Reid and Schumer - you speak of bipartisanship ... you are wrangling the term a little too loosely ... You don't care if Republicans are on board - you will steam roll over them. YOU are not bipartisan - you will do it without them.
Sirs - the day will come when Republicans take back the House and Senate and you are ignored. Then you will call out for bipartisanship ... now you call out for it even if you are not interested in bipartisanship - clearly you aren't when you say it doesn't matter anyway.
Good. You can do it right now. Until next time. Then, I hope you remember why your office is in the corner and you have a custodian's closet to store your umbrellas in.
You are such bloody hypocrites.
Reid Says Dems Have Votes to Pass Stimulus
Bill Continues to Grow Despite Senators' Efforts to Eliminate Excess
By JONATHAN KARL, RICK KLEIN and Z. BYRON WOLF
Feb. 5, 2009—
Democratic Senate leaders said this afternoon that they have the votes to pass the stimulus bill and suggested they have little interest in making further changes to win more Republican support.
"Has bipartisanship failed?" asked Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "So far it's not working, but it takes two to tango and so far the Republicans aren't dancing. The hard right has a stranglehold on most of the Republicans."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters he has the votes -- with no further changes -- to pass the economic stimulus bill.
"We believe we do" have the votes, Reid said. "We believe we can find two Republicans of goodwill to do the right thing for their country."
Reid also said he believes all 58 Democrats will vote for the bill. With the addition of two Republicans, he would have the 60 votes needed to pass the measure.
A final Senate vote on the stimulus bill is possible tonight.
Meantime, moderate senators have been meeting today to "scrub" wasteful spending from the bill. Reid said he is happy to talk to those senators, but doesn't feel compelled to support their cuts.
"The question is: Do they work in an effort to strengthen the bill or destroy the bill?" Reid said.
Schumer also suggested it is irrelevant whether the bill gets more Republican support.
He said that three months from now, "it will vanish in the wind how many votes we got, as long as we pass it."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Obama
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Obama: The Struggle Continues
Dear Leader
Your 60+ question questionaire DID NOT raise the bar on ethics ... NONE OF THESE people were properly vetted ... you submitted their names and nominations BEFORE they were vetted, and if they were vetted, they should never have been nominated.
IT HAS NOTHING to do with a bar or ethical standards ... your administration, from day one has shown it lacks standards.
How many more:
Richardson, Geithner, ... and now Solis ...
Inexperienced, inept, irresponsible, reckless (actions in India) ...
Solis Senate Session Postponed in Wake of Husband's Tax Lien Revelations
By Michael A. Fletcher
A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama's nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business -- liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.
WASHINGTON — The husband of President Obama's Labor secretary nominee paid about $6,400 Wednesday to settle tax liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years against his business, the Obama administration told USA TODAY this afternoon.
Obama
Your 60+ question questionaire DID NOT raise the bar on ethics ... NONE OF THESE people were properly vetted ... you submitted their names and nominations BEFORE they were vetted, and if they were vetted, they should never have been nominated.
IT HAS NOTHING to do with a bar or ethical standards ... your administration, from day one has shown it lacks standards.
How many more:
Richardson, Geithner, ... and now Solis ...
Inexperienced, inept, irresponsible, reckless (actions in India) ...
Solis Senate Session Postponed in Wake of Husband's Tax Lien Revelations
By Michael A. Fletcher
A Senate committee today abruptly canceled a session to consider President Obama's nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis to be labor secretary in the wake of a report saying that her husband yesterday paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his business -- liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.
WASHINGTON — The husband of President Obama's Labor secretary nominee paid about $6,400 Wednesday to settle tax liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years against his business, the Obama administration told USA TODAY this afternoon.
Obama
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Panetta, CIA and the Secret Payoffs
I could imagine if this had been Bush - Treasury Secretary - never paid taxes. Commerce nominee - under investigation for illegal kickbacks. OMB - she never paid taxes. Health and Human services - he failed to pay his taxes. UnderSecretary - lobbyists for defense contractor. CIA nominee - his daughter's relationship (and by extension, the role Panetta played) with Chavez; not to mention his fees paid by huge financial institutions (a la oil company). A Secretary of State who has a husband with a closet full of issues - from women all over the world to funding by Arab sheihks and emirs, along with the richest of men, who funded Mr. Clinton's adventures. I recall the headlines when Bush took office - he first contacted Mexican President Fox ... and the media played with this for several days - it broke tradition, it broke the standard policy that had been adhered to for decades of doing the Canadian side of the border first. Obama did it - he called the Palestinian terrorist-in-chief first, gave his first interview to Arab TV, interjected himself in Indian affairs where he was unwanted (alienating our ally), attacking an ally by sending rockets crashing into their country ... and the media role in all this? Even if you like the guy, can't you even crawl out of your cave to see how biased the media has been? How twisted you have been in attacking Bush and finding all Obamessiah does as divine?
I didn't think so. Figures.
(I thought the subejct line more in line with Bush attacks - no matter how innocent or non-criminal, leftists turned everything into a secret cabal, campaign, payments.)
FEBRUARY 5, 2009
CIA Nominee Panetta Received $700,000 in Fees
By GLENN R. SIMPSON
Wall Street journal
WASHINGTON -- The White House's nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday.
Mr. Panetta received $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for a speech for Wachovia Corp., according to disclosures released ahead of Thursday's scheduled Senate hearing on Mr. Panetta's nomination.
Both Merrill and Wachovia reported big losses last year and were acquired by larger firms. The Wachovia honorarium was dated October 30, and the last Merrill Lynch honorarium was dated October 11, according to disclosure forms filed by Mr. Panetta in connection with his nomination. At the time, Bank of America had agreed to a rescue of Merrill Lynch; Wachovia had agreed to be acquired by Wells Fargo & Co.
The Senate confirmation hearing for Leon Panetta, nominated to be director of the CIA, is scheduled for Thursday.
Mr. Panetta's disclosure form illustrates how retired politicians commonly make money giving speeches and consulting for prominent companies with significant interests before the government. That was one element in the controversy over the cabinet nomination of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who withdrew Tuesday.
The former White House chief of staff's disclosure form also shows the delicate balance President Barack Obama is trying to strike -- trying to curb the influence of lobbyists in his administration, while relying on long-time Washington veterans who often help clients navigate the halls of power. Mr. Panetta's forms show that he performed government affairs consulting last year and also sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. Like Mr. Daschle, who also worked for a firm with lobbying clients, Mr. Panetta doesn't violate Mr. Obama's ban on hiring registered lobbyists.
"We anticipate that tomorrow's hearing will focus on the substance of Mr. Panetta's views about how to strengthen our intelligence gathering and keep our nation safe, as all of Mr. Panetta's income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Mr. Panetta also received a $28,000 honorarium from the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that owns companies doing business with national-security agencies of the U.S. government. Carlyle holds a majority stake in the government consulting arm of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., which works for the CIA and other agencies. A Carlyle spokesman said Mr. Panetta was paid to speak at an investor conference and that the matter was unrelated to Booz Allen or any other defense contractors.
Mr. Panetta also reported receiving a $60,000 "Governmental Advisor Fee" from the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the shipping industry. The group lobbies the federal government regarding terrorism laws that affect shipping. A spokesman for the association didn't respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Panetta is a former Congressman from central California who served as White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. A White House spokesman said Mr. Panetta "provided consulting services on port security issues and some labor issues" to the Pacific Maritime Association. The spokesman said Mr. Panetta was "unaware" if his work was related to lobbying efforts by PMA in Washington that were described in public disclosure forms. Regarding potential conflicts of interest involving his speaking fees from Carlyle and other firms, the spokesman said, "All of his income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics, and he will abide by whatever they require."
Fleishman Hillard, a large public affairs and lobbying firm, also paid Mr. Panetta $130,000 in director's fees. Fleishman vice chairman Paul Johnson said Mr. Panetta advises firm clients on policy and economic issues but performs "absolutely no lobbying or government relations work."
Another source of income for Mr. Panetta was California State University, Monterey Bay, which hosts the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, a nonprofit foundation run by Mr. Panetta and his wife. The school paid Mr. Panetta $150,000 in "consulting fees," he reported. A spokesman for the chancellor's office referred questions about Mr. Panetta's work there to Mr. Panetta's White House aides, who did not respond to requests for comment.—Susan Schmidt contributed to this article.
Obama
I didn't think so. Figures.
(I thought the subejct line more in line with Bush attacks - no matter how innocent or non-criminal, leftists turned everything into a secret cabal, campaign, payments.)
FEBRUARY 5, 2009
CIA Nominee Panetta Received $700,000 in Fees
By GLENN R. SIMPSON
Wall Street journal
WASHINGTON -- The White House's nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday.
Mr. Panetta received $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for a speech for Wachovia Corp., according to disclosures released ahead of Thursday's scheduled Senate hearing on Mr. Panetta's nomination.
Both Merrill and Wachovia reported big losses last year and were acquired by larger firms. The Wachovia honorarium was dated October 30, and the last Merrill Lynch honorarium was dated October 11, according to disclosure forms filed by Mr. Panetta in connection with his nomination. At the time, Bank of America had agreed to a rescue of Merrill Lynch; Wachovia had agreed to be acquired by Wells Fargo & Co.
The Senate confirmation hearing for Leon Panetta, nominated to be director of the CIA, is scheduled for Thursday.
Mr. Panetta's disclosure form illustrates how retired politicians commonly make money giving speeches and consulting for prominent companies with significant interests before the government. That was one element in the controversy over the cabinet nomination of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who withdrew Tuesday.
The former White House chief of staff's disclosure form also shows the delicate balance President Barack Obama is trying to strike -- trying to curb the influence of lobbyists in his administration, while relying on long-time Washington veterans who often help clients navigate the halls of power. Mr. Panetta's forms show that he performed government affairs consulting last year and also sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. Like Mr. Daschle, who also worked for a firm with lobbying clients, Mr. Panetta doesn't violate Mr. Obama's ban on hiring registered lobbyists.
"We anticipate that tomorrow's hearing will focus on the substance of Mr. Panetta's views about how to strengthen our intelligence gathering and keep our nation safe, as all of Mr. Panetta's income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Mr. Panetta also received a $28,000 honorarium from the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that owns companies doing business with national-security agencies of the U.S. government. Carlyle holds a majority stake in the government consulting arm of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., which works for the CIA and other agencies. A Carlyle spokesman said Mr. Panetta was paid to speak at an investor conference and that the matter was unrelated to Booz Allen or any other defense contractors.
Mr. Panetta also reported receiving a $60,000 "Governmental Advisor Fee" from the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the shipping industry. The group lobbies the federal government regarding terrorism laws that affect shipping. A spokesman for the association didn't respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Panetta is a former Congressman from central California who served as White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. A White House spokesman said Mr. Panetta "provided consulting services on port security issues and some labor issues" to the Pacific Maritime Association. The spokesman said Mr. Panetta was "unaware" if his work was related to lobbying efforts by PMA in Washington that were described in public disclosure forms. Regarding potential conflicts of interest involving his speaking fees from Carlyle and other firms, the spokesman said, "All of his income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics, and he will abide by whatever they require."
Fleishman Hillard, a large public affairs and lobbying firm, also paid Mr. Panetta $130,000 in director's fees. Fleishman vice chairman Paul Johnson said Mr. Panetta advises firm clients on policy and economic issues but performs "absolutely no lobbying or government relations work."
Another source of income for Mr. Panetta was California State University, Monterey Bay, which hosts the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, a nonprofit foundation run by Mr. Panetta and his wife. The school paid Mr. Panetta $150,000 in "consulting fees," he reported. A spokesman for the chancellor's office referred questions about Mr. Panetta's work there to Mr. Panetta's White House aides, who did not respond to requests for comment.—Susan Schmidt contributed to this article.
Obama
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Obama: Out of his league
I almost feel sorry for Obama. Almost. Naive.
No one will pay attention to him.
Europe demanded he drop the 'Buy American' slogan and he caved. India says - bark up another tree, and ...
India warns Obama over Kashmir
By James Lamont and Amy Kazmin in New Delhi
Published: February 3 2009
India has warned US President Barack Obama that he risks “barking up the wrong tree” if he seeks to broker a settlement between Pakistan and India over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
MK Narayanan, India’s national security advisor, said that the new US administration was in danger of dredging up out of date Clinton administration-era strategies in a bid to bring about improved ties between the two nuclear armed neighbours.
“I do think that we could make President Obama understand, if he does nurse any such view, that he is barking up the wrong tree. I think Kashmir today has become one of the quieter and safer places in this part of the world,” Mr Narayanan said in an interview with CNBC TV18.
“It’s possible that at this time there are elements, perhaps in the administration who are harking back to the pre-2000 era.”
Obama
No one will pay attention to him.
Europe demanded he drop the 'Buy American' slogan and he caved. India says - bark up another tree, and ...
India warns Obama over Kashmir
By James Lamont and Amy Kazmin in New Delhi
Published: February 3 2009
India has warned US President Barack Obama that he risks “barking up the wrong tree” if he seeks to broker a settlement between Pakistan and India over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
MK Narayanan, India’s national security advisor, said that the new US administration was in danger of dredging up out of date Clinton administration-era strategies in a bid to bring about improved ties between the two nuclear armed neighbours.
“I do think that we could make President Obama understand, if he does nurse any such view, that he is barking up the wrong tree. I think Kashmir today has become one of the quieter and safer places in this part of the world,” Mr Narayanan said in an interview with CNBC TV18.
“It’s possible that at this time there are elements, perhaps in the administration who are harking back to the pre-2000 era.”
Obama
Obama: It's My Fault
Obama blames himself for mishandling Daschle
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP
Ap White House Correspondent – February 3, 2009
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."
