."
Among the charges: permitting a housewife "to pick which chicken she wanted." This measure provoked some levity during oral arguments at the Supreme Court: "The judges are asking a question about, 'How is the housewife supposed to pick out her chicken when she can't look at it?' Schechter's lawyer reaches over his shoulder into an imaginary cage and starts pitching around for a chicken, and the Supreme Court started laughing."
The justices ruled unanimously in Schechter's favor and declared the act unconstitutional. "They ended the New Deal," Mr. Lipsky says. Then, with more feeling: "They ended the New Deal!" (This overstates the case somewhat. The court later upheld the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act.)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) "involved this guy who was arrested in Florida for robbing a poolroom. He goes into the court and says, 'The Supreme Court says I have a right to a lawyer.' The judge says . . . something to the effect of, 'Not in the state of Florida, you don't.' He gets convicted; he gets sent to prison. While he's in prison, he goes to the prison library. This derelict basically writes an appeal to the Supreme Court . . . in pencil and paper—a pauper's petition that says, 'I have a right to a lawyer.' The Supreme Court notices it, assigns Abe Fortas"—who himself joined the court in 1965—"to defend him. He wins the right to a lawyer for everyone accused of a crime in America. The name of Clarence Earl Gideon will be remembered as long as there is a law."
Last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms, exemplifies Mr. Lipsky's point that the language of the Constitution retains its power even when long ignored. "We've had 200 years, and nothing's ever been done about this," he says. "For 50 of the 200 years, the New York Times has been sneering at the idea of an individual right, and everybody's been talking about how this right belongs to the 'militia.'"
Yet by carefully analyzing the language of the Second Amendment, the court cast aside that musty conventional wisdom. Mr. Lipsky, who describes himself as "a partisan of the plain-language school of the law," applauds not just the result but the method the justices, in an opinion by Antonin Scalia, employed to reach it: "They really get into the language. I mean, the actual grammar, the sentence structure, the subordinate and not-subordinate clauses, which—forgive me, but I've been arguing for a generation and a half as an editorial writer, the plain language of this thing is plain."
Although anybody can play, not everybody can win. In 2003, the high court ruled against Susette Kelo and allowed the city of New London, Conn., to seize her house under eminent domain and turn the land over to private developers.
It's just unbelievable, that case," Mr. Lipsky says—and all the more so in light of the latest development, or rather the lack of development. On Monday, Pfizer Inc., which was to have built offices on the now-barren site, announced that it was leaving New London altogether as part of a consolidation move.
Such disappointments notwithstanding, Mr. Lipsky's passion for the Constitution is a tonic for political depression. If ObamaCare does become law, to take an especially worrying example, it isn't hard to imagine a lot of Americans facing "individual predicaments," including threats to their lives from government rationing. It's some comfort to think they'll be able to petition for a stay—and to demand an answer to the question in that old Lipsky memo: "Where the hell does the Congress get the power to do that?"
Mr. Taranto, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for OpinionJournal.com.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1588 - 15/11/2009, 10:49
A staggering ego, at the center of difficult issues
Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 14, 2009
When two planes struck the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, Khalid Sheik Mohammed was sitting in an Internet cafe in Karachi, Pakistan, monitoring the attacks. At first, Mohammed later told CIA interrogators, he was disappointed. He said that he expected the towers to crumble immediately and that he feared they might not fall at all.
Spoiler:
After the towers came down, Mohammed returned to a hideaway flat in the city. There, according to newly disclosed details from U.S. officials, he and a number of associates, including Ramzi Binalshibh, al-Qaeda's liaison with the Sept. 11 hijackers, gathered to watch coverage on international news channels.
Through the night in Pakistan, the men embraced repeatedly in celebration, marveling at their spectacular success and the humbling of the American giant.
More than eight years later, Mohammed, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will soon be transferred to federal court in Manhattan, returning to a city that officials say he visited as a tourist while a student in North Carolina in the 1980s. The man widely known as KSM will arrive in New York as the most striking symbol of the Obama administration's effort to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. He is also a central figure in the debate over harsh interrogation techniques, which were used repeatedly on Mohammed in a bid to force him to divulge intelligence -- which can now be invoked at his trial.
While at Guantanamo Bay, where he has been held since September 2006, Mohammed has said he wants to be executed so that he can die a martyr. It is unclear whether he will maintain that position in U.S. District Court. But his trial will probably chart the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath, from the conspiracy's beginnings in the mountains of Afghanistan, where Mohammed proposed the plot in a meeting with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, to the dark recesses of the CIA's secret prisons, where he spent more than three years.
'I am the mastermind'
By all accounts, the spotlight during what would be the biggest terrorism trial in U.S. history would provide Mohammed, a man of no small ego, with the kind of attention he craves. A showman, he has reveled in a number of appearances at Guantanamo Bay, tossing self-aggrandizing broadsides from his perch at the front of a courtroom and then retreating into self-satisfied smiles.
"I know him well, and if he gets his way in federal court, it will be a circus," said Charles D. "Cully" Stimson, who was deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs in the Bush administration. "The court will have to rein in his speechifying and keep the focus on his criminal behavior."
