Showing posts with label us politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label us politics. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2011

President Obama defends U.S. role in Libya


President Obama fended off criticism from both the right and left last night as he sought to justify the first war launched by his administration — saying air strikes in Libya prevented massive slaughter while cautioning that inaction would carry “a far greater price for America.”

Obama sought to defend the intervention while insisting that the United States is pulling out of the Libya operation, handing control to NATO after halting Moammar Gadhafi’s brutal attacks. But he took fire from the left last night while getting mocking attaboys from the right.

“For those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do,” said Obama in his 25-minute address delivered last night to midcareer military officers at the National Defense University in Washington.

U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Somerville), said, “How do you win when you don’t know what the objective is?” He said Congress should have been allowed to vote on the intervention. “I still believe that Congress has a role to play, a constitutionally mandated role. There was nothing that explained his ability to take direct action.”

University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds, the conservative blogger known as Instapundit, declared, “Eerily like a Bush speech, but without the conviction.”

William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, meanwhile, said, “You’ve come a long way, baby. That was a pretty unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing, no-shrinking-from-the-use-of-force, presidential speech.”

But Boston College law professor Richard Albert said, “He hasn’t articulated in a compelling or coherent fashion the organizing logic that frames his administration’s foreign policy.”

Obama said, “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

“The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power,” Obama said. But he added, “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

Citing Iraq, he said, “Regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Read More

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0329obama_defends_us_role_in_libya/

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Julian Assange like a hi-tech terrorist, says Joe Biden


The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to a "hi-tech terrorist", the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration.

Biden claimed that by leaking diplomatic cables Assange had put lives at risk and made it more difficult for the US to conduct its business around the world.

His description of Assange shows a level of irritation that contrasts with more sanguine comments from other senior figures in the White House, who said the leak had not done serious damage.

Interviewed on NBC's Meet the Press, Biden was asked if the administration could prevent further leaks, as Assange warned last week. "We are looking at that right now. The justice department is taking a look at that," Biden said, without elaborating.

The justice department is struggling to find legislation with which to prosecute Assange.

Asked if what Assange had done was criminal, Biden seemed to suggest it would be considered criminal if it could be established that the WikiLeaks founder had encouraged or helped Bradley Manning, the US intelligence analyst suspected of being behind the leak. Biden claimed this was different from a journalist receiving leaked material.

"If he conspired to get these classified documents with a member of the US military that is fundamentally different than if someone drops on your lap … you are a press person, here is classified material."

Asked if he saw Assange as closer to a hi-tech terrorist than the whistleblower who released the Pentagon papers in the 1970s, which disclosed the lie on which US involvement in Vietnam was based, Biden replied: "I would argue it is closer to being a hi-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers. But, look, this guy has done things that have damaged and put in jeopardy the lives and occupations of people in other parts of the world.

"He's made it more difficult for us to conduct our business with our allies and our friends. For example, in my meetings – you know I meet with most of these world leaders – there is a desire now to meet with me alone, rather than have staff in the room. It makes things more cumbersome – so it has done damage."

The interview, though broadcast yesterday, was conducted on Friday. In an interview the previous day, he had been more neutral about WikiLeaks, saying: "I don't think there's any substantive damage."

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, led criticism of the WikiLeaks revelations at the end of November when she accused the website of mounting an "attack" on the world.



Read More

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

White House open to Democratic outside groups in 2012


David Axelrod is pictured. | Reuters Photo
David Axelrod says the White House is ramping up its fundraising goals for the 2012 campaign. | Reuters

The White House is bracing for an onslaught of $500 million or more in spending by outside Republican groups opposed to President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election, prompting Obama advisers to give the green light to big Democratic donors to set up similar outside groups to counter the GOP’s effort.That posture marks a significant shift by a White House that had discouraged outside players in the political arena in 2008.
"There's no doubt they were just warming up and will be coming after us next," David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser, told POLITICO in an interview. "If they spent $200 million on Senate races, they are capable of adding a half-billion to a billion in a race for control of the presidency."

To counter the anticipated wave of attacks, Axelrod said the White House is ramping up its campaign fundraising goals by equal amounts.

And, when asked three times, Axelrod refused to wave off -- and seemed to expect -- a similar, well-funded campaign by wealthy Democratic donors and the party's activist allies in labor and the environmental communities in the 2012 campaigns for the White House and Congress.

"Our strong preference is for a campaign finance system that is transparent and open and in which the American people can see what's going on," said Axelrod. "But I am sure the physics of this is that there will be people offended by this and they will be inspired to get involved."

Translation for Democratic groups: We know you are coming, but please disclose your donors.

That is the approach that two liberal groups, America's Families First Action Fund and Commonsense Ten, took when they engaged late in the midterms to create a "firewall" around enough Democrats in hopes of preserving the party's majorities in the House and Senate. Both groups disclosed their donors with the Federal Election Commission, unlike most of the newly created Republican groups that organized under different tax codes that allowed their donors to remain anonymous, including an influx of some corporate givers.

Senate Democrats held on; House Democrats didn't.

Some Democrats have complained openly that Obama’s 2008 admonition against outside groups spending money during his presidential run carried over to 2010, leaving Democrats on the sidelines without a well-tuned infrastructure of groups to help embattled candidates.

At the same time, Republican groups were springing up to pump cash into midterm races across the country – to the tune of nearly $200 million in expenditures.

Some frustrated Democrats have suggested they have no intention of being outgunned again in 2012, and Axelrod’s comments suggest that will be OK with the White House.