The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.
Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."
"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News.
*******************************************************
Note to mr. Gibbs. When He says it is His fault, He is NOT saying it (the debacle over the nominees) is because of a standard he erected.
Obama
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP
Ap White House Correspondent – February 3, 2009
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."
The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.
Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."
"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News.
*******************************************************
Note to mr. Gibbs. When He says it is His fault, He is NOT saying it (the debacle over the nominees) is because of a standard he erected.
Obama
Obama and His Ethical Judgment: 2 articles
Obama spokesman defends ethics standards
Feb 3 03:18 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the tax problems faced by high-level nominees, and the exceptions made to the no-lobbyists pledge, President Barack Obama's spokesman is defending the administration's ethical standards.
Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday, "The bar that we set is the highest that any administration in the country has ever set."
During a briefing filled with questions about Tom Daschle's decision to withdraw from consideration to be Health and Human Services secretary, Gibbs pointed to experts who describe the administration's ethics rules as the strongest in history.
He also said those experts recognized that Obama would need to make exceptions to his pledge to run an administration free of former lobbyists.
Obama's choice to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. And his choice as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate.
***************************************************
Obama performance chief Killefer out, citing taxes
Feb 3 03:55 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Nancy Killefer withdrew her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government on Tuesday, saying she didn't want her bungling of payroll taxes on her household help to become a distraction for the Obama administration.
Killefer was the second major nominee to withdraw. Within hours, former Sen. Tom Daschle also withdrew his nomination to be secretary of health and human services.
Obama's first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, withdrew when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.
More recently, Tim Geithner was confirmed as Treasury secretary despite belatedly paying $34,000 in income taxes, and Daschle acknowledged his late payment of more than $128,000 in income taxes.
[to read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
************************************************
Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha ha
Honestly, can anyone listen to them with a straight face.
Amazing you can make these statements as if they are true. Do you believe by saying such patently false statements that people will believe you?
No Mr. Gibbs, the fact Richardson pulled oput, Daschle dropped out, and Killefer surrendered to the inevitable does NOT mean you have the highest standards. If you did, you would not have nominated the individuals BECAUSE they have such huge flaws - flaws your review process would have found or did find and ignored. It was NOT Obama who told Daschle to give up, or Richardfson, or Killefer ... the nominee did, AFTER they had gone through the process with that very high bar you set, just above ankle level.
On the other hand - maybe, with the help of the media, you can get away with it:
More recently, Tim Geithner was confirmed as Treasury secretary despite belatedly paying $34,000 in income taxes, and Daschle acknowledged his late payment of more than $128,000 in income taxes.
Belatedly paying, and a late payment ... I can only imagine what they would have written had it been a Republican.
Obama
Feb 3 03:18 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the tax problems faced by high-level nominees, and the exceptions made to the no-lobbyists pledge, President Barack Obama's spokesman is defending the administration's ethical standards.
Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday, "The bar that we set is the highest that any administration in the country has ever set."
During a briefing filled with questions about Tom Daschle's decision to withdraw from consideration to be Health and Human Services secretary, Gibbs pointed to experts who describe the administration's ethics rules as the strongest in history.
He also said those experts recognized that Obama would need to make exceptions to his pledge to run an administration free of former lobbyists.
Obama's choice to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. And his choice as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate.
***************************************************
Obama performance chief Killefer out, citing taxes
Feb 3 03:55 PM US/Eastern
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN and LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Nancy Killefer withdrew her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government on Tuesday, saying she didn't want her bungling of payroll taxes on her household help to become a distraction for the Obama administration.
Killefer was the second major nominee to withdraw. Within hours, former Sen. Tom Daschle also withdrew his nomination to be secretary of health and human services.
Obama's first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, withdrew when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.
More recently, Tim Geithner was confirmed as Treasury secretary despite belatedly paying $34,000 in income taxes, and Daschle acknowledged his late payment of more than $128,000 in income taxes.
[to read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
************************************************
Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha ha ha ha
Honestly, can anyone listen to them with a straight face.
Amazing you can make these statements as if they are true. Do you believe by saying such patently false statements that people will believe you?
No Mr. Gibbs, the fact Richardson pulled oput, Daschle dropped out, and Killefer surrendered to the inevitable does NOT mean you have the highest standards. If you did, you would not have nominated the individuals BECAUSE they have such huge flaws - flaws your review process would have found or did find and ignored. It was NOT Obama who told Daschle to give up, or Richardfson, or Killefer ... the nominee did, AFTER they had gone through the process with that very high bar you set, just above ankle level.
On the other hand - maybe, with the help of the media, you can get away with it:
More recently, Tim Geithner was confirmed as Treasury secretary despite belatedly paying $34,000 in income taxes, and Daschle acknowledged his late payment of more than $128,000 in income taxes.
Belatedly paying, and a late payment ... I can only imagine what they would have written had it been a Republican.
Obama
Biden: Modern Fool, White House Loser.
I used to have more respect for Biden.
That time was ... well, many years ago, but still, I did think much more highly of him.
His repeated failures have dropped him, near the bottom of the barrel, although, still higher than his boss.
He publicly mocked Cheney over the role of the Vice President - and he failed to understand the Constitutional limitations placed upon the VP by the ARTCILES and which ones specifically. He relegated the role to the Executive, while it was not as Executive as it was Legislative.
He mocked Justice Roberts for flubbing the oath, and then:
Mockery of and apologies to the Supreme Court chief justice aside, Vice President Biden on Monday learned how difficult it is to deliver an oath of office.
The vice president fumbled his words while swearing in Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in a mock ceremony held at Foggy Bottom.
After smoothly saying and having Clinton repeat that she does "solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Biden, who was using a note card, faltered.
"... that I will bear -- excuse me ... that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..."
He then continued without incident after a hearty laugh from the audience.
Biden
That time was ... well, many years ago, but still, I did think much more highly of him.
His repeated failures have dropped him, near the bottom of the barrel, although, still higher than his boss.
He publicly mocked Cheney over the role of the Vice President - and he failed to understand the Constitutional limitations placed upon the VP by the ARTCILES and which ones specifically. He relegated the role to the Executive, while it was not as Executive as it was Legislative.
He mocked Justice Roberts for flubbing the oath, and then:
Mockery of and apologies to the Supreme Court chief justice aside, Vice President Biden on Monday learned how difficult it is to deliver an oath of office.
The vice president fumbled his words while swearing in Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in a mock ceremony held at Foggy Bottom.
After smoothly saying and having Clinton repeat that she does "solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Biden, who was using a note card, faltered.
"... that I will bear -- excuse me ... that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..."
He then continued without incident after a hearty laugh from the audience.
Biden
Obama: We Hardly Knew Ya - Again.
Prerecorded music at inauguration causes flap
By NEKESA MUMBI MOODY
AP Music Writer
Fri Jan 23, 5:53 pm ET
NEW YORK – To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here we go again.
The revelation that millions of people who saw the inauguration of President Barack Obama were actually listening to recorded music instead of the actual performance of the Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman-led quartet has led to comparisons of lip-synching (though, in this case, might the correct term be hand-synching?) and drawn comparisons to other infamous cases, including Ashlee Simpson's "Saturday Night Live" debacle and perhaps music's most famous pantomimes, Milli Vanilli.
Obama
By NEKESA MUMBI MOODY
AP Music Writer
Fri Jan 23, 5:53 pm ET
NEW YORK – To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here we go again.
The revelation that millions of people who saw the inauguration of President Barack Obama were actually listening to recorded music instead of the actual performance of the Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman-led quartet has led to comparisons of lip-synching (though, in this case, might the correct term be hand-synching?) and drawn comparisons to other infamous cases, including Ashlee Simpson's "Saturday Night Live" debacle and perhaps music's most famous pantomimes, Milli Vanilli.
***********************************
THIS is a non-issue. However, in the decades to follow, it may be said that it was an omen of things to follow, when before it began it was fake ... the promises, the cabinet appointees, the lack of transparency ... it is not a single issue, not the pre-recorded music - as explained, the temperatures would have made the notes difficult and the instruments less perfect in their production. Rather, it is the flubbed oath, re-taking the oath, no Bible, the press corps was not allowed in (just a select couple), the miserable start with the cabinet - more taxes problems than customers to H&R Block, Bill Richardson - before he even began, he stopped - corruption has filled his shoes in New Mexico. Bill didn't release all the names of donors, despite the fact some are high up officials in foreign governments - the same governments Hillary will have to deal with.
Promises broken - the very essence of his campaign - change, no lobbyists - and he broke that promise.
No single event, no single act - it is the sum total of all he has flubbed up that is so disappointing - not that I expected more - one should never expect a politician to follow through - and his STIMULUS package - to give billions to people who pay no federal taxes ... and that stimulates what?
Sad.
Obama
North Korea: Brink of War? Test for Obama?
SCENARIOS-Will North Korea launch a war?
Tue Feb 3, 2009
By Jack Kim
SEOUL,
Feb 3 (Reuters) - North Korea appears to be preparing to test-launch its longest range ballistic missile, media reports said on Tuesday, just days after Pyongyang warned that the Korean peninsula was on the brink of war.
[Interesting. Within weeks of Bush gone, we are on the brink of war with North Korea. An untested president and a lunatic in Pyongyang]
Analysts say the possibility that North Korea would start an all-out war with the South is low because Pyongyang knows its underfunded military is no match for the U.S.-backed modern military of its Southern neighbour.But the following scenarios could unfold:
A NAVAL SKIRMISH
The North has threatened military action over a disputed sea border off the west coast and it previously triggered clashes in 1999 and 2002 that killed or wounded dozens of sailors on both sides. The 1999 battle was orchestrated by the North's military with its leader Kim Jong-il's close involvement and caught the South by surprise, according to intelligence sources.
The North may be hesitant to spark another battle after its navy was badly outgunned by a superior South Korean force in the last firefight in 2002. Since then, the North's Soviet-era navy has become more obsolete while the South's has increased its firepower and technology.
What has changed is the North's deployment of more short-range missiles. The North could raise tension by firing missiles into waters claimed by the South or at one of its ships.
BORDER GUNFIGHT
A shootout along the Demilitarised Zone border could easily ignite a broader gunfight involving many of the more than 1 million troops who are deployed on both sides of the buffer zone that has divided the peninsula since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a ceasefire and not a peace treaty.
But a land battle is unlikely because of the chance it could trigger a bigger conflict. A more likely scenario is for the North to conduct massive military training manoeuvres or send aircraft just close enough to the border so that the South has no choice but to respond.
A MISSILE LAUNCH
The North could raise regional tension by testing its ballistic missiles, which have the range to hit all of South Korea and most of Japan. It could go ahead and fire its long-range Taepodong-2 missile. South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unnamed South Korean government source as saying the North had a newly constructed launch pad on its west coast.
[These were the missiles, if I am correct, that Saddam had ordered and were on their way when the US interrupted.]
The last time North Korea launched a Taepodong-2 in 2006, the missile fizzled less than a minute into flight and destructed.
A successful test would boost support at home for North Korea's leaders and raise alarm in Japan and the United States because it increases the chances that the two countries could be targets of North Korean missiles.
SECOND NUCLEAR TEST
The North could set off a nuclear device again. The first test in October 2006 was considered by South Korea and the United States as only a partial success, which indicted flaws in the North's weapon design or materials. The North needs a second test to see if it has fixed those problems, experts say.
But a second test carries major risks to the isolated state because it is certain to strain ties with its biggest benefactor China and lead to a new round of international trade sanctions.
NUCLEAR PLANT
North Korea might feel it can win more over the long term from new U.S. President Barack Obama if it ups the stakes. In order to increase its leverage, the North could begin to restore operations at its Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear plant and reverse disablement steps called for in an international deal that were designed, in total, to put the facility out of business for at least a year.
The North's most likely priority would be restoring its facility that separates plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Experts say the North could have it up and running again in a few months.
There are discharged, irradiated fuel rods cooling at Yongbyon that the North could use to produce what experts say would be enough plutonium for one more nuclear weapon.
ALL-OUT WAR
U.S. military commanders in South Korea have said U.S. and South Korean forces would be able to quickly defeat the North, even though the North would still be able to quickly fire off thousands of artillery shells as well as launch missiles that could hit South Korea and Japan. Analysts say an all-out war would bring the end of Kim Jong-il's government, cause enormous destruction on the peninsula, and perhaps Japan.
It could also plunge the regional economy, and even the global economy, into a tailspin.
South Korea has 670,000 soldiers backed by 28,000 U.S. troops. North Korea has a military of 1.2 million personnel.
North Korea
Obama
Tue Feb 3, 2009
By Jack Kim
SEOUL,
Feb 3 (Reuters) - North Korea appears to be preparing to test-launch its longest range ballistic missile, media reports said on Tuesday, just days after Pyongyang warned that the Korean peninsula was on the brink of war.
[Interesting. Within weeks of Bush gone, we are on the brink of war with North Korea. An untested president and a lunatic in Pyongyang]
Analysts say the possibility that North Korea would start an all-out war with the South is low because Pyongyang knows its underfunded military is no match for the U.S.-backed modern military of its Southern neighbour.But the following scenarios could unfold:
A NAVAL SKIRMISH
The North has threatened military action over a disputed sea border off the west coast and it previously triggered clashes in 1999 and 2002 that killed or wounded dozens of sailors on both sides. The 1999 battle was orchestrated by the North's military with its leader Kim Jong-il's close involvement and caught the South by surprise, according to intelligence sources.
The North may be hesitant to spark another battle after its navy was badly outgunned by a superior South Korean force in the last firefight in 2002. Since then, the North's Soviet-era navy has become more obsolete while the South's has increased its firepower and technology.