The 9/11 Commission Report, discussing Mohammed's terrorist ambitions, called him a "self-cast star."
"I am the mastermind of 9/11, not Osama bin Laden," he said in one court hearing. His vanity has also surfaced. He once complained that a courtroom sketch artist had drawn his nose too big. The rendering of the proboscis was adjusted.
Mohammed, 44, was born in Kuwait, the third son of Pakistani immigrants drawn to the oil-rich emirate, where his father became the imam of a mosque serving Pakistanis. Mohammed said he was a radical from a young age, asserting in a statement he gave to the CIA after his capture that he and nephew Ramzi Yousef -- convicted in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- had torn down the Kuwaiti flag at their elementary school.
By 16, Mohammed had joined the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group, and become "enamored of violent jihad at youth camps in the desert," according to a detailed profile in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Life in America
But like other leading Sept. 11 conspirators, such as Mohamed Atta, he looked to the West to further his education. After high school, he enrolled at Chowan College (now University) in North Carolina. He transferred after one semester to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, where he earned a degree in mechanical engineering in 1986.
The 9/11 Commission Report said Mohammed did not attract attention in the United States for any extremist beliefs. But a CIA document released this year said Mohammed's "limited and negative experiences in the United States -- which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills -- almost certainly propelled him on his path to become a terrorist."
Mohammed lost his driver's license in North Carolina after he got into an accident while driving without insurance, according to a U.S. official. He was later arrested in Kentucky and spent a night in jail for unpaid tickets and for driving with a revoked license.
He told the CIA his contacts with Americans confirmed his view that the United States was a "debauched and racist country," according to the agency document. Later, at Guantanamo Bay, he told one person who had contact with him that, in all his time in the United States, he had never touched an American, not even to shake hands.
Conspiracy's beginning
After college, Mohammed traveled to Pakistan, where one of his brothers worked for a Kuwaiti charity, and immersed himself in the world of the anti-Soviet mujaheddin.
In 1996, when he described his plot for a direct attack on the United States using aircraft as weapons, bin Laden listened but did not immediately commit, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. In late 1998, after al-Qaeda succeeded in bombing the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, bin Laden finally approved what the group came to refer to as the "planes operation."
Under Mohammed's original plan for Sept. 11, 10 aircraft were to be hijacked. He was to have been aboard the only one not to crash, and after killing the male passengers he was to deliver a speech condemning U.S. support for Israel, as well as the Philippines and governments in the Arab world.
The 9/11 Commission Report notes: "This vision gives a better glimpse of his true ambitions. This is theater, a spectacle of destruction with KSM as the self-cast star -- the superterrorist."
"To be treated as a common criminal is the last thing Khalid Sheik Mohammed wants," said Tom Malinowski, head of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. "It disintegrates the warrior mystique that al-Qaeda promotes to sustain itself -- a mystique that a military trial would have reinforced."
CIA's 'preeminent source'
Mohammed was captured on March 1, 2003, at a safe house in Rawalpindi, a garrison town near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The photograph that flashed across the world after the arrest was of a slovenly, overweight man. When Mohammed, an avid reader of press reports about him, later saw it, he was furious.
He was quickly whisked out of Pakistan to a CIA "black site." Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times in his first month in captivity, said he lied to his interrogators, or told them what he thought they already knew, to stop the torment. In time, he also cooperated with the CIA and became what the agency described as the "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda.
Defenders of Bush administration interrogation policies have pointed to the intelligence Mohammed provided to justify the use of methods such as waterboarding. Others, including some CIA officials, say that there is no proof of cause and effect, and that the voluminous material amassed from Mohammed could have been acquired without coercion, specifically through the measured exploitation of his extraordinary ego.
The braggadocio visible in his courtroom outbursts also led Mohammed to agree to lecture CIA agents in a classroom setting while in custody. But his time in prison has been marked by moments of despair, according to officials familiar with his detention. Those moments include the time he was given photographs of his children, two of whom were captured with him but now live in Iran with his wife.
He has spent most of his time at Guantanamo Bay in prayer or reading in his cell. The routine has been broken only by visits to the gym, where he likes to jog in small circles, or conversations in the yard with the detainee in the adjoining space.
Mohammed has said he is impatient to end the legal process.
"This is what I wish: to be a martyr for a long time," he said last year. "I will, God willing, have this."
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1589 - 15/11/2009, 18:54
Giuliani: Obama Repeating 'Mistake of History' With Sept. 11 Trial Decision
by FOXNews.com
The mayor who oversaw rescue efforts in the wake of the attacks on lower Manhattan tells "Fox News Sunday" the president is only granting the "wish" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad at the expense of the American people and that the conspirators should be tried in a military tribunal.
Spoiler:
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani accused the Obama administration of "repeating the mistake of history" by bringing the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and his accomplices to New York for a civilian trial, saying the administration has definitively reverted to a "pre-9/11 approach."