"I have no doubt after having watched $200 million rain down on Democratic candidates that there will be folks concerned about that and emboldened to get involved," said Axelrod.







Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44868.html#ixzz14mN6aBj5


Monday, November 8, 2010

A New Bush, a Lot Like the Old One



He said he still felt sickened that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. Yet former President George W. Bush said that his worst moment in the Oval Office came when the rap star Kanye West claimed that the president didn’t care about black people.

“The suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all-time low,” Mr. Bush told a surprised Matt Lauer on NBC on Monday night.

“I didn’t appreciate it then; I don’t appreciate it now,” he added fiercely. “I resent it, it’s not true, and it was one of the most disgusting moments in my presidency.”

There was something jarring about suddenly seeing George W. Bush on screen again and it wasn’t just déjà vu. It was more like running into a former spouse after many years: no matter how bitter or amicable the separation, that first reunion is disconcerting — the ex seems both eerily the same and weirdly diminished. Two years ago he left office with two wars raging and an economy in free fall, an embattled commander in chief with the lowest approval ratings of any modern president. Now Mr. Bush is offering himself up as a chatty president emeritus, sometimes defiant and other times cheerful, on a media blitz to promote his memoir, “Decision Points.”

It was a fascinating, at times disarming, performance, but also a confusing one: a plea for understanding from a president who says he doesn’t give a fig about popularity. At one point, Mr. Bush boasted that when an acquaintance told him his approval ratings were up, he retorted, “Who cares?”

In the hourlong NBC News special, Mr. Bush talked about himself with the blend of candor and self-serving boilerplate that almost all book-promoting celebrities master on a publicity tour.

He told the very personal story of how as a teenager he drove his mother to the hospital after she suffered a miscarriage, and discovered how “straightforward” she was when she showed him the remains of the fetus in a jar.

He also gave an example of how out of control he could be before he gave up drinking. “So, I’m drunk at the dinner table at Mother and Dad’s house in Maine. And my brothers and sister are there, Laura’s there. And I’m sitting next to a beautiful woman, friend of Mother and Dad’s. And I said to her out loud, ‘What is sex like after 50?’ ”

When Mr. Lauer pressed him about his more critical decisions in office, Mr. Bush was both forthcoming and maddeningly opaque. He scoffed at the notion that he cared that critics viewed him as a puppet manipulated by his strong-willed vice president, Dick Cheney, then kept underscoring ways he had defied his No. 2, including by refusing to grant Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., a pardon after Mr. Libby was convicted of lying during the investigation into the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative. (Instead, Mr. Bush commuted his sentence.)

Mr. Bush ruefully acknowledged that he mishandled the Hurricane Katrina crisis, even writing a new script for his first trip to the disaster area. “I should have touched down in Baton Rouge, met with the governor, and, you know, walked out and said, ‘I hear you,’ ” he said. “And then got back on a flight up to Washington. I did not do that. And paid a price for it.”

But he refused to apply hindsight to the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Lauer asked him whether he would do the same thing again if he had known then what he knows now. Mr. Bush replied: “I, first of all, didn’t have that luxury. You just don’t have the luxury when you’re president.”

He added, “I will say definitely the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power, as are 25 million people who now have a chance to live in freedom.”

It was a curious form of hedging from a president who prides on himself plain speaking.

There were other moments when Mr. Bush was defensive, but for the most part he looked more relaxed and unguarded than that at any time in his presidency, even chuckling about history’s final verdict. (“I hope I’m judged a success, but I’m going to be dead, Matt, when they finally figure it out.”) Throughout his tumultuous two terms, Mr. Bush rarely looked comfortable in formal interviews and news conferences.

This new book-tour persona harks back to his days as a presidential candidate, before the attacks of Sept. 11 and other crises curbed his breezy confidence and stiffened his demeanor.

Mr. Bush, who in the coming days will sit down with Oprah Winfrey and many other celebrity interviewers, says he wrote his book to give readers — and future historians — a sense of what his days in the White House were really like. Mostly, however, the NBC interview offered viewers a visceral reminder of what Mr. Bush was like before he entered the Oval Office.

Read more 


Wednesday, November 3, 2010

US mid-term polls: The big picture


New York:  Less than two years after Barack Obama strode into the White House on a promise of change, the Republicans have wrested control of the House of Representatives from his Democrats on Tuesday, riding a wave of voter discontent. The Democrats have retained control of the Senate, but by a slimmer margin.

This is the big picture at a glance:

How it stacks up:

House of Representatives: Republicans need 39 seats to gain majority. Are projected to win 59 at this time. Senate: Republicans need 10 more seats to gain majority. Are projected to win 6 more at this time.

What the new power equations mean:

The Democrats lose majority in the US House. The Republicans can now block Obama's key policy agendas.

Democrats retain majority in the Senate, but by a slimmer margin. A divided Congress will scuttle Obama's plans for re-election in 2012.

Highlights:
•    More than 60 seats are likely to change hands in the House of Representatives; this will be the biggest swing since 1948.
•    Obama's own former Senate seat, Illinois, has gone to Republican Mark Kirk.
•    Big losses in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Obama personally made a dozen trips to campaign.
•    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to be out; Republican John A Boehner likely to get the Speaker's seat
•    Tea Party's main campaigner Sharron Angle has lost
•    Nikki Haley wins South Carolina, becomes the second American of Indian origin to become Governor after Bobby Jindal.