What has changed is the North's deployment of more short-range missiles. The North could raise tension by firing missiles into waters claimed by the South or at one of its ships.
BORDER GUNFIGHT
A shootout along the Demilitarised Zone border could easily ignite a broader gunfight involving many of the more than 1 million troops who are deployed on both sides of the buffer zone that has divided the peninsula since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a ceasefire and not a peace treaty.
But a land battle is unlikely because of the chance it could trigger a bigger conflict. A more likely scenario is for the North to conduct massive military training manoeuvres or send aircraft just close enough to the border so that the South has no choice but to respond.
A MISSILE LAUNCH
The North could raise regional tension by testing its ballistic missiles, which have the range to hit all of South Korea and most of Japan. It could go ahead and fire its long-range Taepodong-2 missile. South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unnamed South Korean government source as saying the North had a newly constructed launch pad on its west coast.
[These were the missiles, if I am correct, that Saddam had ordered and were on their way when the US interrupted.]
The last time North Korea launched a Taepodong-2 in 2006, the missile fizzled less than a minute into flight and destructed.
A successful test would boost support at home for North Korea's leaders and raise alarm in Japan and the United States because it increases the chances that the two countries could be targets of North Korean missiles.
SECOND NUCLEAR TEST
The North could set off a nuclear device again. The first test in October 2006 was considered by South Korea and the United States as only a partial success, which indicted flaws in the North's weapon design or materials. The North needs a second test to see if it has fixed those problems, experts say.
But a second test carries major risks to the isolated state because it is certain to strain ties with its biggest benefactor China and lead to a new round of international trade sanctions.
NUCLEAR PLANT
North Korea might feel it can win more over the long term from new U.S. President Barack Obama if it ups the stakes. In order to increase its leverage, the North could begin to restore operations at its Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear plant and reverse disablement steps called for in an international deal that were designed, in total, to put the facility out of business for at least a year.
The North's most likely priority would be restoring its facility that separates plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Experts say the North could have it up and running again in a few months.
There are discharged, irradiated fuel rods cooling at Yongbyon that the North could use to produce what experts say would be enough plutonium for one more nuclear weapon.
ALL-OUT WAR
U.S. military commanders in South Korea have said U.S. and South Korean forces would be able to quickly defeat the North, even though the North would still be able to quickly fire off thousands of artillery shells as well as launch missiles that could hit South Korea and Japan. Analysts say an all-out war would bring the end of Kim Jong-il's government, cause enormous destruction on the peninsula, and perhaps Japan.
It could also plunge the regional economy, and even the global economy, into a tailspin.
South Korea has 670,000 soldiers backed by 28,000 U.S. troops. North Korea has a military of 1.2 million personnel.
North Korea
Obama
Bill Clinton - Secret Donations? Who would have thought!
Clinton Foundation's secret donor
Transparency pledge hits snag
Jim McElhatton
Friday, January 23, 2009
Washington Times
Former President Bill Clinton's foundation, despite identifying more than 200,000 of its donors in recent weeks, will not say who paid it windfall prices for stock in a struggling Internet firm with links to the Chinese government.
The William J. Clinton Foundation has identified donors and promised unusual transparency in order to reassure critics who fear the foundation could become the object of largesse from foreign interests seeking to influence his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
[ to read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Clinton
Transparency pledge hits snag
Jim McElhatton
Friday, January 23, 2009
Washington Times
Former President Bill Clinton's foundation, despite identifying more than 200,000 of its donors in recent weeks, will not say who paid it windfall prices for stock in a struggling Internet firm with links to the Chinese government.
The William J. Clinton Foundation has identified donors and promised unusual transparency in order to reassure critics who fear the foundation could become the object of largesse from foreign interests seeking to influence his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
[ to read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Clinton
Monday, February 2, 2009
Justice for Riley.
There are not many people that I feel, very strongly, deserve death. The female who was the mother of Riley - is one of those people. Unfortunately, due to the laws of Texas, she will not be put to death.
I wouldn't even mind giving her to Osama.
One piece of good news - there has been justice for Riley, and that person will never again harm another child.
Texas mother convicted in 2-year-old girl's death
Juan A. Lozano, Associated Press Writer
Mon Feb 2, 2009
9:38 pm ET
GALVESTON, Texas – A mother was convicted of capital murder Monday for the death of her 2-year-old daughter, who was whipped with belts and flung onto a tile floor to teach her manners, before her body was dumped in a box in Galveston Bay. Jurors deliberated less than two hours before finding Kimberly Trenor guilty. She received an automatic sentence of life without parole. Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty.
"Justice has been served today. Today it's about Riley" — the victim, Galveston County District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk said after the verdict.
Trenor and her husband, Royce Clyde Zeigler II, were accused of killing Riley Ann Sawyers while disciplining her in July 2007. Prosecutors said Trenor and Zeigler beat Riley with belts, dunked her head in cold water and threw her onto a tile floor, fracturing her skull. Zeigler's capital murder trial will be held later.
After Riley's death, the couple stuffed her body in a plastic box and hid it at their suburban Houston home before dumping it in Galveston Bay, according to authorities.
[To read the rest of the article, click the title link]
I wouldn't even mind giving her to Osama.
One piece of good news - there has been justice for Riley, and that person will never again harm another child.
Texas mother convicted in 2-year-old girl's death
Juan A. Lozano, Associated Press Writer
Mon Feb 2, 2009
9:38 pm ET
GALVESTON, Texas – A mother was convicted of capital murder Monday for the death of her 2-year-old daughter, who was whipped with belts and flung onto a tile floor to teach her manners, before her body was dumped in a box in Galveston Bay. Jurors deliberated less than two hours before finding Kimberly Trenor guilty. She received an automatic sentence of life without parole. Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty.
"Justice has been served today. Today it's about Riley" — the victim, Galveston County District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk said after the verdict.
Trenor and her husband, Royce Clyde Zeigler II, were accused of killing Riley Ann Sawyers while disciplining her in July 2007. Prosecutors said Trenor and Zeigler beat Riley with belts, dunked her head in cold water and threw her onto a tile floor, fracturing her skull. Zeigler's capital murder trial will be held later.
After Riley's death, the couple stuffed her body in a plastic box and hid it at their suburban Houston home before dumping it in Galveston Bay, according to authorities.
[To read the rest of the article, click the title link]
Hamas and Iran - Together at Last.
Meshaal urges Iranian students to join Islamist liberation of all Palestine
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
February 2, 2009, 9:48 PM (GMT+02:00)
On the third day of his talks with Iranian leaders in Tehran, Hamas' supreme leader Khaled Meshaal urged Iranian students to join his Islamist movement in helping liberate all of Palestine, secure the return of all Palestinians and retake Jerusalem so that "we can pray together."
[So they are not able to pray in jerusalem now? But then, that wasn't what he meant by that statement, was it!]
He was addressing students to the University of Tehran after briefings from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on how to respond to the Egyptian initiative for a long-term truce in the Gaza Strip.
Tehran's aggressive line ensured that the talks Hamas representatives are holding in Cairo will stall and the missiles will keep coming from Gaza against Israel.
DEBKAfile's Iranian sources disclose the three topics uppermost in Meshaal's talks with Iranian leaders:
1. Tehran's decision about playing tough in Middle East, including Gaza, depends on the prospect of direct talks with the Obama administration in Washington. Iranian leaders have so far taken a harsh line toward the new administration in an effort to dictate the ground rules ahead of any dialogue, so it is hard to believe they will turn soft on Gaza.
2. Iranian-Egyptian relations have never been so adversarial. Tehran will therefore be loath to grant president Hosni Mubarak advantages on the Palestinian playing field.
3. Tehran must hurry up and pump military and economic assistance into the Gaza Strip to shore up Hamas' rule. A delay carries the risk of the Palestinian Islamists turning to Cairo and Riyadh to earn the proffered Saudi-Egyptian aid package for reconstructing the ruined territory.
Most urgently, Hamas needs large amounts of cash to stay afloat.
So if Meshaal comes away from his talks in Tehran with pledges of funds and arms, he will almost certainly instruct the Hamas delegation to ditch the Egyptians and their proposals.
The Israeli defense minster Ehud Barak will then lose out on his tactic of gambling on an Egyptian success.
Hamas
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
February 2, 2009, 9:48 PM (GMT+02:00)
On the third day of his talks with Iranian leaders in Tehran, Hamas' supreme leader Khaled Meshaal urged Iranian students to join his Islamist movement in helping liberate all of Palestine, secure the return of all Palestinians and retake Jerusalem so that "we can pray together."
[So they are not able to pray in jerusalem now? But then, that wasn't what he meant by that statement, was it!]
He was addressing students to the University of Tehran after briefings from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on how to respond to the Egyptian initiative for a long-term truce in the Gaza Strip.
Tehran's aggressive line ensured that the talks Hamas representatives are holding in Cairo will stall and the missiles will keep coming from Gaza against Israel.
DEBKAfile's Iranian sources disclose the three topics uppermost in Meshaal's talks with Iranian leaders:
1. Tehran's decision about playing tough in Middle East, including Gaza, depends on the prospect of direct talks with the Obama administration in Washington. Iranian leaders have so far taken a harsh line toward the new administration in an effort to dictate the ground rules ahead of any dialogue, so it is hard to believe they will turn soft on Gaza.
2. Iranian-Egyptian relations have never been so adversarial. Tehran will therefore be loath to grant president Hosni Mubarak advantages on the Palestinian playing field.
3. Tehran must hurry up and pump military and economic assistance into the Gaza Strip to shore up Hamas' rule. A delay carries the risk of the Palestinian Islamists turning to Cairo and Riyadh to earn the proffered Saudi-Egyptian aid package for reconstructing the ruined territory.
Most urgently, Hamas needs large amounts of cash to stay afloat.
So if Meshaal comes away from his talks in Tehran with pledges of funds and arms, he will almost certainly instruct the Hamas delegation to ditch the Egyptians and their proposals.
The Israeli defense minster Ehud Barak will then lose out on his tactic of gambling on an Egyptian success.
Hamas
Guantanamo - The Innocent Speak
Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video
January 24, 2009
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.
One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.
Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.
A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.
"We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure," said Gordon.
"We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose," he said.
On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," al-Shihri was quoted as saying.
Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, the US counter-terrorism official said.
The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani).
The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees -- about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released -- are believed to have returned to the fight.
The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year.
al qaida
January 24, 2009
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.
One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.
Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.
A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.
"We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure," said Gordon.
"We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose," he said.
On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," al-Shihri was quoted as saying.
Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, the US counter-terrorism official said.
The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani).
The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees -- about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released -- are believed to have returned to the fight.
The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year.
al qaida
Obama: Get on Board or get Run Over
PREZ ZINGS GOP FOE IN A $TIMULATING TALK
By CHARLES HURT, BUREAU CHIEF
January 23, 2009 --
WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.
In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.
"I will trump you on that."
Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.
Obama
By CHARLES HURT, BUREAU CHIEF
January 23, 2009 --
WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.
"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.
In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.
"I will trump you on that."
Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.
Obama
Obamessiah: Promises, Promises
I REMEMBER ... the god-awfullest sound - for nearly a year, the harping by this man about lobbyists ... lobbyists and Cheney, lobbyists and Bush, lobbyists and McCain, lobbyists and Clinton ... that was a mantra. No lobbyists. A PROMISE. CHANGE. He would BRING change to Washington. he would CLEAN out the White House, a good hosing down to wash away all that lobbyist smell. I REMEMBER the constant drone on and on and on and on about how he would be different, bring change - how he defined change ...
PROMISES, PROMISES: No lobbyists at WH, except ...
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
February 2, 2009
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama promised a "clean break from business as usual" in Washington. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
From the start, he made exceptions to his no-lobbyist rule. And now, embarrassing details about Cabinet-nominee Tom Daschle's tax problems and big paychecks from special interest groups are raising new questions about the reach and sweep of the new president's promised reforms.
Maybe he shouldn't have promised so much, some open-government advocates say. They're willing to cut him some slack — for now.
On Jan. 21, the day after his inauguration, Obama issued an executive order barring any former lobbyists who join his administration from dealing with matters or agencies related to their lobbying work. Nor could they join agencies they had lobbied in the previous two years.
However, William J. Lynn III, his choice to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. And William Corr, tapped as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate. Corr says he will take no part in tobacco matters in the new administration.
"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
That was a big step back from Obama's unambiguous swipe at lobbyists in November 2007, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I don't take a dime of their money," he said, "and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."
The waivers granted for Lynn and Corr caused some in Washington to wince. But others, including many longtime advocates of tougher ethical standards, suggest it all says as much about deeply ingrained practices — and even necessities — in Washington as about a new president.
"Sometimes you can over-promise," said former Sen. Warren Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire.
"This government is very complicated," he said. "Often you'll need people with a lot of experience in certain areas," and current or former lobbyists sometimes fit that bill best.
"It was probably a mistake to come down so hard on lobbyists," said Melanie Sloan, who is not shy about criticizing lobbyists or politicians as executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "I think the Obama folks' intentions were great here," she said. "But sometimes you realize you can't actually govern on just what you campaigned on."
Sloan and others said embarrassments over Daschle, one of several top Obama appointees with a history of influencing government for clients, should not detract from the president's first-day vow to sharply limit the role of lobbyists in his administration.
Daschle, a former senator tapped to head Health and Human Services, is not technically a lobbyist. But he was paid more than $5.2 million over the past two years as he advised health insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries such as energy and telecommunications.
Fred Wertheimer of Democracy21 is one of Washington's best-known advocates of more open and honest government. He called Obama's executive order "unprecedented and almost revolutionary in nature" and "a direct attack on the culture of Washington and the way business is done here."
"A few waivers will not undermine it," he said, provided they are justified and limited.