The mayor who oversaw rescue and recovery efforts in the wake of the attacks on lower Manhattan told "Fox News Sunday" the president is only granting the "wish" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad at the expense of the American people and that the conspirators should be tried in a military tribunal.
He questioned why the administration would use the tribunals for other suspects but not the Sept. 11 conspirators.
"What the Obama administration is telling us loud and clear is that both in substance and reality, the War on Terror from their point of view is over," Giuliani said. "(Mohammad) should be tried in a military tribunal. He is a war criminal. This is an act of war."
The Obama administration's decision Friday to bring the alleged conspirators to New York has triggered a backlash from those who say a civilian trial affords the defendants rights they do not deserve, treats them as ordinary criminals and could be used as a platform to spew anti-American rhetoric as well as critique the actions of the Bush administration.
Giuliani said the biggest problem is that the United States is treating terrorists as it did after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which was followed by a string of other terrorist attacks on Americans overseas and finally by the Sept. 11 massacre.
And he suggested that such a high-profile trial in New York City would burden New York City both with the added risk of an attack and the added cost of security expenses. "Of course it's going to create more security concerns. Just wait and see how much New York City spends on this in order to protect him," Giuliani said. "This gives all the benefits to the terrorists and much less benefits to the public."
Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has also criticized the decision.
But others are standing by the Obama administration, arguing that a federal civilian trial held according to the standards of U.S. law is a victory for the United States against terrorism. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., told "Fox News Sunday" that, contrary to Giuliani's claim, a military tribunal trial would grant Mohammad's wish to be seen as a "holy warrior."
"If we try him before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want," Reed said.
He said that acquittals in the case are "highly unlikely," and that convictions reached in civilian court will deal a blow to those who sought to wreck American society. When the jury hands down the verdict, Reed said, "He will know he's lost."
White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that nearly 200 terrorism cases have been tried in the courts since 2001 with a 91 percent success rate, and that "we're very confident" about the upcoming New York trials. He said the decision was made by Attorney General Eric Holder, in concert with Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that she welcomes the trial. Federal officials are expected to seek the death penalty in the case.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1590 - 17/11/2009, 10:41
Army tells its soldiers to 'bribe' the Taleban
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
British forces should buy off potential Taliban recruits with "bags of gold", according to a new army field manual published yesterday.
Army commanders should also talk to insurgent leaders with "blood on their hands" in order to hasten the end of the conflict in Afghanistan.
Spoiler:
The edicts, which are contained in rewritten counter-insurgency guidelines, will be taught to all new army officers. They mark a strategic rethink after three years in which British and NATO forces have failed to defeat the Taliban. The manual is also a recognition that the Army’s previous doctrine for success against insurgents, which was based on the experience in Northern Ireland, is now out of date.
The new instructions came on the day that Gordon Brown went farther than before in setting out Britain’s exit strategy from Afghanistan. The Prime Minister stated explicitly last night that he wanted troops to begin handing over districts to Afghan authorities during next year — a general election year in Britain.
Addressing the issue of paying off the locals, the new manual states that army commanders should give away enough money to dissuade them from joining the enemy. The Taliban is known to pay about $10 a day to recruit local fighters.
Major-General Paul Newton said: "The best weapons to counter insurgents don’t shoot. In other words, use bags of gold in the short term to change the security dynamics. But you don’t just chuck gold at them, this has to be done wisely."
British commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq have complained that their access to money on the battlefield — cash rather than literal gold — compares poorly with their US counterparts.
Adam Holloway, a former army officer and the Tory MP for Gravesham in Kent, said that the idea was a matter of “shutting the door after the horse has bolted”. He added: “I know that a number of generals thought in 2006 that, rather than send a British brigade to Helmand, they should buy off people in the tribal areas. Now it’s too late.”
Mr Brown told the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at Guildhall in the City last night that a summit of Nato allies would be held in London in January, which could set a timetable for the transfer of security control to the Afghans starting in 2010. Military sources said that the first areas to be involved would probably be in the north and west of Afghanistan — not in Helmand in the south, where British troops are based.
The counter-insurgency field manual also highlights the importance of talking to the enemy. “There’s no point in talking to people who don’t have blood on their hands,” General Newton said, launching the document in London.
Britain’s early experience of handing out cash in Afghanistan proved abortive. About £16 million in cash was given to farmers to stop them growing poppy crops for the heroin trade, which helps to fund the Taleban. The money is believed to have had little impact on the opium yields.
The manual says that money can be the answer, if it is prudently distributed. “Properly spent within a context of longer-term planning, money offers a cost-effective means for pulling community support away from the insurgents and provides the military with a much-needed economy of force measure,” it says. “Unemployed and under-employed military-aged males typically provide the richest vein from which insurgents recruit ‘foot soldiers’. Short-term, labour-intensive projects are therefore the best way to disrupt such recruiting.”
“The counter-insurgent should be careful not to be over-generous since this will distort local economic and social activity and may lead to unproductive dependency.”