The best way to limit the influence of wealthy special interests, Wertheimer said, is to increase public funding for presidential elections and restrict the amount that private business can pump into campaigns and politics. That could pave the way for tighter restrictions on influence-peddling in Congress, he said.
Obama declined public financing for his campaign so he could raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on his own. Some people saw that a virtual death knell for campaign public financing, but Wertheimer said he believes Obama will deliver on aides' promises to help "repair the system."
Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, strikes many in Washington as a good example of why the revolving door between government and highly paid private-sector jobs can be troubling, but also why an outright ban on such movements would be unwise.
Even Republicans praised Daschle's cerebral, soft-spoken approach to government and politics, and his expertise on subjects including health care. He didn't choose to leave Congress for a high-paying job, but was defeated in a close re-election bid in 2004.
Once out, he was attractive and valuable to all sorts of government-regulated industries, even if he never registered as a lobbyist who could make straightforward appeals for or against legislation affecting his clients.
He received more than $2 million over two years as a senior policy adviser for the Washington law firm Alston & Bird. He also earned more than $2 million in consulting fees from InterMedia Advisors LLC of New York, an investment firm specializing in buyouts and industry consolidation. An associate let Daschle use his car and driver, for which Daschle had to pay late taxes and interest.
Several health groups also paid Daschle $15,000 or more to speak to their gatherings.
"He welcomed every opportunity to make his case to the American public at large, and the health industry in particular, that America can't afford to ignore the health care crisis any longer," said his spokeswoman Jenny Backus.
Wertheimer, of Democracy21, said that rather than dwell on Daschle's problems or the Corr and Lynn waivers, he focuses on Obama's executive order and the hope of progress to come on public financing of campaigns.
The executive order "laid down a mark," Wertheimer said. "More has to be done, and tough battles have to be won."
Obama
PROMISES, PROMISES: No lobbyists at WH, except ...
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
February 2, 2009
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama promised a "clean break from business as usual" in Washington. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
From the start, he made exceptions to his no-lobbyist rule. And now, embarrassing details about Cabinet-nominee Tom Daschle's tax problems and big paychecks from special interest groups are raising new questions about the reach and sweep of the new president's promised reforms.
Maybe he shouldn't have promised so much, some open-government advocates say. They're willing to cut him some slack — for now.
On Jan. 21, the day after his inauguration, Obama issued an executive order barring any former lobbyists who join his administration from dealing with matters or agencies related to their lobbying work. Nor could they join agencies they had lobbied in the previous two years.
However, William J. Lynn III, his choice to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. And William Corr, tapped as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate. Corr says he will take no part in tobacco matters in the new administration.
"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
That was a big step back from Obama's unambiguous swipe at lobbyists in November 2007, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I don't take a dime of their money," he said, "and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."
The waivers granted for Lynn and Corr caused some in Washington to wince. But others, including many longtime advocates of tougher ethical standards, suggest it all says as much about deeply ingrained practices — and even necessities — in Washington as about a new president.
"Sometimes you can over-promise," said former Sen. Warren Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire.
"This government is very complicated," he said. "Often you'll need people with a lot of experience in certain areas," and current or former lobbyists sometimes fit that bill best.
"It was probably a mistake to come down so hard on lobbyists," said Melanie Sloan, who is not shy about criticizing lobbyists or politicians as executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "I think the Obama folks' intentions were great here," she said. "But sometimes you realize you can't actually govern on just what you campaigned on."
Sloan and others said embarrassments over Daschle, one of several top Obama appointees with a history of influencing government for clients, should not detract from the president's first-day vow to sharply limit the role of lobbyists in his administration.
Daschle, a former senator tapped to head Health and Human Services, is not technically a lobbyist. But he was paid more than $5.2 million over the past two years as he advised health insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries such as energy and telecommunications.
Fred Wertheimer of Democracy21 is one of Washington's best-known advocates of more open and honest government. He called Obama's executive order "unprecedented and almost revolutionary in nature" and "a direct attack on the culture of Washington and the way business is done here."
"A few waivers will not undermine it," he said, provided they are justified and limited.
The best way to limit the influence of wealthy special interests, Wertheimer said, is to increase public funding for presidential elections and restrict the amount that private business can pump into campaigns and politics. That could pave the way for tighter restrictions on influence-peddling in Congress, he said.
Obama declined public financing for his campaign so he could raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on his own. Some people saw that a virtual death knell for campaign public financing, but Wertheimer said he believes Obama will deliver on aides' promises to help "repair the system."
Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, strikes many in Washington as a good example of why the revolving door between government and highly paid private-sector jobs can be troubling, but also why an outright ban on such movements would be unwise.
Even Republicans praised Daschle's cerebral, soft-spoken approach to government and politics, and his expertise on subjects including health care. He didn't choose to leave Congress for a high-paying job, but was defeated in a close re-election bid in 2004.
Once out, he was attractive and valuable to all sorts of government-regulated industries, even if he never registered as a lobbyist who could make straightforward appeals for or against legislation affecting his clients.
He received more than $2 million over two years as a senior policy adviser for the Washington law firm Alston & Bird. He also earned more than $2 million in consulting fees from InterMedia Advisors LLC of New York, an investment firm specializing in buyouts and industry consolidation. An associate let Daschle use his car and driver, for which Daschle had to pay late taxes and interest.
Several health groups also paid Daschle $15,000 or more to speak to their gatherings.
"He welcomed every opportunity to make his case to the American public at large, and the health industry in particular, that America can't afford to ignore the health care crisis any longer," said his spokeswoman Jenny Backus.
Wertheimer, of Democracy21, said that rather than dwell on Daschle's problems or the Corr and Lynn waivers, he focuses on Obama's executive order and the hope of progress to come on public financing of campaigns.
The executive order "laid down a mark," Wertheimer said. "More has to be done, and tough battles have to be won."
Obama
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Romans and Cataract Surgery
The Romans carried out cataract ops
By Jane Elliott Health reporter, BBC News
Think of the Roman legacy to Britain and many things spring to mind - straight roads, under-floor heating, aqueducts and public baths.
But they were also pioneers in the health arena - particularly in the area of eye care, with remedies for various eye conditions such as short-sightedness and conjunctivitis.
Perhaps most surprisingly of all is that the Romans - and others from ancient times, including the Chinese, Indians and Greeks - were also able also to carry out cataract operations.
The Romans were almost certainly the first to do this in Britain.
Surgical skills
Nowadays the procedure can be carried out with the help of ultrasound, but in Roman times technology was rather more basic - needles were inserted into the eye.
The sharp end of the needle was used for surgery and the blunt end heated to cauterise the wound.
Blows to the head were sometimes used to try and dislodge the cataract.
Dr Nick Summerton, GP and advisor to the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has written a book "Medicine and Health in Roman Britain".
In it, he details how various medical instruments found in Britain indicate that the Romans carried out other advanced procedures, such as head surgery and induced abortions.
"Archaeological finds of eye medicine stamps, representations of eyes together with a sickness report from the Roman fort at Vindolanda suggest that eye diseases were a particular concern within Roman Britain," said Dr Summerton.
"Interestingly the Roman author Celsus described cataract extraction surgery using a specially pointed needle - and possible cataract needles (specilla) have been found in Britain as well as elsewhere in the Roman Empire."
Detailing the procedure Celsus said: "A needle is to be taken, pointed enough to penetrate, yet not too fine, and this is to be inserted straight through the two outer tunics.
"When the (correct) spot is reached, the needle is to be sloped.........and should gently rotate there and little by little."
Dr Summerton explained how eye doctors (oculists) manufactured ointment sticks (collyria) stamped with the ingredients and the name of the eye specialist.
These were used to treat a range of eye problems such as conjunctivitis and other inflammatory or infectious eye condition in addition to short-sightedness.
A large number of the eye remedies contained antiseptics in one form or another.
"The vinegar lotion of Gaius Valerius Amandus (from a stamp found at Biggleswade) or the copper oxide of Aurelius Polychronius (from a stamp found at Kenchester) would have been very effective antiseptics either in treating conjunctivitis or in preventing any scar on the eye becoming infected while it healed."
Excavations provide clues
Dr Summerton has also discovered that religion played an important role in eye care.
"It may be somewhat artificial to seek to rigidly separate out the spiritual from the physical aspects of Romano-British health care," he said.
"At Wroxeter in Shropshire there may have been a particular focus on eye care with the discovery of two collyrium stamps in the names of Tiberius Claudius and Lucillianus together with a case of probable surgical instruments including an eye needle for cataract extraction.
"However, this evidence of 'physical medicine' is complemented by the presence of eye votives (offerings to the Gods).
"In 1967 a piece of sheet-gold in the shape of a pair of eyes was found at the north-west corner of the Baths-Basilica.
"In the same area bronze eyes have been unearthed in addition to numerous eyes carved from wall plaster.
"Wroxeter has also yielded an altar to Apollo who was considered to have a particular association with eyes."
Dr Alex Ionides, eye surgeon at Moorfield eye hospital said an ancient method for treating cataracts was referred to as "couching".
"A cataract is a clouding of the lens, which loses its transparency and becomes misty and foggy and white," he said.
"The lens is held in place within the eye by multiple radial 'strings' called zonules. These become weaker with age and with cataract formation.
"'Couching' breaks these weakened strings so that the lens is no longer suspended in the correct position and falls away from the pupil, dropping into the back of the eye, allowing light into the eye once more.
"There are different ways of performing couching, one is with a blunt stick to 'knock' the eye hard from the outside, thus dislodging the lens from the zonules by sheer blunt force.
"Another form of 'couching' was with a sharp metal probe that would be inserted, without anaesthetic through the edge of the iris, into the eye, and wiggled around to dislodge the cataract from the pupil.
"It wasn't until the 18th century that Daviel in France suggested opening up the eye and removing the cataract.
"This technique met with various success and blinded many people including Handel, who as a result of his cataract surgery, was blind for the last few years of his London life."
Cataract surgery is now the commonest operation performed on the NHS with vastly superior techniques and generally excellent visual outcomes - although no surgery is without some risk.
Rome
By Jane Elliott Health reporter, BBC News
Think of the Roman legacy to Britain and many things spring to mind - straight roads, under-floor heating, aqueducts and public baths.
But they were also pioneers in the health arena - particularly in the area of eye care, with remedies for various eye conditions such as short-sightedness and conjunctivitis.
Perhaps most surprisingly of all is that the Romans - and others from ancient times, including the Chinese, Indians and Greeks - were also able also to carry out cataract operations.
The Romans were almost certainly the first to do this in Britain.
Surgical skills
Nowadays the procedure can be carried out with the help of ultrasound, but in Roman times technology was rather more basic - needles were inserted into the eye.
The sharp end of the needle was used for surgery and the blunt end heated to cauterise the wound.
Blows to the head were sometimes used to try and dislodge the cataract.
Dr Nick Summerton, GP and advisor to the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has written a book "Medicine and Health in Roman Britain".
In it, he details how various medical instruments found in Britain indicate that the Romans carried out other advanced procedures, such as head surgery and induced abortions.
"Archaeological finds of eye medicine stamps, representations of eyes together with a sickness report from the Roman fort at Vindolanda suggest that eye diseases were a particular concern within Roman Britain," said Dr Summerton.
"Interestingly the Roman author Celsus described cataract extraction surgery using a specially pointed needle - and possible cataract needles (specilla) have been found in Britain as well as elsewhere in the Roman Empire."
Detailing the procedure Celsus said: "A needle is to be taken, pointed enough to penetrate, yet not too fine, and this is to be inserted straight through the two outer tunics.
"When the (correct) spot is reached, the needle is to be sloped.........and should gently rotate there and little by little."
Dr Summerton explained how eye doctors (oculists) manufactured ointment sticks (collyria) stamped with the ingredients and the name of the eye specialist.
These were used to treat a range of eye problems such as conjunctivitis and other inflammatory or infectious eye condition in addition to short-sightedness.
A large number of the eye remedies contained antiseptics in one form or another.
"The vinegar lotion of Gaius Valerius Amandus (from a stamp found at Biggleswade) or the copper oxide of Aurelius Polychronius (from a stamp found at Kenchester) would have been very effective antiseptics either in treating conjunctivitis or in preventing any scar on the eye becoming infected while it healed."
Excavations provide clues
Dr Summerton has also discovered that religion played an important role in eye care.
"It may be somewhat artificial to seek to rigidly separate out the spiritual from the physical aspects of Romano-British health care," he said.
"At Wroxeter in Shropshire there may have been a particular focus on eye care with the discovery of two collyrium stamps in the names of Tiberius Claudius and Lucillianus together with a case of probable surgical instruments including an eye needle for cataract extraction.
"However, this evidence of 'physical medicine' is complemented by the presence of eye votives (offerings to the Gods).
"In 1967 a piece of sheet-gold in the shape of a pair of eyes was found at the north-west corner of the Baths-Basilica.
"In the same area bronze eyes have been unearthed in addition to numerous eyes carved from wall plaster.
"Wroxeter has also yielded an altar to Apollo who was considered to have a particular association with eyes."
Dr Alex Ionides, eye surgeon at Moorfield eye hospital said an ancient method for treating cataracts was referred to as "couching".
"A cataract is a clouding of the lens, which loses its transparency and becomes misty and foggy and white," he said.
"The lens is held in place within the eye by multiple radial 'strings' called zonules. These become weaker with age and with cataract formation.
"'Couching' breaks these weakened strings so that the lens is no longer suspended in the correct position and falls away from the pupil, dropping into the back of the eye, allowing light into the eye once more.
"There are different ways of performing couching, one is with a blunt stick to 'knock' the eye hard from the outside, thus dislodging the lens from the zonules by sheer blunt force.