The positive impact of military units going into battle with bags of cash at their disposal is underlined in the manual by the experience of a top British commander who served in Iraq. “The hoops that I had to jump through to get the very few UK pounds that were available were . . . amazing; the American divisional commanders were resourced and empowered in ways that we could only dream of,” he says.
“UK commanders on recent operations have not had quick access to the same levels of cash as . . . their US counterparts,” the manual says. “Where possible, mission command should apply to money as much as any other weapon or enabling system.”
It is more than eight years since the Army last published a counter-insurgency doctrine, when the main lessons contained in it arose from operations in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
General Newton, Assistant Chief of Defence Staff Development Concepts and Doctrine, said that new ideas were needed to cope with the media-savvy insurgents who are fighting in Afghanistan and that there was no place for arrogance on the part of the British military hierarchy, relying on their experience of past campaigns.
The Americans complained in Iraq that the British in Basra too often referred to the lessons of Northern Ireland in dictating how the insurgency should be handled.
A bomb disposal specialist from 33 Regiment Royal Engineers was killed by an explosion near Gereshk in central Helmand province on Sunday, the Ministryof Defence said yesterday. He was part of the Counter-IED (improvised explosive device) Task Force and the 97th member of the Armed Forces to die in Afghanistan this year.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1591 - 17/11/2009, 11:37
Medicalizing mass murder By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 13, 2009
What a surprise -- that someone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" (the "God is great" jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre playing down Nidal Hasan's religious beliefs.
Spoiler:
"I cringe that he's a Muslim. . . . I think he's probably just a nut case," said Newsweek's Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time's Joe Klein decried "odious attempts by Jewish extremists . . . to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs." While none could match Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
They suffered. He listened. He snapped.
Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?
And what about civilian psychiatrists -- not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics -- who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?
It's been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.
But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, who National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.
And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as "compassion fatigue." The poor man -- pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.
Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. His business card had his name, his profession, his medical degrees and his occupational identity. U.S. Army? No. "SoA" -- Soldier of Allah. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It's a danger, clear and present.
Consider the Army's treatment of Hasan's previous behavior. NPR's Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising grand rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital -- attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.
I've been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia -- as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan's. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers -- consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This "really freaked a lot of doctors out," reported NPR.
Nor was this the only incident. "The psychiatrist," reported Zwerdling, "said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he's a terrorist, or is he just weird?"
Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague's religion?
One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.
What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn't cry "Allahu Akbar" as they squeezed the trigger.
The delicacy about the religion in question -- condescending, politically correct and deadly -- is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center."
Ah yes, those Jersey men -- so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1592 - 17/11/2009, 14:50
Une nouvelle preuve que les promesses electorales ne peuvent etre tenues et que les affirmations recentes du POTUS (pour etre PC) ne resistent pas aux mathematiques.
Il leur faut un rapport, un peu de bon sens suffit!
Updated November 16, 2009
House Health Bill Would Lower Medicare Paynebts, Report Finds
by FOXNews.com
Though President Obama pledged health care legislation would bring down the cost of health care "while strengthening the financial health of Medicare," the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid issued an official analysis that found the House bill breaks both pledges.
Spoiler:
A fresh analysis of the House health care reform plan has sounded a warning about the impact proposed Medicare cuts would have on seniors and could spell trouble for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's effort to pull a unified Senate bill to the floor by the end of the week.
The House and would-be Senate bills rely on hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare to keep reform deficit-neutral.
But even though President Obama pledged as recently as last week that the legislation would bring down the cost of health care "while strengthening the financial health of Medicare," the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services, issued an official analysis that found the House bill breaks both pledges.
The report said the reductions in Medicare spending would lower payments to providers such as doctors and hospitals and that they "might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)."
Republicans who have been complaining about the Medicare cuts for months took this as validation of the excessive spending and lack of savings supporters vow will be found in the bills.
"The administration's own actuary ... has said that it will drive the cost of health care up and that it will hurt seniors," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on "Fox News Sunday." "This is a bill that cuts Medicare, raises taxes and raises insurance premiums."
The study also found that the House bill would not lower healthcare spending overall but national expenditures would actually increase by $289 billion.
The Kentucky Republican said the actuary's report only strengthens the case to "delay the process" to allow for further review.
"It's been in Harry Reid's office for six weeks and the other 99 senators have not seen it. I think we ought to at least have as much time for the other 99 senators and all of the American people to take a look at this bill as Majority Leader Reid has had," McConnell said.
Republicans weren't the only ones accusing Democrats of breaking promises. Abortion rights advocates were out in force Monday accusing Democratic leaders of breaking pledges by accepting restrictions on abortion.
"It will be better to dump this entire bill then to allow it to become law with these noxious provisions intact," said Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State
"This is not the health care reform we were promised," said Kelli Conlin, president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York. "We were promised time and again that no one would lose existing coverage under health care reform, but the Stupak amendment turns that promise into lie because woman who currently has abortion coverage and joins the exchange will simply not have access to same plan."
One other complication for lawmakers is the so-called "doctor fix" in Medicare that the House still has to take up. It costs $210 billion and by law, seniors have to cover one-quarter of the cost. That means seniors would be paying $50 billion more in premiums over the next 10 years, an unexpected surprise.
Finally, some 60 percent of the uninsured would get insurance only because the House expands eligibility for Medicaid, government-paid health care for the poor. Critics say that's not reform, just an expansion of entitlements, which are already straining federal and state budgets. Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1593 - 17/11/2009, 16:50
The diplomacy of deferenceBy MIKE ALLEN | 11/17/09 7:59 AM EST
BEIJING – Greeting the Japanese emperor at Tokyo’s Imperial Palace last weekend, President Barack Obama bowed so low that he was looking straight at the stone floor. The next day, Obama shook hands with the prime minister of repressive Myanmar during a group meeting. The day after that, the president held a “town hall” with Chinese university students who had been selected by the regime.
Spoiler:
The images from the president's journey through Asia carried a potent symbolism that has riled critics back home. One conservative website called the episodes “Obamateurism.” Dick Cheney told POLITICO that Obama was advertising “weakness.”
But White House aides say the approach is deliberate – part of Obama’s determination to deliver on his campaign promise of directly engaging friends and enemies alike, giving America a less belligerent posture abroad.
“I think it's very important for the United States not to assume that what is good for us is automatically good for somebody else,” Obama told the students at the town hall, in Shanghai. “And we have to have some modesty about our attitudes towards other countries.”
President George W. Bush was accused of practicing “cowboy diplomacy,” with an emphasis on American power and self-interest that came off to many people as jingoism.
On his maiden Asia swing, Obama has made a vivid display of his own trademark style — the diplomacy of deference.
Downplaying bald assertions of American self-interest, Obama in his speeches has emphasized the pursuit of enlightened shared interests with other nations. The approach also invests deep faith in the power of Obama's personal presence—a belief that a calm and reasonable style will summon calm and reasonable responses around the world.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod, who is accompanying the president on his four-nation, nine-day trip, told POLITICO that Obama is “governing in just the way that he said he would” during his campaign.
“He believes in vigorous engagement around the world – in strong alliances, in confronting our adversaries and standing up for human rights by making these points in a very public way,” Axelrod said. “He is confident. He’s someone who’s leading from strength and a deep belief in who America is and what we stand for. That confidence is reflected in the way he conducts himself on the world stage.”
But critics call Obama’s outstretched hand a miscalculation. Former vice president Cheney said: "There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don't expect it, and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness."
The pageantry of his trip is also playing out against a parade of disappointment: Administration officials have acknowledged that a binding international climate agreement won't emerge from the Copenhagen summit next month. An arms-reduction treaty with Russia is going to expire Dec. 5 without a new one in place, forcing the parties to scramble to sign an interim “bridging agreement.”
And Iran and North Korea have yet to deliver on Obama’s promise that U.S. engagement will yield better behavior.
The Obama team here professed unconcern about how the trip’s most controversial imagery is rebounding at home.
A senior administration official called the bow to Emperor Akihito a “sign of respect,” adding that the depth of the bow reflected “the level of respect.”
“This is part of what the president says all the time – that he wants to be mindful of other cultures,” the official said. “That doesn’t take anything away from our culture.”
Similarly, officials professed to be unworried about the possibility of Obama being photographed with the leader of Myanmar (the former Burma), even though a photo with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had caused an uproar last spring. It turned out that Obama did shake hands with the prime minister, Gen. Thein Sein, during a leaders’ meeting of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations. In the past, the U.S. has skipped such meetings in order to avoid consorting with Myanmar. Obama aides say they knew when they agreed to the meeting that the president might be photographed, but they didn’t sweat it.
“When you accept the meeting you know that may happen,” the official said. “The president’s not going to run away from that. The risk of some negative press is outweighed by the benefits of developing a more civil relationship that may change the way that Myanmar’s leaders interact with their own people.”
Aides said that in the meeting, Obama called on Myanmar to free all political prisoners, including pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi; end violence against minority groups; and carry out dialogues with democratic movements there.
“The president sees it as a chance to present our points and advance our interests, and you’re not conceding anything,” the official said. “What’s more powerful that the President of the United States making these points to your face?”
While Obama aides are disappointed that his town hall in Shanghai did not get wider coverage in China’s state-controlled media, the official said that the president’s call for freedom of expression and association now will “spread out on the Internet.”
“If nothing else, the government heard it, and that’s pretty important,” the official said. “We were not expecting absolute change overnight.”
Obama’s approach is being greeted with approval by Washington’s foreign-policy establishment, which always regarded Bush as a colt in the China shop. Richard C. Bush III, director of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, said Obama “is consistent enough in his positions that he can be civil.”
“The important thing with the Burmese is whether with some degree of engagement, we can pull them out of the trap they’ve put themselves in and get a better deal for the Burmese people. We may never achieve it, but at least you can’t blame us for treating those people as lepers.”
Richard Bush added that Asians “believe you give your adversaries a little face in getting the results you want” and “believe process is important and can lead to substantive gains.”