"Another form of 'couching' was with a sharp metal probe that would be inserted, without anaesthetic through the edge of the iris, into the eye, and wiggled around to dislodge the cataract from the pupil.
"It wasn't until the 18th century that Daviel in France suggested opening up the eye and removing the cataract.
"This technique met with various success and blinded many people including Handel, who as a result of his cataract surgery, was blind for the last few years of his London life."
Cataract surgery is now the commonest operation performed on the NHS with vastly superior techniques and generally excellent visual outcomes - although no surgery is without some risk.
Rome
Al-Qaida Demands
On May 29, 2007 (which coincidentally, and having nothing to do with al-qaida, would have been/was John F. Kennedy's 90th birthday) - Al Qaida released a video, published on their website or rather, presented to the world via an al qaida website.
I understand for those who never did believe Bush about al qaida - why and how could they have a website and we not do something about it. The thing is - you don't want to. If you turn the lights on the roaches hide and run around in the walls. If you leave the lights off, let them come out to play, you can watch them, scoop them up one by one, and drop them in Guantanamo or the ocean - either one works. For liberals, I understand the idea of how to catch these cockroaches isn't too clear - partly because they are fortunate to never have to deal with the cockroaches - one reason we have 1.25 million men and women in our military who take care of that unpleasant task for them, so they can walk over the piles of shit and scorn the men and women ho do the hard work they cannot stomach.
Anyway, I digress - the demands al qaida made and still adhere to -
1) Pull every last one of our soldiers, spies, security advisers, attaches, trainers out of every Muslim country from Afghanistan to Zanzibar.
[Note for al qaida - don't try to be witty - you are not. Afghanistan is a nation, a country. Zanzibar is a city within a country - Tanzania. You should not mix countries and cities.]
2) Stop all support and aid: military, economic or otherwise to the 56 apostate regimes throughout the Muslim world. if you fail to comply in full - it is sufficient justification to fight and kill Americans.
3) End all support: moral, military, economic, political, or otherwise to the bastard state of Israel and ban your Zionist Christians and Jews from traveling to occupied Palestine. Even 1 penny of aid will be justification to continue the fight.
4) Cease all interference in the religion in Muslim society, political and governance of the Muslim world and leave us alone to establish Islamic shura state which would unite the Muslims of earth in truth and justice. A single word of protest from America shall be silenced by a thousand Islamic bombs.
5) Put an end to all forms of interference in the educational curricula and informational media of the Islamic world and impose a blanket ban on all broadcasts to our region, especially those designed to alter or destroy the faith, minds, morals, and values of our people.
6) Free all Muslim captives from your prions, detention facilities or concentration camps. Refusal to release them will result in our continued resistance until the last Muslim is liberated.
This is not a negotiation. We don't negotiate with baby killers. These are legitimate demands.
Osama bin laden has said, basically the same thing - wording slightly different, and at times 1-2 fewer, and at times 4-5 more. In any case - these 6 form the basis of the demands against the US / West / World.
Do you wish to capitulate? The Left does. It believes that we can save ourselves by doing 1-2 of the listed demands, securing assurances from them for a couple things we want, and everyone lives happily ever after. Except it doesn't work like that. THEY cannot negotiate, for negotiation is for those who wish to surrender - not win. Islam wins, it does not lose. It is permissible to lie, if the lie will save their life or benefit Islam. I can imagine a perfect setting:
Obama talking to Osama - Obama offers to stop aid to Israel, stop all financial aid to all Muslim countries, if in return Osama will stop attacking the US. Osama will say no. Obama will interject - what if we stop all Western media from blasting their corrupting influences into the mild mannered Muslim states! Osama will accept that offer, for the moment. In 1-2 years, he will return with more demands and Obama will act surprised - as if the first promise meant something.
End result: US will be humiliated, will look weak, will be scorned by the world, and we will have many more dead Americans. Osama - he will look as he does now, like the savior of Islam.
Obama will look the same also - naive.
Obama
I understand for those who never did believe Bush about al qaida - why and how could they have a website and we not do something about it. The thing is - you don't want to. If you turn the lights on the roaches hide and run around in the walls. If you leave the lights off, let them come out to play, you can watch them, scoop them up one by one, and drop them in Guantanamo or the ocean - either one works. For liberals, I understand the idea of how to catch these cockroaches isn't too clear - partly because they are fortunate to never have to deal with the cockroaches - one reason we have 1.25 million men and women in our military who take care of that unpleasant task for them, so they can walk over the piles of shit and scorn the men and women ho do the hard work they cannot stomach.
Anyway, I digress - the demands al qaida made and still adhere to -
1) Pull every last one of our soldiers, spies, security advisers, attaches, trainers out of every Muslim country from Afghanistan to Zanzibar.
[Note for al qaida - don't try to be witty - you are not. Afghanistan is a nation, a country. Zanzibar is a city within a country - Tanzania. You should not mix countries and cities.]
2) Stop all support and aid: military, economic or otherwise to the 56 apostate regimes throughout the Muslim world. if you fail to comply in full - it is sufficient justification to fight and kill Americans.
3) End all support: moral, military, economic, political, or otherwise to the bastard state of Israel and ban your Zionist Christians and Jews from traveling to occupied Palestine. Even 1 penny of aid will be justification to continue the fight.
4) Cease all interference in the religion in Muslim society, political and governance of the Muslim world and leave us alone to establish Islamic shura state which would unite the Muslims of earth in truth and justice. A single word of protest from America shall be silenced by a thousand Islamic bombs.
5) Put an end to all forms of interference in the educational curricula and informational media of the Islamic world and impose a blanket ban on all broadcasts to our region, especially those designed to alter or destroy the faith, minds, morals, and values of our people.
6) Free all Muslim captives from your prions, detention facilities or concentration camps. Refusal to release them will result in our continued resistance until the last Muslim is liberated.
This is not a negotiation. We don't negotiate with baby killers. These are legitimate demands.
Osama bin laden has said, basically the same thing - wording slightly different, and at times 1-2 fewer, and at times 4-5 more. In any case - these 6 form the basis of the demands against the US / West / World.
Do you wish to capitulate? The Left does. It believes that we can save ourselves by doing 1-2 of the listed demands, securing assurances from them for a couple things we want, and everyone lives happily ever after. Except it doesn't work like that. THEY cannot negotiate, for negotiation is for those who wish to surrender - not win. Islam wins, it does not lose. It is permissible to lie, if the lie will save their life or benefit Islam. I can imagine a perfect setting:
Obama talking to Osama - Obama offers to stop aid to Israel, stop all financial aid to all Muslim countries, if in return Osama will stop attacking the US. Osama will say no. Obama will interject - what if we stop all Western media from blasting their corrupting influences into the mild mannered Muslim states! Osama will accept that offer, for the moment. In 1-2 years, he will return with more demands and Obama will act surprised - as if the first promise meant something.
End result: US will be humiliated, will look weak, will be scorned by the world, and we will have many more dead Americans. Osama - he will look as he does now, like the savior of Islam.
Obama will look the same also - naive.
Obama
Obama or Rush?
Are you with Obama or Rush?
By: Jonathan Martin
January 29, 2009 09:58 PM EST
President Obama and a key outside ally are stepping up efforts to ensure passage of the massive economic stimulus package, reaching out to Congress with both carrots and sticks.
While the president and his top aides are using all the trappings of the office, courting members through phone calls, cocktail parties, West Wing sit-downs and even a politically mixed Super Bowl party, liberal groups are dispensing with the niceties and seeking to drive a wedge between Republicans and one of the right’s most influential leaders.
Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?
“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.” “Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail — but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts?
That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator"—here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada—"side with Rush Limbaugh too?”
Rush
Pathetic Message: Amir Taheri
PATHETIC 'MESSAGE'
By AMIR TAHERI
January 29, 2009 --
IN his "first message to the Muslim world" Tuesday, President Obama on Al-Arabiya TV invited the Islamic Republic in Iran to "unclench its fist" and accept his offer of "unconditional talks."
A few hours later, after Obama had appeared on the Saudi-owned satellite-TV channel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of militants that no talks are possible unless the United States met a set of conditions.
He demanded a formal apology for unspecified US "crimes" against Iran and the Islamic world. The crucial condition, however, was that America should withdraw its troops from other countries, "taking them back to their own territory."
The contrast couldn't have been greater. Obama tried to be as conciliatory as possible - asking only for an "unclenching" of the Iranian fist - a change of style. Ahmadinejad asked for concrete US moves, notably a global military retreat that would leave the Middle East at Tehran's mercy.
In the understatement of the year, Obama said: "Iran has acted in ways not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region." He also claimed that Iran's support for terrorists, though "not helpful," is a thing of the past - yet Tehran was running guns to Hezbollah and Hamas even as he spoke.
ON Al-Arabiya, Obama did something more interesting: He cast himself in the role of a bridge between America and the Muslim world, a kind of honest broker between two camps in conflict.
To hammer in the point, he recalled the Muslim part of his own family background and his childhood in Muslim Indonesia - a topic he'd carefully avoided during the campaign. He also asserted that America is a land of "Muslims, Christians, Jews" and others - making sure to mention Muslims first.
At times, Obama sounded like a marriage counselor. He said his job is to communicate to Americans that "the Muslim world is full of extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives." On the other hand, he said, he'd also tell the Muslims that "Americans are not your enemy."
Obama looked to the past rather than the future to give such platitudes a tinge of political vision. He said he wanted a return "to the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
The problem is that few people in the Muslim world will welcome his back-to-the-future approach. Thirty years ago, Obama was a teenager in Indonesia. Vice President Joseph Biden, however, was already a senator and a champion of President Jimmy Carter's strategic retreat.
What was happening during what Obama seems to regard as the "golden age" of Carter's leadership? US diplomats were held hostage in Tehran and daily humiliated with mock executions. Soviet troops were annexing Afghanistan to the Evil Empire. Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, starting an eight-year war that claimed a million lives. Mecca was under siege by the ideological antecedents of Osama bin Laden. Syrian troops were preparing to march into Lebanon.
OTHER features of this "golden age": the seizure of power by mullahs in Tehran, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the coming to power of communists in the Horn of Africa, the military coup in Turkey, the first Islamist terror attacks in Algeria, unprecedented waves of repression in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the imposition of military rule in Pakistan.
During the same period, and its immediate aftermath, dozens of Americans from many walks of life were seized as hostages and sometimes brutally murdered in several Muslim countries. The US ambassador in Sudan was murdered; the CIA station chief in Beirut abducted, taken to Tehran and killed under torture.
A similarly dark picture could be drawn of the situation 20 years ago, when America was arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan while Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Kuwait.
And the first President George Bush was then trying to court the Iranian mullahs in much the same way as Obama is trying today. But the mullahs were training and arming Hezbollah units in Lebanon and opening channels to Palestinian radicals who would soon re-emerge as Hamas.
Saddam was gassing thousands of Kurds to death, while Turkey was dragged into a full-scale war on Kurdish communist secessionists. Meanwhile, the Libyan terror network was killing American GIs in Europe and blowing up US jetliners over Western skies.
No - that was no golden age, either.
THE truth is that the Middle East is not much better off than at any time since its emergence as a geopolitical unit after World War I. Thanks to the transformation of America from a power guaranteeing the deadly status quo into one that supports reform and change, the region has started to experience new currents of democratization.
Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated, their peoples given a chance to build new systems of their own choice. The Syrians have been kicked out of Lebanon. Libya has been disarmed. Egypt has been forced to allow multiparty presidential elections. More than a dozen Arab states have adopted constitutions and introduced some form of electoral politics. Kuwaiti women have won the right to vote and get elected.
Iran's democratic forces are encouraged to launch their campaign against the mullahs. The Islamists have been roundly defeated in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
For the first time, the question of democracy is top of the political agenda in virtually every Muslim state.
Obama should remember that he is the president of the United States - not an impartial broker. It was unfortunate that he described himself as a bridge. For a bridge has no personality of its own and cares little about who might cross it and in which direction.
IF this was meant as the first direct contact between Obama and the Mus lim world, the Al-Arabiya interview must be rated as a missed opportunity.
Obama's remarks about the Israel-Palestine issue were so trite as to merit no analysis. He said he was sending former Sen. George Mitchell to listen to all sides - as if the world has not been hearing their stories for more than six decades.
The president appeared apologetic, offering no hope for democratization and economic development. He made no mention of the economic meltdown that is creating unprecedented mass unemployment in many countries of the region.
Nor did he offer any support to democratic forces facing crucial elections in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Algeria this year.
He had nothing to say about the thousands of Iranian workers who have been thrown into prison solely because they created independent trade unions. Nor did he mention Iranian women's courageous "a million signatures campaign" or the series of student revolts that have been crushed by the mullahs with exceptional violence.
Nor was there any nod toward reformers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt or the heroic Lebanese democratic leaders who are fighting to preserve their nation's independence from Iran and Syria.
Obama didn't call for the release of the tens of thousands of political prisoners held in more than two dozen Muslim countries or a moratorium on executions that each year cost the lives of hundreds of dissidents.
CASTING himself in the role of a "bridge" and dreaming of a return to an illusionary past, Obama appeared unsure of his own identity and confused about the role that America should play in global politics. And that is bad news for those who believe that the United States should use its moral, economic and political clout in support of democratic forces throughout the world.
Taheri
By AMIR TAHERI
January 29, 2009 --
IN his "first message to the Muslim world" Tuesday, President Obama on Al-Arabiya TV invited the Islamic Republic in Iran to "unclench its fist" and accept his offer of "unconditional talks."
A few hours later, after Obama had appeared on the Saudi-owned satellite-TV channel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of militants that no talks are possible unless the United States met a set of conditions.