Michael Green, a National Security Council official under President George W. Bush who now is Japan chairman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said engagement” is worth pursuing with the junta,” and can be an effective way of sending a message to China and pushing the Burmese toward better human-rights practices.
“There is a dilemma,” Green added. “Even as he’s meeting the leader of Burma and trying engagement, the junta is continuing its repression and cracking down. You have to be sure it’s not a ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card. Otherwise, there’s a real potential for embarrassment.”
Axelrod said skepticism about Obama’s approach is a reflection of the nation’s “A.D.D. political culture, in which every day is Election Day and people want all results immediately.
“The truth is that he’s building a foundation that’s going to be helpful in terms of creating markets for American exports, helpful in terms of our national security, helpful in terms of the issue of energy and climate change,” the adviser said. “So he’s getting a lot of business done that I think is going to be fruitful as we move forward.”
et, From The Times
November 17, 2009 UN nuclear chief in secret talks with Iran over deal to end sanctions
United Nations and Iranian officials have been secretly negotiating a deal to persuade world powers to lift sanctions and allow Tehran to retain the bulk of its nuclear programme in return for co-operation with UN inspectors.
Spoiler:
According to a draft document seen by The Times, the 13-point agreement was drawn up in September by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an effort to break the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear programme before he stands down at the end of this month.
The IAEA denied the existence of the document, which was leaked to The Times by one of the parties alarmed at the contents. Its disclosure was made as the agency warned that Iran could be hiding multiple secret nuclear sites.
Despite the assessment, diplomats believed that Mr ElBaradei was hoping to agree the outline of a deal with Tehran that he could present to the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany as a solution to the impasse.
It was thought that Mr ElBaradei was anxious to secure his legacy after infighting over his perceived weakness in dealing with Iran.
The plan would require the UN Security Council to revoke the three existing sanctions and five resolutions ordering Iran to halt its uranium enrichment — an unthinkable development at a time when the West is focused on how to impose more, not fewer, sanctions on Iran.
Russia and China, who have commercial ties with Iran and have been pressing for a compromise, may see merit in the plan, however.
Hopes of reaching a consensus rose in September with the discovery of a second uranium enrichment plant under construction near Qom, which inspectors were allowed to visit finally last month.
Mr ElBaradei’s draft agreement envisaged allowing Iran to maintain and even expand its uranium enrichment programme, albeit under closer IAEA scrutiny, as part of a globally managed nuclear fuel bank. “The sides are to set up an international consortium for uranium enrichment, both in Iran and outside Iran,” the document said.
Section ten of the document proposed that if Iran complied with the arrangements, the signatories would report positively to the UN Security Council, where Iran would be rewarded with the lifting of sanctions.
“At first, the sanctions prohibiting the movement of scientists and technicians are to be lifted immediately, as are the sanctions connected to the supply of spare parts for aircraft and other essential activities,” it said.
The disclosure coincides with leaks from the report by IAEA inspectors warning of the dangers of taking Iran at its word over its nuclear programme.
The report, to be discussed at Mr ElBaradei’s final board of governors meeting next week, warned that Iran may be concealing multiple nuclear plants.
Iran claims that the Qom site was a fallback to preserve its declared peaceful enrichment programme if the Natanz complex was bombed. Inspectors said that Tehran had failed to convince them of its use and had even lied when it was being built. Nuclear experts said that the size of the plant suggested a military use.
Tehran belatedly informed the IAEA of the existence of the plant in September, reportedly after realising that it had been discovered and was being monitored by Western intelligence agencies.
“The agency has indicated that its declaration of the new facility reduces the level of confidence in the absence of other nuclear facilities under construction and gives rise to questions about whether there were any other nuclear facilities not declared to the agency,” the report said.
Iran’s failure to inform the IAEA of its decision to build or authorise construction of a nuclear facility as soon as the decision was made was inconsistent with its transparency obligations to the UN watchdog, the report by the inspectors said. “Moreover, Iran’s delay in submitting such information to the agency does not contribute to the building of confidence.”
The report said that Tehran lied when it told the agency that construction began in 2007, when evidence showed that the project had started in 2002 before pausing in 2004 and resuming in 2006. Inspectors found the Qom site in an advanced state of construction but without centrifuges or nuclear materials. They said that Iran had told the agency it would be started up in 2011.
Western diplomats and nuclear experts said that the planned capacity of the Qom site, 3,000 centrifuges, made little sense as a peaceful enrichment centre because it would be too small to fuel a nuclear power station. It could, however, yield fissile material for one or two atom bombs per year.
Reuters Oct. 4: IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, left, speaks with Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization in Tehran.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1594 - 17/11/2009, 17:05
Toujours au sujet de:
The State Department weighs in rather allusively today on any role the office of the chief of protocol might have played in Barack Obama's bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito.
In response to a question at the press briefing about what is the role of the protocol chief when the President travels overseas, the State Department replied in a rather stiff statement, with no specific mention of the incident per se, that Obama was simply showing respect:
"The Office of the Chief of Protocol, working closely with the White House, provides advice on protocol matters for Presidential travel abroad. Protocol, in general, is about respecting the customs and traditions of a host country. The President was simply showing respect."