He demanded a formal apology for unspecified US "crimes" against Iran and the Islamic world. The crucial condition, however, was that America should withdraw its troops from other countries, "taking them back to their own territory."
The contrast couldn't have been greater. Obama tried to be as conciliatory as possible - asking only for an "unclenching" of the Iranian fist - a change of style. Ahmadinejad asked for concrete US moves, notably a global military retreat that would leave the Middle East at Tehran's mercy.
In the understatement of the year, Obama said: "Iran has acted in ways not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region." He also claimed that Iran's support for terrorists, though "not helpful," is a thing of the past - yet Tehran was running guns to Hezbollah and Hamas even as he spoke.
ON Al-Arabiya, Obama did something more interesting: He cast himself in the role of a bridge between America and the Muslim world, a kind of honest broker between two camps in conflict.
To hammer in the point, he recalled the Muslim part of his own family background and his childhood in Muslim Indonesia - a topic he'd carefully avoided during the campaign. He also asserted that America is a land of "Muslims, Christians, Jews" and others - making sure to mention Muslims first.
At times, Obama sounded like a marriage counselor. He said his job is to communicate to Americans that "the Muslim world is full of extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives." On the other hand, he said, he'd also tell the Muslims that "Americans are not your enemy."
Obama looked to the past rather than the future to give such platitudes a tinge of political vision. He said he wanted a return "to the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
The problem is that few people in the Muslim world will welcome his back-to-the-future approach. Thirty years ago, Obama was a teenager in Indonesia. Vice President Joseph Biden, however, was already a senator and a champion of President Jimmy Carter's strategic retreat.
What was happening during what Obama seems to regard as the "golden age" of Carter's leadership? US diplomats were held hostage in Tehran and daily humiliated with mock executions. Soviet troops were annexing Afghanistan to the Evil Empire. Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Iran, starting an eight-year war that claimed a million lives. Mecca was under siege by the ideological antecedents of Osama bin Laden. Syrian troops were preparing to march into Lebanon.
OTHER features of this "golden age": the seizure of power by mullahs in Tehran, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the coming to power of communists in the Horn of Africa, the military coup in Turkey, the first Islamist terror attacks in Algeria, unprecedented waves of repression in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the imposition of military rule in Pakistan.
During the same period, and its immediate aftermath, dozens of Americans from many walks of life were seized as hostages and sometimes brutally murdered in several Muslim countries. The US ambassador in Sudan was murdered; the CIA station chief in Beirut abducted, taken to Tehran and killed under torture.
A similarly dark picture could be drawn of the situation 20 years ago, when America was arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan while Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Kuwait.
And the first President George Bush was then trying to court the Iranian mullahs in much the same way as Obama is trying today. But the mullahs were training and arming Hezbollah units in Lebanon and opening channels to Palestinian radicals who would soon re-emerge as Hamas.
Saddam was gassing thousands of Kurds to death, while Turkey was dragged into a full-scale war on Kurdish communist secessionists. Meanwhile, the Libyan terror network was killing American GIs in Europe and blowing up US jetliners over Western skies.
No - that was no golden age, either.
THE truth is that the Middle East is not much better off than at any time since its emergence as a geopolitical unit after World War I. Thanks to the transformation of America from a power guaranteeing the deadly status quo into one that supports reform and change, the region has started to experience new currents of democratization.
Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated, their peoples given a chance to build new systems of their own choice. The Syrians have been kicked out of Lebanon. Libya has been disarmed. Egypt has been forced to allow multiparty presidential elections. More than a dozen Arab states have adopted constitutions and introduced some form of electoral politics. Kuwaiti women have won the right to vote and get elected.
Iran's democratic forces are encouraged to launch their campaign against the mullahs. The Islamists have been roundly defeated in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
For the first time, the question of democracy is top of the political agenda in virtually every Muslim state.
Obama should remember that he is the president of the United States - not an impartial broker. It was unfortunate that he described himself as a bridge. For a bridge has no personality of its own and cares little about who might cross it and in which direction.
IF this was meant as the first direct contact between Obama and the Mus lim world, the Al-Arabiya interview must be rated as a missed opportunity.
Obama's remarks about the Israel-Palestine issue were so trite as to merit no analysis. He said he was sending former Sen. George Mitchell to listen to all sides - as if the world has not been hearing their stories for more than six decades.
The president appeared apologetic, offering no hope for democratization and economic development. He made no mention of the economic meltdown that is creating unprecedented mass unemployment in many countries of the region.
Nor did he offer any support to democratic forces facing crucial elections in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Algeria this year.
He had nothing to say about the thousands of Iranian workers who have been thrown into prison solely because they created independent trade unions. Nor did he mention Iranian women's courageous "a million signatures campaign" or the series of student revolts that have been crushed by the mullahs with exceptional violence.
Nor was there any nod toward reformers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt or the heroic Lebanese democratic leaders who are fighting to preserve their nation's independence from Iran and Syria.
Obama didn't call for the release of the tens of thousands of political prisoners held in more than two dozen Muslim countries or a moratorium on executions that each year cost the lives of hundreds of dissidents.
CASTING himself in the role of a "bridge" and dreaming of a return to an illusionary past, Obama appeared unsure of his own identity and confused about the role that America should play in global politics. And that is bad news for those who believe that the United States should use its moral, economic and political clout in support of democratic forces throughout the world.
Taheri
Katrina and the Media - Mindless fools and idiots
I am republishing this post from some time ago - it concerns Katrina and the mounds of useless aid sent to the US, most returned unopened.
The question we should consider is - why, why would ANY of these countries believe we needed ANY assistance?
Perhaps a Reuters article dated 9/2/05 - World Stunned as US Struggles with Katrina.
Germany's Handelsblatt daily - Apocalypse Now
Britain's The Sun - Anarchy in the USA
A quote from someone in Sri Lanka - "I am absolutely disgusted. After the tsunami our people, even the ones who lost everything, wanted to help others who were suffering," said Sajeewa Chinthaka, 36, as he watched a cricket match in Colombo, Sri Lanka. "Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the US we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is."
France's Liberation newspaper - A Modern metropolis sinking in water and into anarchy -- it is really a cruel spectacle for a champion of security like Bush.
A woman in South Korea made a comment that she said 'a lot of people thought' - that the US was being paid back for Iraq.
What a bunch of doucebags - the media. You paint a nightmare image, blame it on Bush, the world reads and watches, and then ... BELIEVES YOUR LIES and ... we get the above stupid comments. It isn't their fault (the people) - they are too misinformed to know the difference.
What I wrote in May 2008 -
**************************
Aid offered by over 50 countries in the wake of Katrina.
I have been pretty blunt what I think of stupid left-wing fools in previous posts, and they are a big part of this mess as well.
What the American people donated in cash and aid was over four billion dollars.
The federal government provided billions more.
The state of Louisiana SHOULD have provided hundreds of millions more PLUS insurance companies paid out billions more.
Many many billions.
Now, for a moment, think of the costs of buildings and property in Louisiana. In addition to the billions, hundreds of homes were built for free due to charity or other sources.
Every person affected received a $2,000 credit card for immediate need, received a place to stay - either on the ships docked in the harbors or a mobile home provided rent free.
Then you have extra needs and FEMA added hundreds of millions more for long term rehabilitation to the area. The issue I have is - where is the city? where is the state? It is not, just so we are all on the same page - the responsibility of the federal government to fix everything.
Apparently they were no where to be found, but it is much easier to blame Bush for everything than to acccept responsibility and place blame where it must be placed to remedy ther wrongs.
The haste with which the left attacked, the media whores and their portrayal of a failure indicating a collapse of our system led to some of the following aid offers.
The thing to remember - we have more resources available in the United States than anywhere in the world, or for that matter - the world combined, in many areas. yet, the constant media whoring on this issue creates the image in the world that the US cannot help or save itself, which is wholly inaccurate.
The left never considers what it has done to hurt our image in the world. It just feels.
***************************************************************
The Associated Press
AP Online 09-06-2005
Many nations have offered the United States aid in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, including an agreement by European governments to release 2 million barrels of oil per day from strategic reserves.
Other offers include:
_ AFGHANISTAN: $100,000.
_ ARGENTINA: Six disaster relief and rescue coordinators.
_ AUSTRALIA: $8 million to American Red Cross.
_ AUSTRIA: Water pumps, plastic sheets, cots; An Austrian Red Cross team is in Houston to set up a communication network.
_ BAHAMAS: $50,000 for U.S. victims and additional aid to Bahamian citizens in stricken areas. _ BANGLADESH: $1 million.
_ BELGIUM: Medical, logistics, civil engineering and diving teams, pumps, generators.
_ BRAZIL: Willing to contribute but awaiting specific request from United States.
_ BRITAIN: 500,000 ready-to-eat meals; medical experts, search-and-rescue gear, marine engineers, high-volume pumps.
_ CANADA: three navy ships, a coast guard vessel, several Sea King helicopters and about 1,000 personnel, including navy divers to help clear waterways and inspect damaged levees.
_ CHILE: Plans to contact U.S. authorities to see what is needed.
_ CHINA: $5 million to aid survivors. Says it will help with medical treatment and epidemic prevention if necessary.
_ COLOMBIA: Offers rescue and paramedic teams.
_ CUBA: Offers 1,100 doctors.
_ CZECH REPUBLIC: Rescue teams, field hospital and pumps and water processing equipment, as well as transport planes.
_ DENMARK: Water purification units.
_ DOMINICA: Police to help patrol disaster zone.
_ DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Offers rescue workers, doctors and nurses.
_ EL SALVADOR: 100 army troops, including medical personnel and engineers.
_ FINLAND: A search-and-rescue team.
_ FRANCE: Flying in 300 tents, 980 cots; 60 generators, three water purification units; 30 water pumps. Offering aircraft and two ships with helicopters, disaster unit with 20 soldiers, civil defense detachment of 35 people.
_ GERMANY: 40,000 meals; 30,000 more coming. Offering medical supplies, vaccination teams, water purification equipment, medical evacuation aircraft and crisis management experts.
_ GREECE: Two cruise ships to help house homeless, as well as relief supplies and rescue crews.
_ GUATEMALA: 80 specialists from army, health and interior departments.
_ HONDURAS: 134-member medical and rescue brigade. Mayor of capital, Tegucigalpa, offers a similar group.
_ INDIA: $5 million to American Red Cross. Offering medical teams with experience in waterborne diseases and to set up community water purification plants.
_ INDONESIA: Medical team of 45 doctors and 155 other staff and 10,000 blankets.
_ IRAN: Offers to dispatch unspecified aid through its Red Crescent agency if needed.
_ ISRAEL: Sending medical team. Offering hundreds of doctors, trauma experts and other medical staff as well as field hospital.
_ ITALY: 300 cots, 300 blankets, 600 sheets, a water pump, six life rafts, 11,200 chlorine tablets, first-aid kits; baby food.
_ JAPAN: $1 million in aid and offers to send tents, blankets, power generators and portable water tanks. _ KOSOVO: $500,000.
_ KUWAIT: $500 million worth of oil and other aid.
_ LATVIA: A disaster relief team, financial aid, blankets, bottled water.
_ LITHUANIA: Rescue teams, meals, building materials.
_ LUXEMBOURG: two jeeps, 1,000 cots, 2,000 blankets.
_ MEXICO: Navy ship carrying food, amphibious vehicles, helicopters and medical team to arrive Wednesday. Fifteen army vehicles carrying food, health brigades, water-treatment plants and mobile kitchens with capacity to feed 7,000 people a day heading to U.S. border. Government sets up bank accounts to collect donations and donates $1 million. Offer comes from search-and-rescue group called "topos" _ "moles" _ organized by youths digging through collapsed buildings after Mexico City's 1985 earthquake.
_ THE NETHERLANDS: A frigate with water, medicine, helicopters and beds to arrive Wednesday. Three giant water pumps have been offered, as well as expertise in dike and water engineering, and forensic ID help.
_ NEW ZEALAND: $1.4 million. Government has also offered to send an urban search and rescue team, a disaster victim identification team or recovery personnel. _ NICARAGUA: Flooding and sanitation experts.
_ NORWAY: Navy divers, 10,000 blankets and unspecified financial aid.
_ ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES: $25,000 to American Red Cross.
_ PAKISTAN: Doctors and paramedics.
_ PANAMA: 120,000 pounds of bananas for hurricane victims.
_ PERU: 80 to 100 doctors with expertise in tropical diseases and disasters. But President Alejandro Toledo said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld requested Peru instead send medical supplies and canned foods. Peru will try to comply.
_ THE PHILIPPINES: Philippines Red Cross donating $25,000. Government offers 25-man relief team.
_ PORTUGAL: Lending 2 percent of its strategic oil reserve, equivalent to 500,000 barrels of oil.
_ QATAR: $100 million in humanitarian assistance.
_ ROMANIA: Two teams of medical experts.
_ RUSSIA: Three transport planes with generators, food, tents, blankets, drinking water and medical supplies.
_ SAUDI ARABIA: Offers to increase oil production to replace shortfalls caused by Katrina.
_ SINGAPORE: Three CH-47 transport helicopters and 38 soldiers in training unit at Grand Prairie, Texas, to Fort Polk, La., to work with Texas Army National Guard in disaster relief operations, including resupply and airlift missions.
_ SLOVAKIA: Water purification gear, cots, water.
_ SLOVENIA: Cots, bedding, first-aid kits.
_ SOUTH KOREA: $30 million in government and civilian assistance and sending search team and relief supplies.
_ SPAIN: Firefighters and equipment, medical staff, search-and-rescue expertise, tents, cots, blankets, water treatment units, heating equipment, meals, water, generators.