In the best tradition of counsel to the president being given in private and inconsequential dinner party conversation, the response somehow manages to evade saying whether Protocol advised POTUS to bow or not. Whatever the case, Protocol is the model of discretion.
Saying Emperor Akihito would have been fine with a handshake, the Los Angeles Times ticks off a list of "chintzy" gifts and awkward Obama encounters with foreign leaders: "There was that promise to talk with the president of Canada. A reference to not speaking Austrian. Giving Britain's prime minister a chintzy collection of American movie DVDs, which weren't formatted for video players in the U.K. And Michelle Obama's friendly or patronizing pat to the back of Queen Elizabeth, who received as her presidential gift an iPod with Broadway show tunes. The emperor of Japan, who does not bow to anyone, and his wife handled the awkward wow bow moment with regal aplomb. Japanese do not typically expect foreigners to bow anyway and often feign pleasant surprise when one is attempted."
Protocol chief Capricia Penavic Marshall wasn't confirmed until July, so wasn't responsible for the DVDs or the Saudi bow that Obama aides insist wasn't. Marshall, who came to Washington in 1992 to serve as then First Lady Hillary Clinton's social secretary, is one of her kitchen cabinet closest aides and friends. Her job is to advise the president and vice president as well on protocol on their trips abroad and with visiting foreign dignitaries. Some research may be in order before Obama hosts his first official state visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh next week. Posted by Laura Rozen 09:19 AM
EddieCochran Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768 Age : 64 Localisation : Countat da Nissa Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 17/11/2009, 23:16
1595 - Sylvette - p .60 Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise Mar 17 Nov 2009 à 17:05
Citation :
Protocol, in general, is about respecting the customs and traditions of a host country
Tout le petit monde clos du protocole est d'accord avec ce principe.
Pour le protocole français, si El Mundial Presidente vient rendre visite à notre Nanoléon Elyséen le protocole des salutations est le suivant : - Celui qui reçoit attend que son invité lui tende la main - Le réceptionnaire tend la sienne mais la retire très rapidement et dis" Touche moi pas, tu me sâlis!" - L'arrivant retire la sienne très vivement et répond : "Casse-toi Pauvkhôn". Puis tout deux entrent dans le Palais Impérieux sous une bonne escorte de gardes républicains. -------------------------
Depuis sa viste à sa Majesté l'Empereur du Japon, les groupies japonnaises de El Mundial Presidente le trouvent encore plus "bow".
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1596 - 18/11/2009, 07:52
NOVEMBER 17, 2009
Beijing Limits Obama's Exposure By IAN JOHNSON and JONATHAN WEISMAN
BEIJING -- As he dives into the heart of his trip to China, U.S. President Barack Obama is finding it hard to bring his trademark charisma to bear.
Spoiler:
Mr. Obama is slated to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao on Tuesday, after which the two will make statements to be broadcast live on Chinese television. But that is likely to be the only chance he has to address the Chinese people directly. A town-hall event Monday that was supposed to highlight Mr. Obama's common touch ended up being a tightly scripted affair.
The net effect is that the trip, which isn't expected to yield major substantive agreements, isn't likely to give Mr. Obama much of a symbolic victory either. Longtime observers say the visit, which ends Wednesday, is one of the most tightly controlled in recent memory, with Mr. Obama afforded none of the opportunities to reach Chinese people given to his two predecessors.
"The mystery is the lack of public contact," said David Shambaugh, a professor of Chinese studies at George Washington University, currently on a fellowship in China. "He's a populist politician but he's not getting any interaction with Chinese people."
According to U.S. and Chinese officials, the itinerary has been sharply contested by both sides. The U.S. wanted a chance for Mr. Obama's telegenic personality to shine through and make a case for greater freedoms, but Chinese officials pushed back, according to a Chinese media insider. The Chinese side was wary of making Mr. Obama look more accessible than China's own politicians, who appear on television only during highly scripted moments, such as inspection tours.
At a town hall style meeting in Shanghai, President Obama makes a pitch for Internet freedom. Washington bureau chief John Bussey comments on the significance in the News Hub.
Senior administration officials defended the trip and rejected negative comparisons to a longer, more free-wheeling visit by President Bill Clinton.
A packed agenda in Asia meant Mr. Obama had to keep the visit to China short, said David Axelrod, one of Mr. Obama's senior advisers. Mr. Obama had to stop first in Japan, join the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Singapore, and stop by South Korea for consultations on a pressing foreign-policy issue: North Korea. "Clinton came for more than a week, which gave him the latitude to do a variety of things and to meet with more people. We're here for 2½ days," Mr. Axelrod said. Mr. Hu and Mr. Obama will meet the press Tuesday, though they won't take questions. Mr. Obama will spend the afternoon sightseeing and attend a state dinner, with an invitation list controlled by the Chinese, people familiar with the planning said.
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama is due to meet Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and then fly out in the afternoon. None of the meetings are expected to result in significant agreements. This contrasts with President Clinton's trip to China in 1998, when he had four opportunities to speak to the Chinese, including an uncensored live interview on China Central Television and speeches to Chinese students. At the time, China courted Mr. Clinton, who was making the first presidential visit to China since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
In 2002, President George W. Bush made a speech to Chinese university students extolling political and religious freedom. It was broadcast on national television. The U.S. is now in a far weaker position, with its economy racked by financial crisis and its military engaged in two wars. "The U.S. is not able to force its agenda on China anymore," said Shi Yinhong, a professor at People's University in Beijing.
The differences were apparent in the meeting in Shanghai with Chinese youth. It was meant to be a town-hall-style event -- which normally features open discussions from audience members who choose to participate. Mr. Obama addressed a group of selected young people from the Shanghai area, some of whom said they had been bused in for the event after "training." —Aaron Back contributed to this article.
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1597 - 18/11/2009, 09:14
Un site officiel du gouvernement Obama: recovery.gov est suppose montrer les resultats positifs enregistres grace a l'argent de la relance et il le fait!
Mais les informations sont erronees (creation de postes dans des districts inexistants) ou tout simplement sans le moindre bon sens (une tondeuse achetee pour 1000 dollars a sauvegarde 50 postes!
Vexant, et pourtant, le gouvernement Obama ne l'est pas du tout (vexe)! Il lui faut beaucoup plus.
Recovery.gov shows money flowing to nonexistent districts By Amanda Carpenter on Nov. 17, 2009
The government Web site that promised to show exactly where the $787 billion in stimulus spending was going to "create or save" jobs is allocating billions of tax dollars to hundreds of congressional districts that don’t exist.
Spoiler:
Researchers at the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity found 440 “phantom districts” listed on Recovery.gov, consuming $6.4 billion and creating or saving nearly 30,000 jobs. Their findings are listed HERE.
For example, Recovery.gov shows 12 districts, using up more than $2.7 billion, in Washington, D.C, which only has one congressional district.
Recovery.gov also shows 2,893.9 jobs created with $194,537,372 in stimulus funding in New Hampshire’s 00 congressional district. But, there is no such thing.
The site also shows $1,471,518 going to New Hampshire’s 6th congressional district, $1,033,809 to the 4th congressional district and $124,774 to the 27th congressional district. In fact, New Hampshire only has two congressional districts; inviting confusion about where the money listed for the 00, 4th, 6th and 27th districts is going.
Edward Pound, communications director for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, said, "Some recipients of Recovery Act funds entered incorrect congressional districts in their award reports. We are doing an analysis of what we might be able to do at this time to correct the problem."
The burden of reporting information lies on the stimulus recipients and if they submit incorrect forms there is no penalty, said Mr. Pound. “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act set forth all the reporting requirements, but is silent as to penalties to enforce the reporting requirements,” he said. Fraudulent forms could be punished as a crime, but there is no mechanism to deter recipients from submitting inaccurate information through human error.
G. Edward DeSeve, who is Special Advisor to the President, Assistant to the Vice President and Special Advisor to the Office of Management and Budget for Implementation of the Recovery Act issued a statement about these errors on Tuesday, arguing some mistakes were inevitable and do nothing to disprove the effectiveness of the stimulus.
“Even if as many as 5-10% of the reports or 5-10% of the totals are wrong (and we don’t think it is that high), that still means the Recovery Act saved or created between 600,000 and 700,000 direct jobs in its first seven months -- more than most experts predicted when it passed,” he said. “And most leading experts agree that -- whatever the recipient reported total should be -- the actual number of jobs saved or created is about double that, because the recipient reports don’t include direct payments to individuals, the jobs created by Recovery Act tax cuts, and the jobs created when workers on Recovery Act projects spend their paychecks.”
Ahhhh si Pres. Bush 43 avait fait ca....
-----
Toujours au meme sujet, il ne faudrait pas croire que ce soit une cabale Republicaine.
- [url=https://librespropos.1fr1.net/exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist]Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist[/url]
How low will he go? Obama gives Japan's Emperor Akihito a wow bow (Updates with videos, pic) November 14, 2009 | 3:38 am
Invité Invité
Sujet: 1599 - 18/11/2009, 09:47
Pour rappel:
---
et juste pour sourire (faut bien..):
Obama grovels yet again before a hereditary monarch.
Would some grown up at the State Department please let the unqualified imbecile know that excessive deference is not expected between heads of state, even by inbred aristocrats like Akihito and Abdullah, and least of all from the leader of the world's only superpower. A polite nod is quite adequate. This sort of thing sends a very strange signal. But then, he's a very strange man.
God help us when he visits China. He'll probably knock head.
.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.
oui, m'sieur! 
correct oui, mais pas politiquement correct. 
forces have failed to defeat the Taliban. The manual is also a recognition that the Army’s previous doctrine for success against insurgents, which was based on the experience in Northern Ireland, is now out of date.
Recovery.gov shows money flowing to nonexistent districts 
Ahhhh si Pres. Bush 43 avait fait ca.... 