_ SRI LANKA: $25,000 to American Red Cross. (Isuppose civilized nations can manage to cobble together a small amount. Would have been preferable if they sent goodwill instead.)
_ SWEDEN: First-aid kits, blankets, meals, generators, plastic sheeting, 2 water purification units and instructors; aircraft ready for immediate deployment.
_ SWITZERLAND: Blankets, 50 tons of aid supplies, two logistic experts from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, two doctors and two water specialists.
_ TAIWAN: $2 million.
_ THAILAND: At least 60 doctors and nurses along with supplies of rice.
_ TRINIDAD: Local Red Cross sending 10-15 relief workers.
_ URUGUAY: Two mobile water purification units and two tons of powdered milk.
_ VENEZUELA: Offers 1 million barrels of gasoline, $5 million in cash, water purification plants, rescue volunteers and more than 50 tons of canned food and water. Government's Citgo Petroleum Corp. pledges $1 million.
_ UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Tents, clothing, food and other aid.
Katrina
The question we should consider is - why, why would ANY of these countries believe we needed ANY assistance?
Perhaps a Reuters article dated 9/2/05 - World Stunned as US Struggles with Katrina.
Germany's Handelsblatt daily - Apocalypse Now
Britain's The Sun - Anarchy in the USA
A quote from someone in Sri Lanka - "I am absolutely disgusted. After the tsunami our people, even the ones who lost everything, wanted to help others who were suffering," said Sajeewa Chinthaka, 36, as he watched a cricket match in Colombo, Sri Lanka. "Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the US we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is."
France's Liberation newspaper - A Modern metropolis sinking in water and into anarchy -- it is really a cruel spectacle for a champion of security like Bush.
A woman in South Korea made a comment that she said 'a lot of people thought' - that the US was being paid back for Iraq.
What a bunch of doucebags - the media. You paint a nightmare image, blame it on Bush, the world reads and watches, and then ... BELIEVES YOUR LIES and ... we get the above stupid comments. It isn't their fault (the people) - they are too misinformed to know the difference.
What I wrote in May 2008 -
**************************
Aid offered by over 50 countries in the wake of Katrina.
I have been pretty blunt what I think of stupid left-wing fools in previous posts, and they are a big part of this mess as well.
What the American people donated in cash and aid was over four billion dollars.
The federal government provided billions more.
The state of Louisiana SHOULD have provided hundreds of millions more PLUS insurance companies paid out billions more.
Many many billions.
Now, for a moment, think of the costs of buildings and property in Louisiana. In addition to the billions, hundreds of homes were built for free due to charity or other sources.
Every person affected received a $2,000 credit card for immediate need, received a place to stay - either on the ships docked in the harbors or a mobile home provided rent free.
Then you have extra needs and FEMA added hundreds of millions more for long term rehabilitation to the area. The issue I have is - where is the city? where is the state? It is not, just so we are all on the same page - the responsibility of the federal government to fix everything.
Apparently they were no where to be found, but it is much easier to blame Bush for everything than to acccept responsibility and place blame where it must be placed to remedy ther wrongs.
The haste with which the left attacked, the media whores and their portrayal of a failure indicating a collapse of our system led to some of the following aid offers.
The thing to remember - we have more resources available in the United States than anywhere in the world, or for that matter - the world combined, in many areas. yet, the constant media whoring on this issue creates the image in the world that the US cannot help or save itself, which is wholly inaccurate.
The left never considers what it has done to hurt our image in the world. It just feels.
***************************************************************
The Associated Press
AP Online 09-06-2005
Many nations have offered the United States aid in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, including an agreement by European governments to release 2 million barrels of oil per day from strategic reserves.
Other offers include:
_ AFGHANISTAN: $100,000.
_ ARGENTINA: Six disaster relief and rescue coordinators.
_ AUSTRALIA: $8 million to American Red Cross.
_ AUSTRIA: Water pumps, plastic sheets, cots; An Austrian Red Cross team is in Houston to set up a communication network.
_ BAHAMAS: $50,000 for U.S. victims and additional aid to Bahamian citizens in stricken areas. _ BANGLADESH: $1 million.
_ BELGIUM: Medical, logistics, civil engineering and diving teams, pumps, generators.
_ BRAZIL: Willing to contribute but awaiting specific request from United States.
_ BRITAIN: 500,000 ready-to-eat meals; medical experts, search-and-rescue gear, marine engineers, high-volume pumps.
_ CANADA: three navy ships, a coast guard vessel, several Sea King helicopters and about 1,000 personnel, including navy divers to help clear waterways and inspect damaged levees.
_ CHILE: Plans to contact U.S. authorities to see what is needed.
_ CHINA: $5 million to aid survivors. Says it will help with medical treatment and epidemic prevention if necessary.
_ COLOMBIA: Offers rescue and paramedic teams.
_ CUBA: Offers 1,100 doctors.
_ CZECH REPUBLIC: Rescue teams, field hospital and pumps and water processing equipment, as well as transport planes.
_ DENMARK: Water purification units.
_ DOMINICA: Police to help patrol disaster zone.
_ DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Offers rescue workers, doctors and nurses.
_ EL SALVADOR: 100 army troops, including medical personnel and engineers.
_ FINLAND: A search-and-rescue team.
_ FRANCE: Flying in 300 tents, 980 cots; 60 generators, three water purification units; 30 water pumps. Offering aircraft and two ships with helicopters, disaster unit with 20 soldiers, civil defense detachment of 35 people.
_ GERMANY: 40,000 meals; 30,000 more coming. Offering medical supplies, vaccination teams, water purification equipment, medical evacuation aircraft and crisis management experts.
_ GREECE: Two cruise ships to help house homeless, as well as relief supplies and rescue crews.
_ GUATEMALA: 80 specialists from army, health and interior departments.
_ HONDURAS: 134-member medical and rescue brigade. Mayor of capital, Tegucigalpa, offers a similar group.
_ INDIA: $5 million to American Red Cross. Offering medical teams with experience in waterborne diseases and to set up community water purification plants.
_ INDONESIA: Medical team of 45 doctors and 155 other staff and 10,000 blankets.
_ IRAN: Offers to dispatch unspecified aid through its Red Crescent agency if needed.
_ ISRAEL: Sending medical team. Offering hundreds of doctors, trauma experts and other medical staff as well as field hospital.
_ ITALY: 300 cots, 300 blankets, 600 sheets, a water pump, six life rafts, 11,200 chlorine tablets, first-aid kits; baby food.
_ JAPAN: $1 million in aid and offers to send tents, blankets, power generators and portable water tanks. _ KOSOVO: $500,000.
_ KUWAIT: $500 million worth of oil and other aid.
_ LATVIA: A disaster relief team, financial aid, blankets, bottled water.
_ LITHUANIA: Rescue teams, meals, building materials.
_ LUXEMBOURG: two jeeps, 1,000 cots, 2,000 blankets.
_ MEXICO: Navy ship carrying food, amphibious vehicles, helicopters and medical team to arrive Wednesday. Fifteen army vehicles carrying food, health brigades, water-treatment plants and mobile kitchens with capacity to feed 7,000 people a day heading to U.S. border. Government sets up bank accounts to collect donations and donates $1 million. Offer comes from search-and-rescue group called "topos" _ "moles" _ organized by youths digging through collapsed buildings after Mexico City's 1985 earthquake.
_ THE NETHERLANDS: A frigate with water, medicine, helicopters and beds to arrive Wednesday. Three giant water pumps have been offered, as well as expertise in dike and water engineering, and forensic ID help.
_ NEW ZEALAND: $1.4 million. Government has also offered to send an urban search and rescue team, a disaster victim identification team or recovery personnel. _ NICARAGUA: Flooding and sanitation experts.
_ NORWAY: Navy divers, 10,000 blankets and unspecified financial aid.
_ ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES: $25,000 to American Red Cross.
_ PAKISTAN: Doctors and paramedics.
_ PANAMA: 120,000 pounds of bananas for hurricane victims.
_ PERU: 80 to 100 doctors with expertise in tropical diseases and disasters. But President Alejandro Toledo said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld requested Peru instead send medical supplies and canned foods. Peru will try to comply.
_ THE PHILIPPINES: Philippines Red Cross donating $25,000. Government offers 25-man relief team.
_ PORTUGAL: Lending 2 percent of its strategic oil reserve, equivalent to 500,000 barrels of oil.
_ QATAR: $100 million in humanitarian assistance.
_ ROMANIA: Two teams of medical experts.
_ RUSSIA: Three transport planes with generators, food, tents, blankets, drinking water and medical supplies.
_ SAUDI ARABIA: Offers to increase oil production to replace shortfalls caused by Katrina.
_ SINGAPORE: Three CH-47 transport helicopters and 38 soldiers in training unit at Grand Prairie, Texas, to Fort Polk, La., to work with Texas Army National Guard in disaster relief operations, including resupply and airlift missions.
_ SLOVAKIA: Water purification gear, cots, water.
_ SLOVENIA: Cots, bedding, first-aid kits.
_ SOUTH KOREA: $30 million in government and civilian assistance and sending search team and relief supplies.
_ SPAIN: Firefighters and equipment, medical staff, search-and-rescue expertise, tents, cots, blankets, water treatment units, heating equipment, meals, water, generators.
_ SRI LANKA: $25,000 to American Red Cross. (Isuppose civilized nations can manage to cobble together a small amount. Would have been preferable if they sent goodwill instead.)
_ SWEDEN: First-aid kits, blankets, meals, generators, plastic sheeting, 2 water purification units and instructors; aircraft ready for immediate deployment.
_ SWITZERLAND: Blankets, 50 tons of aid supplies, two logistic experts from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, two doctors and two water specialists.
_ TAIWAN: $2 million.
_ THAILAND: At least 60 doctors and nurses along with supplies of rice.
_ TRINIDAD: Local Red Cross sending 10-15 relief workers.
_ URUGUAY: Two mobile water purification units and two tons of powdered milk.
_ VENEZUELA: Offers 1 million barrels of gasoline, $5 million in cash, water purification plants, rescue volunteers and more than 50 tons of canned food and water. Government's Citgo Petroleum Corp. pledges $1 million.
_ UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Tents, clothing, food and other aid.
Katrina
UN Violations: Iran, arms to hamas
Cyprus searches ship carrying banned Iranian arms destined for Hamas
DEBKAfile Special Report
January 30, 2009, 9:19 PM (GMT+02:00)
Cyprus president Demetris Christofias said Friday, Jan. 30, that a ship being searched off Limassol is carrying a cargo that contravenes UN resolutions.
He did not identify the cargo, but Cyprus state radio reported the vessel was Russian-owned and may have been traveling from Iran to Syria with weapons destined for Hamas.
On Jan. 28, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen confirmed the US Navy had intercepted a Cypriot-flagged ship in the Red Sea. But said it had no authority to seize the weapons aboard. DEBKAfile cites UN Security Council Resolution 1747 of March 24, 2007, which toughened sanctions against Iran to include a ban on the country's arms exports. This resolution would have provided the US Navy with the necessary authority.
As DEBKAfile reported on Jan. 23 and 25, the Cypriot-flagged Iranian freighter Nochegorsk which changed its name en route, was stopped by US Navy's Combined Tasks Force 151 in the Bab al-Mandeb Straits last week suspected of carrying smuggled arms for Hamas.
Despite the suspicion that a clandestine cargo of heavy weapons was concealed in a steel compartment in its hold, the US Navy allowed the vessel to continue its voyage through the Suez Canal to destination, which its captain said was Latakia, Syria.
The Iranian arms ship's presence in the Red Sea was first revealed by DEBKAfile on Jan. 20.
Iran
DEBKAfile Special Report
January 30, 2009, 9:19 PM (GMT+02:00)
Cyprus president Demetris Christofias said Friday, Jan. 30, that a ship being searched off Limassol is carrying a cargo that contravenes UN resolutions.
He did not identify the cargo, but Cyprus state radio reported the vessel was Russian-owned and may have been traveling from Iran to Syria with weapons destined for Hamas.
On Jan. 28, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen confirmed the US Navy had intercepted a Cypriot-flagged ship in the Red Sea. But said it had no authority to seize the weapons aboard. DEBKAfile cites UN Security Council Resolution 1747 of March 24, 2007, which toughened sanctions against Iran to include a ban on the country's arms exports. This resolution would have provided the US Navy with the necessary authority.
As DEBKAfile reported on Jan. 23 and 25, the Cypriot-flagged Iranian freighter Nochegorsk which changed its name en route, was stopped by US Navy's Combined Tasks Force 151 in the Bab al-Mandeb Straits last week suspected of carrying smuggled arms for Hamas.
Despite the suspicion that a clandestine cargo of heavy weapons was concealed in a steel compartment in its hold, the US Navy allowed the vessel to continue its voyage through the Suez Canal to destination, which its captain said was Latakia, Syria.
The Iranian arms ship's presence in the Red Sea was first revealed by DEBKAfile on Jan. 20.
Iran
Obama: Partisanship or Log Rolling or Position Taking
For us, we know no different. He could just as well be rolling logs, eating pancakes, or log jamming ... we do not know how the world of politics spins about, after all, He was supposed to be DIFFERENT, bring CHANGE, a different attitude, a different world to what was full of bile and loathing ... yet the same efforts continue, and I promise anyone who wishes to watch - the SAME (or more) influence pedaling, same offering of funds for your district, the same ... NOT CHANGE.
What Obama can do is say: I want to work with Republicans, I stretch out my hand, I have included one of them in my cabinet (and he paid his taxes) ... but they, the mean Republicans refuse to be bipartisan.
Isn't it brilliant what politics can do for you. He doesn't need to REALLY extend his hand, half-hearted, while he grins and says 'Get Over It, I Won' - that is enough. Then he goes on the radio and says he tried. he worked with the Republicans and they refused. Bad Retardicans. Bad Americans. They refuse to get on board.
Gotta love it. All that change.
Is Obama's post-partisan politics dead on arrival?
Feb 1, 2009
AFP
After Barack Obama's first big win, the White House finds itself in the odd position of denying the new president has absorbed a power-sapping defeat.
In the first test of Obama's vow to drain the bile from Washington politics and govern without the bitterness of the last two decades, the president appealed to Republicans to get behind his massive economic stimulus package.
The Democratic president plied Republican leaders with cocktails, sent out invites to a White House Super Bowl party and even made a rare presidential foray to Congress to woo the other side.
But when the 819-billion-dollar package came up in the House of Representatives last week, not a single Republican voted yes.
This week, the Senate gets its chance, and undaunted, Obama is again on the hunt for Republican votes.
"I will continue working with both parties so that the strongest possible bill gets to my desk," he told Americans in his weekly radio and video address on Saturday.
"With the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington. It's time to move in a new direction."
But does Obama have any grounds to hope that Republican senators will look more kindly on the bill than their House counterparts, and could a failed bipartisan approach drain presidential prestige and political capital?
Professor Steven Smith, a congressional expert at Washington University in St. Louis, said that even without winning Republican support, Obama may please American voters tired with the partisan games in Washington.
"He probably wins credit with the public for his strategy of reaching out to the Republicans -- the fact that they didn't respond with some votes did not detract from that effort," Smith said.
Republicans in the House had sound political reasons to obey their leadership and vote against the stimulus package.
They complain that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not get Obama's memo about bipartisanship and claim they were shut out of framing a bill they say features unnecessary spending and insufficient tax cuts.
Also, if Obama's stimulus works and revives the reeling economy, they would be unlikely to get any credit even if they voted for it -- by opposing the measure they can at least expect some political gain if it fails.
Senators tend to be less radical than House members, as their six-year terms can shield them from immediate voter backlash, so Obama can expect a more favorable reception for his plan.
He may also win favor from Republicans from states which he won in last November's elections.
Those lawmakers, with one eye of voters back home, may be loath to go against the popular new president.
One of those Senators, Judd Gregg from New Hampshire said Friday he is in fact in the running to become Obama's commerce secretary -- a tempting offer that would spare him a tough reelection fight in 2010.
But beyond a handful of wavering senators, there now seems little hope that the Obama plan will capture the 80 or so votes in the 100-seat Senate that some supporters had once targeted.
The president, while welcoming the House passage of the stimulus plan, said he was willing to "improve" the package -- code for amendments that could draw some Republicans when the final merged bill returns to the House.
But Smith said, Obama's hopes for an new era of bipartisan government may be thwarted by simple political realities in Washington.
"The plain fact is that there are very few Republicans that are located in the political space to the left of any Democrats," he said.
"If you look at the US Senate, there are very few Democrats who are to the right of any Republicans."
Obama will likely continue to try to forge bipartisan compromises, partly to lessen his dependence on radical members of his own Democratic Party in the House -- and may peel away Republican voter on some key agenda items.
But while his attitude may improve the atmosphere in Washington, any hopes of large numbers of Republicans deserting their party banner seem unlikely to be fulfilled.
Obama
What Obama can do is say: I want to work with Republicans, I stretch out my hand, I have included one of them in my cabinet (and he paid his taxes) ... but they, the mean Republicans refuse to be bipartisan.
Isn't it brilliant what politics can do for you. He doesn't need to REALLY extend his hand, half-hearted, while he grins and says 'Get Over It, I Won' - that is enough. Then he goes on the radio and says he tried. he worked with the Republicans and they refused. Bad Retardicans. Bad Americans. They refuse to get on board.
Gotta love it. All that change.
Is Obama's post-partisan politics dead on arrival?
Feb 1, 2009
AFP
After Barack Obama's first big win, the White House finds itself in the odd position of denying the new president has absorbed a power-sapping defeat.
In the first test of Obama's vow to drain the bile from Washington politics and govern without the bitterness of the last two decades, the president appealed to Republicans to get behind his massive economic stimulus package.
The Democratic president plied Republican leaders with cocktails, sent out invites to a White House Super Bowl party and even made a rare presidential foray to Congress to woo the other side.
But when the 819-billion-dollar package came up in the House of Representatives last week, not a single Republican voted yes.
This week, the Senate gets its chance, and undaunted, Obama is again on the hunt for Republican votes.
"I will continue working with both parties so that the strongest possible bill gets to my desk," he told Americans in his weekly radio and video address on Saturday.
"With the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington. It's time to move in a new direction."
But does Obama have any grounds to hope that Republican senators will look more kindly on the bill than their House counterparts, and could a failed bipartisan approach drain presidential prestige and political capital?
Professor Steven Smith, a congressional expert at Washington University in St. Louis, said that even without winning Republican support, Obama may please American voters tired with the partisan games in Washington.
"He probably wins credit with the public for his strategy of reaching out to the Republicans -- the fact that they didn't respond with some votes did not detract from that effort," Smith said.
Republicans in the House had sound political reasons to obey their leadership and vote against the stimulus package.
They complain that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats did not get Obama's memo about bipartisanship and claim they were shut out of framing a bill they say features unnecessary spending and insufficient tax cuts.
Also, if Obama's stimulus works and revives the reeling economy, they would be unlikely to get any credit even if they voted for it -- by opposing the measure they can at least expect some political gain if it fails.
Senators tend to be less radical than House members, as their six-year terms can shield them from immediate voter backlash, so Obama can expect a more favorable reception for his plan.
He may also win favor from Republicans from states which he won in last November's elections.
Those lawmakers, with one eye of voters back home, may be loath to go against the popular new president.
One of those Senators, Judd Gregg from New Hampshire said Friday he is in fact in the running to become Obama's commerce secretary -- a tempting offer that would spare him a tough reelection fight in 2010.
But beyond a handful of wavering senators, there now seems little hope that the Obama plan will capture the 80 or so votes in the 100-seat Senate that some supporters had once targeted.
The president, while welcoming the House passage of the stimulus plan, said he was willing to "improve" the package -- code for amendments that could draw some Republicans when the final merged bill returns to the House.
But Smith said, Obama's hopes for an new era of bipartisan government may be thwarted by simple political realities in Washington.
"The plain fact is that there are very few Republicans that are located in the political space to the left of any Democrats," he said.
"If you look at the US Senate, there are very few Democrats who are to the right of any Republicans."
Obama will likely continue to try to forge bipartisan compromises, partly to lessen his dependence on radical members of his own Democratic Party in the House -- and may peel away Republican voter on some key agenda items.
But while his attitude may improve the atmosphere in Washington, any hopes of large numbers of Republicans deserting their party banner seem unlikely to be fulfilled.
Obama
Hamas: We Won!
Hamas leader meets Iran's Khamenei
February 1, 2009
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal met with Iran's supreme leader on Sunday, and provided Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a detailed account of Hamas' "victory" over Israel in Gaza, according to Iranian media reports.
[clipped]
Meshaal -- who lives in exile in Damascus, Syria -- is the head of Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory of Gaza. Hamas has claimed victory over Israeli forces, saying the Jewish state failed to destroy its ability to fire rockets at southern Israel. But Israel has said it achieved its goals in Gaza, which was to change the security situation for the south.
************************
Talking to Hamas? About what? They won. Difficult to talk when you won. Not much to talk about Georgie. You may encounter problems. The Naive One sent you on a dead end run.
Obama
February 1, 2009
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal met with Iran's supreme leader on Sunday, and provided Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a detailed account of Hamas' "victory" over Israel in Gaza, according to Iranian media reports.
[clipped]
Meshaal -- who lives in exile in Damascus, Syria -- is the head of Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory of Gaza. Hamas has claimed victory over Israeli forces, saying the Jewish state failed to destroy its ability to fire rockets at southern Israel. But Israel has said it achieved its goals in Gaza, which was to change the security situation for the south.
************************
Talking to Hamas? About what? They won. Difficult to talk when you won. Not much to talk about Georgie. You may encounter problems. The Naive One sent you on a dead end run.
Obama
Obama and Iran
Of course, Mr. Obama, you wish to 'talk' to them, negotiate with them - about what? You are forced to send a letter they believe shows weakness, while you pretend a ship is not carrying illegal arms to hizbollah in order to rationalize your desire to speak to a terrorist supporting regime. Do you understand how irrational and illogical your behavior is - how inexperienced it shows you to be? It does. And everyone knows it does. How do you compartmentalize things like Iran sending a ship filled with weapons while you tell Iran you want to talk to them ...
You really are naive.
Iranian arms ship intercepted by US warship has sealed secret holds
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
January 25, 2009, 9:15 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Iranian ship boarded by a US Navy Coast Guard team on the Red Sea last week before it could smuggle arms to Hamas is now disclosed by DEBKAfile's military sources to have tried to trick the search team by enclosing its rocket cargo in secret compartments behind layers of steel. Furthermore, our sources reveal, the US has not yet found a harbor in the region for carrying out a thorough search.
The Cypriot-flagged Iranian freighter Nochegorsk was intercepted last week by the new US Combined Task Force 151 in the Bab al-Mandeb Straits. Its presence in the Red Sea was first revealed by DEBKAfile on Jan. 20.
The Americans decided not to give the Israeli Navy a chance to seize the vessel and tow it to Eilat for fear of a Tehran ultimatum to Jerusalem, followed by Iranian attacks on Israeli naval craft patrolling the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea.
Iran maintains two warships in those waters to guard its shipping against Somali pirates as well as a military presence in the Eritrean port of Assab. The arms smuggling ship was first reported escorted out of the Suez Canal Saturday night, Jan. 23, after which Washington imposed a blackout on the incident. It is now moored at an Egyptian Red Sea port at the entrance to the Gulf of Suez.
But the US and Egyptian governments are in a fix. To break the Iranian ship's holds open and expose the rockets destined for Hamas, the facilities of a sizeable port are needed. It would have to be Egyptian because the other coastal nations - Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia - are hostile or controlled by pirates. Both the US and Egypt are hesitant about precipitating a full-blown armed confrontation with Iran. The timing is wrong for the new Barack Obama administration, which is set on smoothing relations with Tehran through diplomatic engagement. Cairo has just launched a campaign to limit Tehran's aggressive drive in the Middle East but does not want a premature clash.
DEBKAfile's Iranian sources disclose that the ship's captain had orders not to resist an American boarding team but impede a close look at its freight. The Navy Coast Guard searchers first found a large amount of ordnance and explosives in the ship's hold, which the Iranian captain claimed were necessary for securing Iranian freighters heading from the Red Sea to the Suez Canal. But then, the US searchers using metal detectors perceived welded steel compartments packed with more hardware concealed at the bottom of the hull.
The option of towing it to a Persian Gulf port for an intensive search was rejected because the Gulf emirates hosting US bases were almost certain to shy away from involvement in the affair. Moreover, Tehran would be close enough to mount a naval commando operation to scuttle the ship before it was searched.
Our military sources estimate that eventually the US government may decide to let the Iranian arms ship sail through the Suez Canal out to the Mediterranean for lack of other options.
iran
You really are naive.
Iranian arms ship intercepted by US warship has sealed secret holds
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
January 25, 2009, 9:15 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Iranian ship boarded by a US Navy Coast Guard team on the Red Sea last week before it could smuggle arms to Hamas is now disclosed by DEBKAfile's military sources to have tried to trick the search team by enclosing its rocket cargo in secret compartments behind layers of steel. Furthermore, our sources reveal, the US has not yet found a harbor in the region for carrying out a thorough search.
The Cypriot-flagged Iranian freighter Nochegorsk was intercepted last week by the new US Combined Task Force 151 in the Bab al-Mandeb Straits. Its presence in the Red Sea was first revealed by DEBKAfile on Jan. 20.
The Americans decided not to give the Israeli Navy a chance to seize the vessel and tow it to Eilat for fear of a Tehran ultimatum to Jerusalem, followed by Iranian attacks on Israeli naval craft patrolling the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea.
Iran maintains two warships in those waters to guard its shipping against Somali pirates as well as a military presence in the Eritrean port of Assab. The arms smuggling ship was first reported escorted out of the Suez Canal Saturday night, Jan. 23, after which Washington imposed a blackout on the incident. It is now moored at an Egyptian Red Sea port at the entrance to the Gulf of Suez.
But the US and Egyptian governments are in a fix. To break the Iranian ship's holds open and expose the rockets destined for Hamas, the facilities of a sizeable port are needed. It would have to be Egyptian because the other coastal nations - Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia - are hostile or controlled by pirates. Both the US and Egypt are hesitant about precipitating a full-blown armed confrontation with Iran. The timing is wrong for the new Barack Obama administration, which is set on smoothing relations with Tehran through diplomatic engagement. Cairo has just launched a campaign to limit Tehran's aggressive drive in the Middle East but does not want a premature clash.
DEBKAfile's Iranian sources disclose that the ship's captain had orders not to resist an American boarding team but impede a close look at its freight. The Navy Coast Guard searchers first found a large amount of ordnance and explosives in the ship's hold, which the Iranian captain claimed were necessary for securing Iranian freighters heading from the Red Sea to the Suez Canal. But then, the US searchers using metal detectors perceived welded steel compartments packed with more hardware concealed at the bottom of the hull.
The option of towing it to a Persian Gulf port for an intensive search was rejected because the Gulf emirates hosting US bases were almost certain to shy away from involvement in the affair. Moreover, Tehran would be close enough to mount a naval commando operation to scuttle the ship before it was searched.
Our military sources estimate that eventually the US government may decide to let the Iranian arms ship sail through the Suez Canal out to the Mediterranean for lack of other options.
iran
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments