Datasets:
Dataset Viewer
topic
stringclasses 108
values | source
stringclasses 192
values | bias
class label 3
classes | url
stringlengths 30
422
| title
stringlengths 5
255
| date
stringlengths 0
10
| authors
stringlengths 0
184
| content
stringlengths 131
54k
| content_original
stringlengths 1.71k
62.4k
| source_url
stringclasses 79
values | bias_text
class label 3
classes | ID
stringlengths 16
16
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
politics
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/13/trump-impeachment-hearing-change-mind-congress-070145
|
Can the Impeachment Hearings Actually Change Anyone’s Mind?
|
2019-11-13
|
This happens for different reasons , but a key element is the vicious cycle between holding strong attitudes on an issue and something called “ selective perception. ” Essentially , the stronger your views are on an issue like Trump ’ s impeachment , the more likely you are to attend more carefully to information that supports your views and to ignore or disregard information that contradicts them . Consuming more belief-consistent information will , in turn , increase your original support or disapproval for impeachment , which just fortifies your attitudes . So , no , not much change will be seen in the minds of the 33 percent .
Except , maybe . One of the more interesting findings from research on attitude change is that our more important , self-defining attitudes do not seem to change incrementally , a little at a time , but they can change dramatically , from one extreme to another . Typically , when others try to change our views on important issues that we hold firmly , their attempts to persuade us with facts and figures end up bolstering our original attitudes or pushing us out to even further extremes . But strong attitudes can experience what psychologists call “ threshold-effect changes. ” Over time , when we are exposed to information contradicting our attitudes , that information—even if we ignore , discount or deny it—can seep into our thinking and accumulate to a point where , across some threshold , people radically change their views to the opposite side of the spectrum . In other words , nothing much changes until everything changes .
These jumps from one extreme attitude to another on self-defining issues are not uncommon , and have been seen with former skinheads turned tolerance trainers , peace activists turned violent militants , and religious zealots turned atheists . This type of drastic transformation is , of course , hard to predict , and it can be triggered by seemingly insignificant events ( the tipping point for one skinhead was when his black co-worker tossed him half of his submarine sandwich when he had no lunch ) . But it typically occurs after repeated exposure to information contradicting their attitudes .
So , yes , it is possible that if some of the testimonies in the hearings are experienced by true believers ( at either extreme ) as counter to their beliefs but also persuasive , this information can plant seeds of a different point of view , that might , someday , lead to a big change . Still , this is unlikely to happen very soon .
Minds , however , can change among the vast majority of people who don ’ t hold extreme views . A recent study by the nonpartisan group More in Common found that about 67 percent of moderate Americans on both sides of the political divide—a group the authors of the study call “ the exhausted majority ” —are fed up with our current dysfunction , despise the contemptuous state of polarization we are in , and are eager to find ways to talk , compromise and work together again . These folks , particularly the 26 percent of moderates who are politically disengaged and thus are much less identified with either tribe , can be swayed . Of course , this assumes that they are not so burned out by the vitriol of our politics that they are unwilling to devote some attention to information coming out of the hearings .
Research suggests a few basic strategies for changing minds that are , well , changeable . First , immediately establishing the credibility of the witnesses—to both progressives and conservatives —is paramount . For example , the introductions of the witnesses should emphasize their merits for both the left and the right to see . Second , logic and evidence can matter when they are clearly laid out , compelling and derived from trusted sources . Third , moving testimony by witnesses about the profound moral dilemmas they faced in coming forward , and any specific threats they experienced to their and their family ’ s physical safety , can help to humanize otherwise dry , technical testimony and move the listener . And finally , because most viewers tend to lean either red or blue ( even though they are “ exhausted ” ) and so will view the proceedings to some degree through their team ’ s lens , it is critical for the lawmakers to choose to emphasize just a few takeaway points , and then to stress the urgency and importance of the viewers ’ attention to them . This can serve to move viewers from their more automatic , heuristic modes of cognitive processing to more intentional , systematic modes , where they will be more likely to take in new information and learn .
But here is a caution for our leaders in Congress on both sides . Clearly , by many accounts , America is more polarized , anxious and exhausted by our political climate today than ever before . No , this is not all Congress ’ doing , but many in Washington are playing their part . The resulting rise in the toxicity of our culture is such that today 86 percent of Americans are seriously concerned that our divisions will soon lead to violence .
So , as our Republican and Democratic members of Congress prepare for the public hearings—ready themselves to make their case and score points and change minds—they should understand what is at stake . A narrow focus on short wins today can bring devastating outcomes tomorrow . Of course , members of Congress have a job to do to reveal the truth and share the facts with the American public . But our social fabric is stretched to the limit , and the future of our society , in the form of our basic capacities for compassion , connection and shared humanity across our divide , is on the line . The impeachment hearings ’ primary audience—the 67 percent ( not base voters ) —is persuadable through credibility , logic and evidence . This is a chance for lawmakers to plant seeds for changing minds in the future . So , please , for our nation ’ s sake , rise to your best selves .
As someone who knew something about divisions once wrote , “ We are not enemies , but friends . We must not be enemies . Though passion may have strained , it must not break our bonds of affection . The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched , as surely they will be , by the better angels of our nature. ” Come Wednesday , lawmakers will need to find a way to make their public case effectively , while not inflaming our already heightened sense of contempt and enmity for the other side . In the long run , this is all that will matter .
|
This happens for different reasons, but a key element is the vicious cycle between holding strong attitudes on an issue and something called “selective perception.” Essentially, the stronger your views are on an issue like Trump’s impeachment, the more likely you are to attend more carefully to information that supports your views and to ignore or disregard information that contradicts them. Consuming more belief-consistent information will, in turn, increase your original support or disapproval for impeachment, which just fortifies your attitudes. So, no, not much change will be seen in the minds of the 33 percent.
Except, maybe. One of the more interesting findings from research on attitude change is that our more important, self-defining attitudes do not seem to change incrementally, a little at a time, but they can change dramatically, from one extreme to another. Typically, when others try to change our views on important issues that we hold firmly, their attempts to persuade us with facts and figures end up bolstering our original attitudes or pushing us out to even further extremes. But strong attitudes can experience what psychologists call “threshold-effect changes.” Over time, when we are exposed to information contradicting our attitudes, that information—even if we ignore, discount or deny it—can seep into our thinking and accumulate to a point where, across some threshold, people radically change their views to the opposite side of the spectrum. In other words, nothing much changes until everything changes.
These jumps from one extreme attitude to another on self-defining issues are not uncommon, and have been seen with former skinheads turned tolerance trainers, peace activists turned violent militants, and religious zealots turned atheists. This type of drastic transformation is, of course, hard to predict, and it can be triggered by seemingly insignificant events (the tipping point for one skinhead was when his black co-worker tossed him half of his submarine sandwich when he had no lunch). But it typically occurs after repeated exposure to information contradicting their attitudes.
So, yes, it is possible that if some of the testimonies in the hearings are experienced by true believers (at either extreme) as counter to their beliefs but also persuasive, this information can plant seeds of a different point of view, that might, someday, lead to a big change. Still, this is unlikely to happen very soon.
Minds, however, can change among the vast majority of people who don’t hold extreme views. A recent study by the nonpartisan group More in Common found that about 67 percent of moderate Americans on both sides of the political divide—a group the authors of the study call “the exhausted majority”—are fed up with our current dysfunction, despise the contemptuous state of polarization we are in, and are eager to find ways to talk, compromise and work together again. These folks, particularly the 26 percent of moderates who are politically disengaged and thus are much less identified with either tribe, can be swayed. Of course, this assumes that they are not so burned out by the vitriol of our politics that they are unwilling to devote some attention to information coming out of the hearings.
Research suggests a few basic strategies for changing minds that are, well, changeable. First, immediately establishing the credibility of the witnesses—to both progressives and conservatives —is paramount. For example, the introductions of the witnesses should emphasize their merits for both the left and the right to see. Second, logic and evidence can matter when they are clearly laid out, compelling and derived from trusted sources. Third, moving testimony by witnesses about the profound moral dilemmas they faced in coming forward, and any specific threats they experienced to their and their family’s physical safety, can help to humanize otherwise dry, technical testimony and move the listener. And finally, because most viewers tend to lean either red or blue (even though they are “exhausted”) and so will view the proceedings to some degree through their team’s lens, it is critical for the lawmakers to choose to emphasize just a few takeaway points, and then to stress the urgency and importance of the viewers’ attention to them. This can serve to move viewers from their more automatic, heuristic modes of cognitive processing to more intentional, systematic modes, where they will be more likely to take in new information and learn.
But here is a caution for our leaders in Congress on both sides. Clearly, by many accounts, America is more polarized, anxious and exhausted by our political climate today than ever before. No, this is not all Congress’ doing, but many in Washington are playing their part. The resulting rise in the toxicity of our culture is such that today 86 percent of Americans are seriously concerned that our divisions will soon lead to violence.
So, as our Republican and Democratic members of Congress prepare for the public hearings—ready themselves to make their case and score points and change minds—they should understand what is at stake. A narrow focus on short wins today can bring devastating outcomes tomorrow. Of course, members of Congress have a job to do to reveal the truth and share the facts with the American public. But our social fabric is stretched to the limit, and the future of our society, in the form of our basic capacities for compassion, connection and shared humanity across our divide, is on the line. The impeachment hearings’ primary audience—the 67 percent ( not base voters)—is persuadable through credibility, logic and evidence. This is a chance for lawmakers to plant seeds for changing minds in the future. So, please, for our nation’s sake, rise to your best selves.
As someone who knew something about divisions once wrote, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Come Wednesday, lawmakers will need to find a way to make their public case effectively, while not inflaming our already heightened sense of contempt and enmity for the other side. In the long run, this is all that will matter.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
bpp2Cqpvyi2ER5Lr
|
|
china
|
Bloomberg
| 11
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-11/trump-s-tariff-barrage-pushes-china-fight-to-point-of-no-return
|
Trump’s Tariff Barrage Pushes China Fight to Point of No Return
|
2018-07-11
|
Brendan Scott, Enda Curran
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 5:37 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing his trade conflict with China toward a point where neither side can back down .
By Aug. 30 , as the U.S. nears mid-term elections vital for Trump ’ s legislative agenda , the White House will be ready to impose 10 percent tariffs on $ 200 billion of Chinese-made products , ranging from clothing to television parts to refrigerators . The levies announced Tuesday -- together with some $ 50 billion already in the works -- stand to raise import prices on almost half of everything the U.S. buys from the Asian nation .
China has seven weeks to make a deal or dig in and try to outlast the U.S. leader . President Xi Jinping , facing his own political pressures to look tough , has vowed to respond blow-for-blow . He ’ s already imposed retaliatory duties targeting Trump ’ s base including Iowa soybeans and Kentucky bourbon .
Yet matching the latest U.S. barrage would force China to either levy much higher tariffs or take more disruptive steps like canceling purchase orders , encouraging consumer boycotts and putting up regulatory hurdles . Not only does that risk provoking Trump to follow through on threats to tax virtually all Chinese products , it could unleash nationalist sentiment on both sides that fuels a deeper struggle for geopolitical dominance .
Trump on Wednesday framed his trade actions as necessary to shield American businesses and farmers from harmful trading practices .
“ Other countries ’ trade barriers and tariffs have been destroying their businesses . I will open things up , better than ever before , but it can ’ t go too quickly , ” Trump said in a Twitter post from Brussels , where he ’ s attending a NATO summit . “ I am fighting for a level playing field for our farmers , and will win ! ”
“ It ’ s already past the point of no return , ” said Pauline Loong , managing director at research firm Asia-Analytica in Hong Kong . “ What ’ s next is not so much a trade war or even a cold war as the dawn of an ice age in relations between China and the United States . ”
Read more on the escalating conflict Handbags and Cameras Hit as Trump Tariffs Target Consumers
You Have a Month to Comment on Bull Semen , Vegetable Hair Tariff
Trump Must Meet Xi to Stop Trade War , Top House Republican Says
Those Cheap Chinese TVs ? They May Just Get a Lot More Expensive
Stocks fell and commodities slid with emerging-market assets Wednesday as investors assessed the fallout . The S & P 500 Index ended the longest rally in a month and the Stoxx Europe 600 Index retreated . While earlier tariffs were expected to have only a limited impact , economists warn a full-blown trade war could derail the strongest economic upswing in years .
The Chinese Commerce Ministry said Tuesday that it would be forced to retaliate against what it called “ totally unacceptable ” U.S. tariffs . There have been no confirmed high-level talks between the two sides since an early June visit to Beijing by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that achieved no breakthroughs .
Beijing “ never yields to threat or blackmail ” and will retaliate against the “ groundless ” tariffs , China ’ s Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen said in written comments to ███ . “ The U.S. side ignored the progress , adopted unilateral and protectionist measures , and started the trade war . ”
What Our Economists Say ... “ As the targeted imports broaden to include more consumer products , a hit to household wallets and a bump to inflation could start to shift the political calculus in the U.S. , ” said ███ ’ s China economist Fielding Chen .
The Aug. 30 date ensures the trade fight features prominently in November ’ s U.S. congressional elections , and the announcement exposed fissures between Trump and his Republican Party about the strategy . House Ways and Means Committee chief Kevin Brady , of Texas , warned of “ a long , multi-year trade war between the two largest economies in the world that engulfs more and more of the globe . ”
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch , of Utah , called the new levies “ reckless ” and not “ targeted. ” Senator Chuck Grassley , a Republican from Iowa , said he had a “ great deal of concern ” about the trade spat with China and the level of uncertainty it ’ s creating among farmers and businesses in his state. “ When you don ’ t know what ’ s going to be the outcome , it ’ s very uncertain , and it ’ s had a definite impact , ” he told ███ Television . “ How long is this going to go on ? I hope we can settle pretty soon . ”
Read more : Some tariffs apply to flows that don ’ t exist
The latest move suggests that Trump -- who in March declared that “ trade wars are good and easy to win ” -- may be compromising on his pledge to spare consumers from the pain . The tariffs could raise the prices of everything from baseball gloves to handbags to digital cameras just as voters are heading to the polls . Other high-profile items such as mobile phones have so far been spared .
The U.S. felt it had no choice , but to move forward on the new tariffs after China failed to respond to the administration ’ s concerns over unfair trade practices and Beijing ’ s abuse of American intellectual property , according to two senior officials who spoke to reporters . The Trump administration has so far rejected Chinese offers to trim its massive trade surplus by buying more American goods , and is demanding more systemic change .
“ For over a year , the Trump administration has patiently urged China to stop its unfair practices , open its market , and engage in true market competition , ” Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement . “ China has not changed its behavior -- behavior that puts the future of the U.S. economy at risk . ”
Although the looming elections provide an immediate concern for Trump , a trade war poses a more existential concern for Xi , whose Communist Party has built its legitimacy on economic success . Prominent academics and some government officials have begun to question if China ’ s slowing , trade-dependent economy can withstand a sustained attack from Trump , which has already weighed heavily on stock prices .
Among other things , the U.S. is asking China to roll back its “ Made-in-China 2025 ” program , a signature Xi initiative to dominate several strategic industries , such as semiconductors to aerospace development . Since abolishing presidential term limits , Xi has strengthened his control over the levers of power and money in China and can ’ t afford to look weak .
“ China is showing no signs of backing down and instead looks like it is preparing for a drawn out conflict , ” said Scott Kennedy , deputy director of China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington . “ China has a million and one ways to retaliate . ”
— With assistance by Jenny Leonard , Andrew Mayeda , Bryce Baschuk , and Kevin Cirilli
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 5:37 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing his trade conflict with China toward a point where neither side can back down.
By Aug. 30, as the U.S. nears mid-term elections vital for Trump’s legislative agenda, the White House will be ready to impose 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese-made products, ranging from clothing to television parts to refrigerators. The levies announced Tuesday -- together with some $50 billion already in the works -- stand to raise import prices on almost half of everything the U.S. buys from the Asian nation.
China has seven weeks to make a deal or dig in and try to outlast the U.S. leader. President Xi Jinping, facing his own political pressures to look tough, has vowed to respond blow-for-blow. He’s already imposed retaliatory duties targeting Trump’s base including Iowa soybeans and Kentucky bourbon.
Yet matching the latest U.S. barrage would force China to either levy much higher tariffs or take more disruptive steps like canceling purchase orders, encouraging consumer boycotts and putting up regulatory hurdles. Not only does that risk provoking Trump to follow through on threats to tax virtually all Chinese products, it could unleash nationalist sentiment on both sides that fuels a deeper struggle for geopolitical dominance.
Trump on Wednesday framed his trade actions as necessary to shield American businesses and farmers from harmful trading practices.
“Other countries’ trade barriers and tariffs have been destroying their businesses. I will open things up, better than ever before, but it can’t go too quickly,” Trump said in a Twitter post from Brussels, where he’s attending a NATO summit. “I am fighting for a level playing field for our farmers, and will win!”
“It’s already past the point of no return,” said Pauline Loong, managing director at research firm Asia-Analytica in Hong Kong. “What’s next is not so much a trade war or even a cold war as the dawn of an ice age in relations between China and the United States.”
Read more on the escalating conflict Handbags and Cameras Hit as Trump Tariffs Target Consumers
You Have a Month to Comment on Bull Semen, Vegetable Hair Tariff
Trump Must Meet Xi to Stop Trade War, Top House Republican Says
Those Cheap Chinese TVs? They May Just Get a Lot More Expensive
Stocks fell and commodities slid with emerging-market assets Wednesday as investors assessed the fallout. The S&P 500 Index ended the longest rally in a month and the Stoxx Europe 600 Index retreated. While earlier tariffs were expected to have only a limited impact, economists warn a full-blown trade war could derail the strongest economic upswing in years.
The Chinese Commerce Ministry said Tuesday that it would be forced to retaliate against what it called “ totally unacceptable” U.S. tariffs. There have been no confirmed high-level talks between the two sides since an early June visit to Beijing by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that achieved no breakthroughs.
Beijing “never yields to threat or blackmail” and will retaliate against the “groundless” tariffs, China’s Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen said in written comments to Bloomberg. “The U.S. side ignored the progress, adopted unilateral and protectionist measures, and started the trade war.”
What Our Economists Say... “As the targeted imports broaden to include more consumer products, a hit to household wallets and a bump to inflation could start to shift the political calculus in the U.S.,” said Bloomberg’s China economist Fielding Chen.
The Aug. 30 date ensures the trade fight features prominently in November’s U.S. congressional elections, and the announcement exposed fissures between Trump and his Republican Party about the strategy. House Ways and Means Committee chief Kevin Brady, of Texas, warned of “a long, multi-year trade war between the two largest economies in the world that engulfs more and more of the globe.”
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, of Utah, called the new levies “reckless” and not “targeted.” Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said he had a “great deal of concern” about the trade spat with China and the level of uncertainty it’s creating among farmers and businesses in his state.“When you don’t know what’s going to be the outcome, it’s very uncertain, and it’s had a definite impact,” he told Bloomberg Television. “How long is this going to go on? I hope we can settle pretty soon.”
Read more: Some tariffs apply to flows that don’t exist
The latest move suggests that Trump -- who in March declared that “trade wars are good and easy to win” -- may be compromising on his pledge to spare consumers from the pain. The tariffs could raise the prices of everything from baseball gloves to handbags to digital cameras just as voters are heading to the polls. Other high-profile items such as mobile phones have so far been spared.
Unfair Practices
The U.S. felt it had no choice, but to move forward on the new tariffs after China failed to respond to the administration’s concerns over unfair trade practices and Beijing’s abuse of American intellectual property, according to two senior officials who spoke to reporters. The Trump administration has so far rejected Chinese offers to trim its massive trade surplus by buying more American goods, and is demanding more systemic change.
“For over a year, the Trump administration has patiently urged China to stop its unfair practices, open its market, and engage in true market competition,” Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement. “China has not changed its behavior -- behavior that puts the future of the U.S. economy at risk.”
Although the looming elections provide an immediate concern for Trump, a trade war poses a more existential concern for Xi, whose Communist Party has built its legitimacy on economic success. Prominent academics and some government officials have begun to question if China’s slowing, trade-dependent economy can withstand a sustained attack from Trump, which has already weighed heavily on stock prices.
Among other things, the U.S. is asking China to roll back its “Made-in-China 2025” program, a signature Xi initiative to dominate several strategic industries, such as semiconductors to aerospace development. Since abolishing presidential term limits, Xi has strengthened his control over the levers of power and money in China and can’t afford to look weak.
“China is showing no signs of backing down and instead looks like it is preparing for a drawn out conflict,” said Scott Kennedy, deputy director of China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “China has a million and one ways to retaliate.”
— With assistance by Jenny Leonard, Andrew Mayeda, Bryce Baschuk, and Kevin Cirilli
|
www.bloomberg.com
| 2center
|
PnVV1v7F0D8bhd5X
|
terrorism
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/16/top-general-foley-rescue-highest-risk-mission-ever/
|
Top general: Failed Foley rescue was ‘highest-risk mission’ ever
|
2014-09-16
|
Stephen Dinan
|
The Pentagon ’ s top general said Tuesday that the failed special forces mission to rescue James Foley and other hostages being kept by Islamic State militants was the toughest he ’ s ever seen .
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , didn ’ t go into details , but said the effort expended should answer some of the criticisms raised that the U.S. government didn ’ t do enough to try to get hostages released .
“ That was the most complex , highest-risk mission we ’ ve ever taken , ” the Army general said .
Foley , a reporter captured in 2012 , was beheaded by an Islamic State terrorist in a brutal execution the militants filmed and released on the Internet on Aug. 19 .
Foley ’ s parents have complained that the U.S. government didn ’ t communicate with them about steps that were being taken to try to free him , and said they were told they could be prosecuted if they tried to pay a ransom .
While Gen. Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wouldn ’ t go into details of the rescue mission , they said it showed they were trying to do something .
“ We have some limitations in our ability to collect intelligence inside Syria , but when we had the opportunity to do so , we tried to get ‘ em , ” Gen. Dempsey said .
Mr. Hagel said that while there are boundaries to what the U.S. can do , including a strict policy that the country does not pay ransoms , officials could do a better job of “ dealing with families and the human part of this . ”
During the mission , which reportedly took place earlier in the summer , special operations forces slipped into Syria but were unable to locate Foley or other hostages , who had apparently been moved in the time since the last intelligence the U.S. had .
Some military officials have reportedly second-guessed President Obama ’ s decision-making , with one report saying that his hesitation to give the go-ahead reduced the chances for success .
The White House , though , said Mr. Obama gave the go-ahead as soon as they believed the mission could be carried out successfully .
Islamic State militants have also killed American journalist Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines . But another American reporter , Peter Theo Curtis , was released late last month , apparently by the Nusra Front , an al Qaeda-linked group .
|
The Pentagon’s top general said Tuesday that the failed special forces mission to rescue James Foley and other hostages being kept by Islamic State militants was the toughest he’s ever seen.
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, didn’t go into details, but said the effort expended should answer some of the criticisms raised that the U.S. government didn’t do enough to try to get hostages released.
“That was the most complex, highest-risk mission we’ve ever taken,” the Army general said.
Foley, a reporter captured in 2012, was beheaded by an Islamic State terrorist in a brutal execution the militants filmed and released on the Internet on Aug. 19.
Foley’s parents have complained that the U.S. government didn’t communicate with them about steps that were being taken to try to free him, and said they were told they could be prosecuted if they tried to pay a ransom.
While Gen. Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wouldn’t go into details of the rescue mission, they said it showed they were trying to do something.
“We have some limitations in our ability to collect intelligence inside Syria, but when we had the opportunity to do so, we tried to get ‘em,” Gen. Dempsey said.
Mr. Hagel said that while there are boundaries to what the U.S. can do, including a strict policy that the country does not pay ransoms, officials could do a better job of “dealing with families and the human part of this.”
During the mission, which reportedly took place earlier in the summer, special operations forces slipped into Syria but were unable to locate Foley or other hostages, who had apparently been moved in the time since the last intelligence the U.S. had.
Some military officials have reportedly second-guessed President Obama’s decision-making, with one report saying that his hesitation to give the go-ahead reduced the chances for success.
The White House, though, said Mr. Obama gave the go-ahead as soon as they believed the mission could be carried out successfully.
Islamic State militants have also killed American journalist Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines. But another American reporter, Peter Theo Curtis, was released late last month, apparently by the Nusra Front, an al Qaeda-linked group.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
pZlutCuZNm832qqK
|
nsa
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/world/europe/russia-snowden/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
Edward Snowden won't be pressured to end asylum, Russia says
|
2014-01-24
|
Elise Labott, Mariano Castillo
|
Story highlights A Russian lawmaker says Russia will not push Snowden out
Snowden wants to return home , but he wants protection from prosecution
Edward Snowden may stay in Russia longer than first thought .
Snowden has said the time is n't right for him to return to the United States , where he could face criminal charges for leaking classified information . Russia gave him asylum for a year .
Now Russia says it will continue to extend asylum protections to Snowden and wo n't send him back home .
That word came Friday from Alexy Pushkov , a legislator who is head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Duma , Russia 's lower house . He spoke about Snowden at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .
Russia 's position basically buys Snowden more time as he mulls his next move .
JUST WATCHED Edward Snowden responds to CNN Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Edward Snowden responds to CNN 01:45
JUST WATCHED A DOJ deal for Edward Snowden ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH A DOJ deal for Edward Snowden ? 04:56
JUST WATCHED Atty Gen. Holder discusses Snowden case Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Atty Gen. Holder discusses Snowden case 01:36
Snowden has said he wants to return home but also wants whistle-blower protection . The U.S. government , meanwhile , says it will not offer clemency .
In an online chat Thursday , Snowden said that returning to the U.S. `` is the best resolution for all parties , '' but `` it 's unfortunately not possible in the face of current whistle-blower protection laws . ''
He pointed out that the U.S. government 's Whistleblower Protection Act does n't cover someone like him , a former government contractor .
`` There are so many holes in the laws , the protections they afford are so weak , and the processes for reporting they provide are so ineffective that they appear to be intended to discourage reporting of even the clearest wrongdoing , '' he wrote . `` ... My case clearly demonstrates the need for comprehensive whistle-blower protection act reform . ''
Snowden offered his remarks from Russia , where he 's been since June , having been granted a one-year asylum . Pushkov 's remarks appear to open the door to an extension of that asylum .
The U.S. government has n't stayed silent on his case , either .
On Thursday , around the time that Snowden was answering questions online , Attorney General Eric Holder said that `` if Mr. Snowden wanted to come back to the United States and enter a plea , we would engage with his lawyers . ''
The government would take the same tack with anyone willing to plead guilty , Holder said at an event at the University of Virginia 's Miller Center .
But in Snowden 's case , the attorney general insisted , `` Clemency is n't something that we ( are ) willing to consider . ''
|
Story highlights A Russian lawmaker says Russia will not push Snowden out
Snowden wants to return home, but he wants protection from prosecution
The U.S. government says clemency is not an option
Edward Snowden may stay in Russia longer than first thought.
Snowden has said the time isn't right for him to return to the United States, where he could face criminal charges for leaking classified information. Russia gave him asylum for a year.
Now Russia says it will continue to extend asylum protections to Snowden and won't send him back home.
That word came Friday from Alexy Pushkov, a legislator who is head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Duma, Russia's lower house. He spoke about Snowden at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Russia's position basically buys Snowden more time as he mulls his next move.
JUST WATCHED Edward Snowden responds to CNN Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Edward Snowden responds to CNN 01:45
JUST WATCHED A DOJ deal for Edward Snowden? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH A DOJ deal for Edward Snowden? 04:56
JUST WATCHED Atty Gen. Holder discusses Snowden case Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Atty Gen. Holder discusses Snowden case 01:36
Snowden has said he wants to return home but also wants whistle-blower protection. The U.S. government, meanwhile, says it will not offer clemency.
In an online chat Thursday, Snowden said that returning to the U.S. "is the best resolution for all parties," but "it's unfortunately not possible in the face of current whistle-blower protection laws."
He pointed out that the U.S. government's Whistleblower Protection Act doesn't cover someone like him, a former government contractor.
"There are so many holes in the laws, the protections they afford are so weak, and the processes for reporting they provide are so ineffective that they appear to be intended to discourage reporting of even the clearest wrongdoing," he wrote. "... My case clearly demonstrates the need for comprehensive whistle-blower protection act reform."
Snowden offered his remarks from Russia, where he's been since June, having been granted a one-year asylum. Pushkov's remarks appear to open the door to an extension of that asylum.
The U.S. government hasn't stayed silent on his case, either.
On Thursday, around the time that Snowden was answering questions online, Attorney General Eric Holder said that "if Mr. Snowden wanted to come back to the United States and enter a plea, we would engage with his lawyers."
The government would take the same tack with anyone willing to plead guilty, Holder said at an event at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
But in Snowden's case, the attorney general insisted, "Clemency isn't something that we (are) willing to consider."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
VCAqVCCkTWioWWLE
|
capital_punishment_and_death_penalty
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/18/iran-happy-dancers-sentenced-to-1-lashes-jail/
|
Iran's 'Happy' dancers sentenced to 91 lashes, jail
|
2014-09-18
|
Lisa Daftari
|
Iran 's latest crackdown on freedom includes lashes and prison for seven young adults who posted a video of themselves dancing to the American pop hit `` Happy '' and a death sentence for a blogger accused of insulting Prophet Muhammad .
The seven men and women were arrested in May , but then released after self-professed `` moderate '' President Hassan Rouhani tweeted that the regime should lighten up . But the group was forced nonetheless to apologize on television and endure a trial in which they were convicted and each sentenced to 91 lashes . One was given a full year in prison while the others got six months , although their attorney told Iranwire.com the sentences were suspended .
“ A suspended sentence becomes null and void after a certain period of time , ” attorney Farshid Rofugaran said . For the Happy Group , that period will be three years . “ When it ’ s a suspended sentence , the verdict is not carried out , but if during this period a similar offense is committed , then the accused is subject to legal punishment and the suspended sentence will then be carried out as well . ”
The video was part of a global campaign launched by pop star Pharrell Williams and was viewed by more than 100,000 people on YouTube . The six who appeared on the video and a man who shot the footage apologized and said they had been tricked into doing it . After the confession , they were released on bail .
“ We can accept the verdict or appeal , ” said Rofugaran , adding that his clients are not banned from leaving the country .
Meanwhile , the ultimate penalty was handed down to Soheil Arabi , a blogger found guilty of insulting the Prophet Muhammad in his postings on Facebook . The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran reported that Arabi will be able to appeal the decision .
Revolutionary Guard agents arrested Arabi , 30 , and his wife last November . Arabi 's wife was released a few hours later , but Arabi was kept in solitary confinement for two months inside the notorious Evin Prison before being found guilty of “ sabb al-nabi ” ( insulting the Prophet ) , on Aug. 30 .
“ Soheil had eight Facebook pages under different names , and he was charged with insulting the Imams and the Prophet because of the contents of those pages . He has accepted his charges , but throughout the trial , he stated that he wrote the material without thinking and in poor psychological condition , ” a source told the Campaign .
|
Iran's latest crackdown on freedom includes lashes and prison for seven young adults who posted a video of themselves dancing to the American pop hit "Happy" and a death sentence for a blogger accused of insulting Prophet Muhammad.
The seven men and women were arrested in May, but then released after self-professed "moderate" President Hassan Rouhani tweeted that the regime should lighten up. But the group was forced nonetheless to apologize on television and endure a trial in which they were convicted and each sentenced to 91 lashes. One was given a full year in prison while the others got six months, although their attorney told Iranwire.com the sentences were suspended.
“A suspended sentence becomes null and void after a certain period of time,” attorney Farshid Rofugaran said. For the Happy Group, that period will be three years. “When it’s a suspended sentence, the verdict is not carried out, but if during this period a similar offense is committed, then the accused is subject to legal punishment and the suspended sentence will then be carried out as well.”
The video was part of a global campaign launched by pop star Pharrell Williams and was viewed by more than 100,000 people on YouTube. The six who appeared on the video and a man who shot the footage apologized and said they had been tricked into doing it. After the confession, they were released on bail.
“We can accept the verdict or appeal,” said Rofugaran, adding that his clients are not banned from leaving the country.
Meanwhile, the ultimate penalty was handed down to Soheil Arabi, a blogger found guilty of insulting the Prophet Muhammad in his postings on Facebook. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran reported that Arabi will be able to appeal the decision.
Revolutionary Guard agents arrested Arabi, 30, and his wife last November. Arabi's wife was released a few hours later, but Arabi was kept in solitary confinement for two months inside the notorious Evin Prison before being found guilty of “sabb al-nabi” (insulting the Prophet), on Aug. 30.
“Soheil had eight Facebook pages under different names, and he was charged with insulting the Imams and the Prophet because of the contents of those pages. He has accepted his charges, but throughout the trial, he stated that he wrote the material without thinking and in poor psychological condition,” a source told the Campaign.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
7QcjilFOQGEhuaEP
|
elections
|
Associated Press
| 11
|
https://www.apnews.com/9628a151610840dd93c3b0e3e65ecf9b
|
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans demand governor resign
|
2019-07-22
|
Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin , front atop truck , participates with other local celebrities in a protest demanding the resignation of governor Ricardo Rossello in San Juan , Puerto Rico , Monday , July 22 , 2019 . Protesters are demanding Rossello step down for his involvement in a private chat in which he used profanities to describe an ex-New York City councilwoman and a federal control board overseeing the island 's finance . ( AP Photo/Carlos Giusti )
Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin , front atop truck , participates with other local celebrities in a protest demanding the resignation of governor Ricardo Rossello in San Juan , Puerto Rico , Monday , July 22 , 2019 . Protesters are demanding Rossello step down for his involvement in a private chat in which he used profanities to describe an ex-New York City councilwoman and a federal control board overseeing the island 's finance . ( AP Photo/Carlos Giusti )
SAN JUAN , Puerto Rico ( AP ) — Waving flags , chanting and banging pots and pans , tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans jammed a highway Monday to demand the resignation of Gov . Ricardo Rosselló in a crisis triggered by a leak of offensive , obscenity-laden chat messages between him and his advisers .
The demonstration appeared to be the biggest protest on the island in nearly two decades .
“ Finally , the government ’ s mask has fallen , ” said Jannice Rivera , a 43-year-old mechanical engineer who lives in Houston but was born and raised in Puerto Rico and flew in to join the crowds .
The protest came 10 days after the leak of 889 pages of online chats in which Rosselló and some of his close aides insulted women and mocked constituents , including victims of Hurricane Maria .
The leak has intensified long-smoldering anger in the U.S. territory over persistent corruption and mismanagement by the island ’ s two main political parties , a severe debt crisis , a sickly economy and a slow recovery from Maria , which devastated Puerto Rico in September 2017 .
“ The people have awakened after so much outrage , ” said 69-year-old retired nurse Benedicta Villegas . “ There are still people without roofs and highways without lights . The chat was the tip of the iceberg . ”
The crowd surged along the Americas Expressway despite the punishing heat — toddlers , teenagers , professionals and the elderly , all dripping in sweat and smiling as they waved Puerto Rico flags large and small and hoisted signs .
“ This is to show that the people respect themselves , ” said Ana Carrasquillo , 26 . “ We ’ ve put up with corruption for so many years . ”
In an interview Monday with Fox News , Rosselló said that he will not resign and that he is focused on tackling corruption and helping the island recover from Maria .
“ I ’ m making amends , ” he said . “ I ’ ve apologized for all the comments that I made on the chat . ”
On Sunday evening , Rosselló , a Democrat , sought to calm the unrest by promising not to seek re-election in 2020 or continue as head of his pro-statehood New Progressive Party . That only further angered his critics , who have mounted street demonstrations for more than a week .
“ The people are not going to go away , ” said Johanna Soto , of the city of Carolina . “ That ’ s what he ’ s hoping for , but we outnumber him . ”
Asked who was advising Rosselló on staying in office , Rosselló ‘ s secretary of public affairs , Anthony Maceira , said the governor was speaking with his family , and “ that carries a great weight. ” Rosselló ’ s father , Pedro , was governor from 1993 to 2001 .
The biggest newspaper in this territory of more than 3 million American citizens , El Nuevo Dia , added to the pressure with the front-page headline : “ Governor , it ’ s time to listen to the people : You have to resign . ”
Asked whether the governor should step down , President Donald Trump said that Rosselló is a “ terrible ” governor and that hurricane relief money sent to Puerto Rico has been “ squandered , wasted and stolen ” and the island ’ s top leadership is “ totally , grossly incompetent . ”
The demonstrations represent the biggest protest movement on the island since Puerto Ricans rallied to put an end to U.S. Navy training on the island of Vieques more than 15 years ago .
Monday was the 10th consecutive day of protests , and more are being called for later in the week . The island ’ s largest mall , Plaza de las Américas , closed ahead of the protest , as did dozens of other businesses . The upheaval also prompted at least four cruise ships to cancel visits to Puerto Rico .
The crisis has stirred fears about the effects on the already fragile economy .
Puerto Rico is struggling to restructure part of its $ 70 billion in debt under federal supervision and deal with a 13-year recession through school closings , cutbacks in infrastructure maintenance and other austerity measures .
At the same time , the island is trying to rebuild from Maria , which caused more than $ 100 billion in damage , threw Puerto Rico into a year-long blackout and left thousands dead , most of them succumbing during the sweltering aftermath .
The island has also seen a recent string of arrests of Puerto Rico officials on corruption charges . Those arrested included the former education secretary .
|
Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin, front atop truck, participates with other local celebrities in a protest demanding the resignation of governor Ricardo Rossello in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Monday, July 22, 2019. Protesters are demanding Rossello step down for his involvement in a private chat in which he used profanities to describe an ex-New York City councilwoman and a federal control board overseeing the island's finance. (AP Photo/Carlos Giusti)
Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin, front atop truck, participates with other local celebrities in a protest demanding the resignation of governor Ricardo Rossello in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Monday, July 22, 2019. Protesters are demanding Rossello step down for his involvement in a private chat in which he used profanities to describe an ex-New York City councilwoman and a federal control board overseeing the island's finance. (AP Photo/Carlos Giusti)
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Waving flags, chanting and banging pots and pans, tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans jammed a highway Monday to demand the resignation of Gov. Ricardo Rosselló in a crisis triggered by a leak of offensive, obscenity-laden chat messages between him and his advisers.
The demonstration appeared to be the biggest protest on the island in nearly two decades.
“Finally, the government’s mask has fallen,” said Jannice Rivera, a 43-year-old mechanical engineer who lives in Houston but was born and raised in Puerto Rico and flew in to join the crowds.
The protest came 10 days after the leak of 889 pages of online chats in which Rosselló and some of his close aides insulted women and mocked constituents, including victims of Hurricane Maria.
The leak has intensified long-smoldering anger in the U.S. territory over persistent corruption and mismanagement by the island’s two main political parties, a severe debt crisis, a sickly economy and a slow recovery from Maria, which devastated Puerto Rico in September 2017.
“The people have awakened after so much outrage,” said 69-year-old retired nurse Benedicta Villegas. “There are still people without roofs and highways without lights. The chat was the tip of the iceberg.”
The crowd surged along the Americas Expressway despite the punishing heat — toddlers, teenagers, professionals and the elderly, all dripping in sweat and smiling as they waved Puerto Rico flags large and small and hoisted signs.
“This is to show that the people respect themselves,” said Ana Carrasquillo, 26. “We’ve put up with corruption for so many years.”
In an interview Monday with Fox News, Rosselló said that he will not resign and that he is focused on tackling corruption and helping the island recover from Maria.
“I’m making amends,” he said. “I’ve apologized for all the comments that I made on the chat.”
On Sunday evening, Rosselló, a Democrat, sought to calm the unrest by promising not to seek re-election in 2020 or continue as head of his pro-statehood New Progressive Party. That only further angered his critics, who have mounted street demonstrations for more than a week.
“The people are not going to go away,” said Johanna Soto, of the city of Carolina. “That’s what he’s hoping for, but we outnumber him.”
Asked who was advising Rosselló on staying in office, Rosselló‘s secretary of public affairs, Anthony Maceira, said the governor was speaking with his family, and “that carries a great weight.” Rosselló’s father, Pedro, was governor from 1993 to 2001.
The biggest newspaper in this territory of more than 3 million American citizens, El Nuevo Dia, added to the pressure with the front-page headline: “Governor, it’s time to listen to the people: You have to resign.”
Asked whether the governor should step down, President Donald Trump said that Rosselló is a “terrible” governor and that hurricane relief money sent to Puerto Rico has been “squandered, wasted and stolen” and the island’s top leadership is “totally, grossly incompetent.”
The demonstrations represent the biggest protest movement on the island since Puerto Ricans rallied to put an end to U.S. Navy training on the island of Vieques more than 15 years ago.
Monday was the 10th consecutive day of protests, and more are being called for later in the week. The island’s largest mall, Plaza de las Américas, closed ahead of the protest, as did dozens of other businesses. The upheaval also prompted at least four cruise ships to cancel visits to Puerto Rico.
The crisis has stirred fears about the effects on the already fragile economy.
Puerto Rico is struggling to restructure part of its $70 billion in debt under federal supervision and deal with a 13-year recession through school closings, cutbacks in infrastructure maintenance and other austerity measures.
At the same time, the island is trying to rebuild from Maria, which caused more than $100 billion in damage, threw Puerto Rico into a year-long blackout and left thousands dead, most of them succumbing during the sweltering aftermath.
The island has also seen a recent string of arrests of Puerto Rico officials on corruption charges. Those arrested included the former education secretary.
|
www.apnews.com
| 2center
|
JzHvoMfYCFcIVboO
|
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/15/democrats-to-romney-stop-whining-over-felony-remark/
|
Democrats to Romney: 'Stop whining' over felony remark
|
2012-07-15
|
( CNN ) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama campaign official that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by listing himself as CEO of Bain Capital after leaving the firm was picked apart Sunday , with Republicans decrying the remark as the worst type of divisive politics and Obama 's team urging its rivals to `` stop whining . ''
Stephanie Cutter , Obama 's deputy campaign manager , originally made the claim Thursday on a conference call .
`` Either Mitt Romney , through his own words and his own signature was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC , which is a felony , or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments , '' Cutter said , responding to a newspaper report that Romney was listed as Bain Capital 's CEO after 1999 , when he has repeatedly said he left the private equity firm .
The significance of Romney 's date of departure centers on companies acquired by Bain that later shipped jobs overseas . Romney claims he left the company before those decisions were made , but Democrats point to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that indicate Romney was still listed as the firm 's CEO .
Cutter 's words drew a quick response from Obama 's opponents , who said the suggestion that the presumptive GOP nominee had committed a felony was below the office of the presidency .
Romney himself said in an interview with CNN on Friday that the charge was `` disgusting '' and `` demeaning , '' and called on Obama and his campaign to apologize .
Ed Gillespie , a senior adviser to Romney , echoed that sentiment on Sunday , saying on CNN the charges reflected a `` say anything '' stance adopted by the president 's campaign .
`` We now know that this president will say anything to keep this highest office in the land , even if it means demeaning the highest office in the land , '' Gillespie said .
And Kevin Madden , newly appointed to a more senior role on Romney 's team , said on CBS that the felony suggestion was out of line .
`` I think it is very troubling that the president would direct this campaign to label someone like Gov . Romney , who is a very good and honorable man , as a felon . That 's very troubling , '' Madden said .
Cutter , sitting next to Madden on the CBS set , said she was not calling Romney a felon , but merely stating the Bain documents , if misrepresentative of his role at the company , would amount to a felony . She refused to apologize for the remark .
`` He 's not going to get an apology , '' Cutter said . `` Just a few months ago in the primary Mitt Romney said to his opponents - who were crushing him at the time – 'stop whining . ' And that 's a good message for the Romney campaign . Instead of whining about what the Obama campaign is saying , just put the facts out there and let people decide rather than trying to hide them . ''
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel , who left his post as Obama 's chief of staff in 2010 to run in the mayoral election , had similar advice for the Republican candidate .
`` Give it up about Stephanie . Do n't worry about that , '' Emanuel said on ABC . `` What are you going to do when a China president says something about you ? Stop whining . If you want to claim Bain Capital as your calling card for the White House , defend what happened to Bain Capital and what happened to those jobs that went overseas , those jobs that were actually cut and eliminated . ''
|
7 years ago
(CNN) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama campaign official that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by listing himself as CEO of Bain Capital after leaving the firm was picked apart Sunday, with Republicans decrying the remark as the worst type of divisive politics and Obama's team urging its rivals to "stop whining."
Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, originally made the claim Thursday on a conference call.
"Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments," Cutter said, responding to a newspaper report that Romney was listed as Bain Capital's CEO after 1999, when he has repeatedly said he left the private equity firm.
The significance of Romney's date of departure centers on companies acquired by Bain that later shipped jobs overseas. Romney claims he left the company before those decisions were made, but Democrats point to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that indicate Romney was still listed as the firm's CEO.
Cutter's words drew a quick response from Obama's opponents, who said the suggestion that the presumptive GOP nominee had committed a felony was below the office of the presidency.
Romney himself said in an interview with CNN on Friday that the charge was "disgusting" and "demeaning," and called on Obama and his campaign to apologize.
Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Romney, echoed that sentiment on Sunday, saying on CNN the charges reflected a "say anything" stance adopted by the president's campaign.
"We now know that this president will say anything to keep this highest office in the land, even if it means demeaning the highest office in the land," Gillespie said.
And Kevin Madden, newly appointed to a more senior role on Romney's team, said on CBS that the felony suggestion was out of line.
"I think it is very troubling that the president would direct this campaign to label someone like Gov. Romney, who is a very good and honorable man, as a felon. That's very troubling," Madden said.
Cutter, sitting next to Madden on the CBS set, said she was not calling Romney a felon, but merely stating the Bain documents, if misrepresentative of his role at the company, would amount to a felony. She refused to apologize for the remark.
"He's not going to get an apology," Cutter said. "Just a few months ago in the primary Mitt Romney said to his opponents - who were crushing him at the time – 'stop whining.' And that's a good message for the Romney campaign. Instead of whining about what the Obama campaign is saying, just put the facts out there and let people decide rather than trying to hide them."
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who left his post as Obama's chief of staff in 2010 to run in the mayoral election, had similar advice for the Republican candidate.
"Give it up about Stephanie. Don't worry about that," Emanuel said on ABC. "What are you going to do when a China president says something about you? Stop whining. If you want to claim Bain Capital as your calling card for the White House, defend what happened to Bain Capital and what happened to those jobs that went overseas, those jobs that were actually cut and eliminated."
|
www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
| 0left
|
fTISZrMaZG2aEQgA
|
|
elections
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/09/06/dnc_wednesday_fluke_warren_clinton
|
DNC Wednesday: Clinton's Endless Obama Endorsement
|
2012-09-06
|
Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, "Cortney OBrien", Timothy Meads
|
CHARLOTTE , NC - Round two of the 2012 DNC is finally complete , following an interminable stemwinder from former President Bill Clinton . A few thoughts on the evening : Prior to the 10pm ET hour , the convention lineup was wholly unremarkable . Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer both spoke for the second time this week . Why ? These speeches lasted nearly six-and-a-half hours in total . Were retreads necessary ? In any case , we heard from more abortion proponents , several union bosses , and a long list of unremarkable politicians . It was tedious in the extreme , especially the mindless Bain demagoguery . On to my `` prime '' prime-time grades :
Sandra Fluke : D. The thirtysomething recent law grad gave a surly and self-pitying speech about birth control and abortion . This is a young woman whose claim to fame is demanding that the Catholic school she chose to attend be coerced by the federal government to cast aside their beliefs and pay for her `` free '' birth control . She cast herself as a courageous victim , repeatedly knocking Mitt Romney for refusing to stand up for her after Rush Limbaugh called her a name . Absolutely pitiful . Her demagoguery about women `` dying '' under the Romney/Ryan plan was unseemly , crass , and befitting her pathetic 15 minutes of fame . Sandra Fluke may be a hero to some liberals , but I ca n't imagine she has even an ounce of appeal to most average people . Democratic commentator Kirsten Powers was decidedly unimpressed with Fluke 's whole schtick .
Jim Sinegal : N/A . The former CEO of Costco 's job was to convince people that Democrats are good for business . His speech was dull and so unmemorable that I have no meaningful analysis to offer .
Elizabeth Warren : C. The Harvard Law professor led the class warfare fight tonight , as is her wont . We do everything `` together , '' the system 's `` rigged , '' etc . She called ( surprise ! ) for much higher levels of government `` investment '' in practically all imaginable sectors . As the author of the original `` you did n't build that '' riff , her message was characteristic and reprehensible . Her delivery was slightly improved and she remembered to smile -- so marks for that , I guess . Interestingly , Warren did n't mention her `` heritage . '' Weird , right ?
Bill Clinton : B+ . It was good . It should have been shorter . If it had , it would have been significantly better . The former president spoke for 48 minutes ; he was reportedly allotted 20-25 minutes . Clinton made the best case available to Obama backers , basically : Things were really bad , he inherited an impossible problem , he 's done as well as anyone possibly could have , things are starting to get better , he 's a good guy , and he needs more time . This argument rests on the hope that voters will believe that they 're better off under Obama and that his policies have not been counter-productive . Tough sledding , but Clinton 's a word wizard . He spun a compelling yarn . He took a risk , though , by ignoring his own pollsters ' advice by crossing into Obama economy happy talk a little too often . Clinton also engaged in a lot of Republican blaming , slightly leavened by a few kind words about his Republican predecessor and successor . He repeated the `` GOP obstructionism '' trope without any acknowledgement of Democrats ' massive majorities for two full years , nor any recognition that the American people elected Republicans in a landslide in 2010 explicitly to slam the brakes on the Obama agenda . After moving through the ( effective ) heart of his remarks , Clinton decided to play fact-checker-in-chief . This is where he wandered . He addressed a litany of Republican arguments and policies , erecting and destroying straw men along the way . His `` arithmetic , '' as he called it , was tendentious and incomplete . Indeed , he repeated many of the claims FactCheck.org dealt with this morning . He talked , and talked , and talked -- on the economy , on healthcare , on Medicare , on the debt , and on welfare reform ( speaking of which , read this and this ) . His mind is still sharp and his political instincts are still keen , but Clinton strayed from the script too often and overstayed his welcome . Not in this hall , of course . The partisan crowd lapped up every last word . But at home . If his address had been shaved down to 30 or even 35 minutes , it would have been dynamite . It was still quite good . The guy loves to talk , and he 's pretty fun to listen to . In the end , Bill Clinton made the most effective sales pitch for `` four more years '' we 've heard at this convention . Did people stick it out through he whole marathon , or were they watching football ? The image of the night was Obama striding on stage to hug Clinton as the pair basked in the crowd 's adulation . Obama wants voters to almost imagine Clinton as his running mate , thus appropriating the 42nd president 's record and enduring good will . Obama 's counting on Clinton 's decade-old legacy to save him from his own .
Odds and Ends : The media is eager to move past today 's floor debacle , so they 'll pump a `` back on track , thanks to a masterful Clinton performance ! '' narrative . Clinton salvaged a lackluster 10pm hour ( and session , really ) then dragged it well into the next . Clinton 's star power and strong endorsement certainly helped Obama ; the rest of the night , not so much .
|
CHARLOTTE, NC - Round two of the 2012 DNC is finally complete, following an interminable stemwinder from former President Bill Clinton. A few thoughts on the evening: Prior to the 10pm ET hour, the convention lineup was wholly unremarkable. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer both spoke for the second time this week. Why? These speeches lasted nearly six-and-a-half hours in total. Were retreads necessary? In any case, we heard from more abortion proponents, several union bosses, and a long list of unremarkable politicians. It was tedious in the extreme, especially the mindless Bain demagoguery. On to my "prime" prime-time grades:
Sandra Fluke: D. The thirtysomething recent law grad gave a surly and self-pitying speech about birth control and abortion. This is a young woman whose claim to fame is demanding that the Catholic school she chose to attend be coerced by the federal government to cast aside their beliefs and pay for her "free" birth control. She cast herself as a courageous victim, repeatedly knocking Mitt Romney for refusing to stand up for her after Rush Limbaugh called her a name. Absolutely pitiful. Her demagoguery about women "dying" under the Romney/Ryan plan was unseemly, crass, and befitting her pathetic 15 minutes of fame. Sandra Fluke may be a hero to some liberals, but I can't imagine she has even an ounce of appeal to most average people. Democratic commentator Kirsten Powers was decidedly unimpressed with Fluke's whole schtick.
Jim Sinegal: N/A. The former CEO of Costco's job was to convince people that Democrats are good for business. His speech was dull and so unmemorable that I have no meaningful analysis to offer.
Elizabeth Warren: C. The Harvard Law professor led the class warfare fight tonight, as is her wont. We do everything "together," the system's "rigged," etc. She called (surprise!) for much higher levels of government "investment" in practically all imaginable sectors. As the author of the original "you didn't build that" riff, her message was characteristic and reprehensible. Her delivery was slightly improved and she remembered to smile -- so marks for that, I guess. Interestingly, Warren didn't mention her "heritage." Weird, right?
Bill Clinton: B+. It was good. It should have been shorter. If it had, it would have been significantly better. The former president spoke for 48 minutes; he was reportedly allotted 20-25 minutes. Clinton made the best case available to Obama backers, basically: Things were really bad, he inherited an impossible problem, he's done as well as anyone possibly could have, things are starting to get better, he's a good guy, and he needs more time. This argument rests on the hope that voters will believe that they're better off under Obama and that his policies have not been counter-productive. Tough sledding, but Clinton's a word wizard. He spun a compelling yarn. He took a risk, though, by ignoring his own pollsters' advice by crossing into Obama economy happy talk a little too often. Clinton also engaged in a lot of Republican blaming, slightly leavened by a few kind words about his Republican predecessor and successor. He repeated the "GOP obstructionism" trope without any acknowledgement of Democrats' massive majorities for two full years, nor any recognition that the American people elected Republicans in a landslide in 2010 explicitly to slam the brakes on the Obama agenda. After moving through the (effective) heart of his remarks, Clinton decided to play fact-checker-in-chief. This is where he wandered. He addressed a litany of Republican arguments and policies, erecting and destroying straw men along the way. His "arithmetic," as he called it, was tendentious and incomplete. Indeed, he repeated many of the claims FactCheck.org dealt with this morning. He talked, and talked, and talked -- on the economy, on healthcare, on Medicare, on the debt, and on welfare reform (speaking of which, read this and this). His mind is still sharp and his political instincts are still keen, but Clinton strayed from the script too often and overstayed his welcome. Not in this hall, of course. The partisan crowd lapped up every last word. But at home. If his address had been shaved down to 30 or even 35 minutes, it would have been dynamite. It was still quite good. The guy loves to talk, and he's pretty fun to listen to. In the end, Bill Clinton made the most effective sales pitch for "four more years" we've heard at this convention. Did people stick it out through he whole marathon, or were they watching football? The image of the night was Obama striding on stage to hug Clinton as the pair basked in the crowd's adulation. Obama wants voters to almost imagine Clinton as his running mate, thus appropriating the 42nd president's record and enduring good will. Obama's counting on Clinton's decade-old legacy to save him from his own.
Odds and Ends: The media is eager to move past today's floor debacle, so they'll pump a "back on track, thanks to a masterful Clinton performance!" narrative. Clinton salvaged a lackluster 10pm hour (and session, really) then dragged it well into the next. Clinton's star power and strong endorsement certainly helped Obama; the rest of the night, not so much.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
PAN7i5rlb0Z6tF1U
|
coronavirus
|
Bloomberg
| 11
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/hospitals-tell-doctors-they-ll-be-fired-if-they-talk-to-press
|
Hospitals Tell Doctors They’ll Be Fired If They Speak Out About Lack of Gear
|
2020-03-31
|
Olivia Carville, Emma Court, Kristen V Brown
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 6:19 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
Hospitals are threatening to fire health-care workers who publicize their working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic -- and have in some cases followed through .
Ming Lin , an emergency room physician in Washington state , said he was told Friday he was out of a job because he ’ d given an interview to a newspaper about a Facebook post detailing what he believed to be inadequate protective equipment and testing . In Chicago , a nurse was fired after emailing colleagues that she wanted to wear a more protective mask while on duty . In New York , the NYU Langone Health system has warned employees they could be terminated if they talk to the media without authorization .
“ Hospitals are muzzling nurses and other health-care workers in an attempt to preserve their image , ” said Ruth Schubert , a spokeswoman for the Washington State Nurses Association . “ It is outrageous . ”
Hospitals have traditionally had strict media guidelines to protect patient privacy , urging staff to talk with journalists only through official public relations offices . But the pandemic has ushered in a new era , Schubert said .
Health-care workers “ must have the ability to tell the public what is really going on inside the facilities where they are caring for Covid-19 patients , ” she said .
One reason is to prepare other nurses and doctors for the looming onslaught of cases and encourage donations of much-needed equipment , particularly the personal protective equipment or PPE that protects them from being infected and in turn infecting other patients as well as their families when they go home .
In China , one of the earliest alarms about the mysterious new illness was raised by a doctor in an online chatroom in late December . He was reprimanded and forced to sign a police statement that the post was illegal . He later contracted the disease from a patient and died .
It ’ s hard to come to grips with the fact that # WhenCoronaVirusIsOver some of us in healthcare will not be standing . And to think that is partially due to a lack of # PPE is infuriating . # GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/id5rrHoQFH — Joseph Sakran ( @ JosephSakran ) March 29 , 2020
“ It is good and appropriate for health-care workers to be able to express their own fears and concerns , especially when expressing that might get them better protection , ” said Glenn Cohen , faculty director of Harvard Law School ’ s bioethics center . It ’ s likely hospitals are trying to limit reputational damage because “ when health-care workers say they are not being protected , the public gets very upset at the hospital system . ”
Doctors are a famously independent profession , where individual medical judgment on what ’ s best for the patient is prized over administrative dictates . That ’ s reared its head during the Covid-19 outbreak , with many physicians , nurses and other health-care workers taking to social media to express deep concerns about the lack of protective gear or much-needed patient-care equipment like respirators . Some posts have gone viral and are being shared hundreds of thousands of times , often tagged with # GetMePPE . Privacy laws prohibit disclosing specific patient information , but they don ’ t bar discussing general working conditions .
After examining a hypoxic woman in her 50s with no medical problems who likely has COVID , I had to clean my single-use face shield that I ’ ve worn the past three days with disinfectant used to clean hospital beds since we ran out of sanitizing wipes # GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/85xQcmc1dN — Ayrenne Adams , MD MPH ( @ AyrenneAdamsMD ) March 28 , 2020
NYU Langone Health employees received a notice Friday from Kathy Lewis , executive vice president of communications , saying that anyone who talked to the media without authorization would be “ subject to disciplinary action , including termination . ”
Jim Mandler , a spokesman for NYU Langone Health , said the policy was to protect patient and staff confidentiality . “ Because information is constantly evolving , it is in the best interest of our staff and the institution that only those with the most updated information are permitted to address these issues with the media . ”
New York ’ s Montefiore Health System requires staff get permission before speaking publicly , and sent a reminder in a March 17 newsletter that all media requests “ must be shared and vetted ” by the public relations department .
“ Associates are not authorized to interact with reporters or speak on behalf of the institution in any capacity , without pre-approval , ” according to the policy , which was seen by ███ News .
Lauri Mazurkiewicz , the Chicago nurse who was fired by Northwestern Memorial Hospital after urging colleagues to wear more protective equipment , has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit .
“ A lot of hospitals are lying to their workers and saying that simple masks are sufficient and nurses are getting sick and they are dying , ” she said .
Mazurkiewicz , 46 , has asthma and cares for her father , who suffers from a respiratory disease . At 75 , he ’ s in one of the most at-risk groups of dying from the virus . “ I didn ’ t want to get infected because I ’ m not wearing the proper mask and then spread it to my patients and my family , ” she said .
A Northwestern Memorial Hospital spokesperson declined to comment , citing the lawsuit . The hospital said in an emailed statement that it “ is committed to the safety of our employees . ”
My babies are too young to read this now . And they ’ d barely recognize me in my gear . But if they lose me to COVID I want them to know Mommy tried really hard to do her job . # GetMePPE # NYC pic.twitter.com/OMew5G7mjK — Cornelia Griggs ( @ CorneliaLG ) March 29 , 2020
Charles Prosper , chief executive of PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center ’ s Northwest network where Lin worked in Bellingham , said in an email that Lin was “ publicly critical ” of the hospital ’ s readiness to deal with patients . Lin ’ s contract is through TeamHealth , which said it ’ s seeking to find him new work .
“ Our oath is to do no harm , ” Lin said . “ I spoke out for patient safety and as a result I got terminated . ”
Not all hospitals are blocking staff from talking to the press . New York ’ s Mount Sinai has been scheduling media interviews for nurses , physicians and trainees to help the public understand the severity of the crisis , a spokesperson said in an emailed statement . The University of California San Francisco Medical Center has gotten hundreds of such calls and encouraged workers to talk to reporters .
Nisha Mehta is a 38-year radiologist from Charlotte , North Carolina , who runs two Facebook groups for physicians with around 70,000 members . She ’ s fielded numerous requests from health-care workers hoping to get their stories into the public arena .
“ I ’ m hearing widespread stories from physicians across the country and they are all saying : ‘ We have these stories that we think are important to get out , but we are being told by our hospital systems that we are not allowed to speak to the press , and if we do so there will be extreme consequences , ” she said .
Many say they get daily emails urging them not to talk to the media under any circumstances . “ The public needs to hear these stories and other physicians need to hear them to be warned against what ’ s coming , ” Mehta said . “ It ’ s so important that everyone understands how bad this is going to get . ”
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 6:19 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
Hospitals are threatening to fire health-care workers who publicize their working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic -- and have in some cases followed through.
Ming Lin, an emergency room physician in Washington state, said he was told Friday he was out of a job because he’d given an interview to a newspaper about a Facebook post detailing what he believed to be inadequate protective equipment and testing. In Chicago, a nurse was fired after emailing colleagues that she wanted to wear a more protective mask while on duty. In New York, the NYU Langone Health system has warned employees they could be terminated if they talk to the media without authorization.
“Hospitals are muzzling nurses and other health-care workers in an attempt to preserve their image,” said Ruth Schubert, a spokeswoman for the Washington State Nurses Association. “It is outrageous.”
Hospitals have traditionally had strict media guidelines to protect patient privacy, urging staff to talk with journalists only through official public relations offices. But the pandemic has ushered in a new era, Schubert said.
Health-care workers “must have the ability to tell the public what is really going on inside the facilities where they are caring for Covid-19 patients,” she said.
Bloomberg News wants to hear from health-care workers on the front lines. Click here to tell us.
One reason is to prepare other nurses and doctors for the looming onslaught of cases and encourage donations of much-needed equipment, particularly the personal protective equipment or PPE that protects them from being infected and in turn infecting other patients as well as their families when they go home.
In China, one of the earliest alarms about the mysterious new illness was raised by a doctor in an online chatroom in late December. He was reprimanded and forced to sign a police statement that the post was illegal. He later contracted the disease from a patient and died.
It’s hard to come to grips with the fact that #WhenCoronaVirusIsOver some of us in healthcare will not be standing. And to think that is partially due to a lack of #PPE is infuriating. #GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/id5rrHoQFH — Joseph Sakran (@JosephSakran) March 29, 2020
“It is good and appropriate for health-care workers to be able to express their own fears and concerns, especially when expressing that might get them better protection,” said Glenn Cohen, faculty director of Harvard Law School’s bioethics center. It’s likely hospitals are trying to limit reputational damage because “when health-care workers say they are not being protected, the public gets very upset at the hospital system.”
Read more about PPE shortages:
Doctors are a famously independent profession, where individual medical judgment on what’s best for the patient is prized over administrative dictates. That’s reared its head during the Covid-19 outbreak, with many physicians, nurses and other health-care workers taking to social media to express deep concerns about the lack of protective gear or much-needed patient-care equipment like respirators. Some posts have gone viral and are being shared hundreds of thousands of times, often tagged with #GetMePPE. Privacy laws prohibit disclosing specific patient information, but they don’t bar discussing general working conditions.
After examining a hypoxic woman in her 50s with no medical problems who likely has COVID, I had to clean my single-use face shield that I’ve worn the past three days with disinfectant used to clean hospital beds since we ran out of sanitizing wipes #GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/85xQcmc1dN — Ayrenne Adams, MD MPH (@AyrenneAdamsMD) March 28, 2020
NYU Langone Health employees received a notice Friday from Kathy Lewis, executive vice president of communications, saying that anyone who talked to the media without authorization would be “subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”
Jim Mandler, a spokesman for NYU Langone Health, said the policy was to protect patient and staff confidentiality. “Because information is constantly evolving, it is in the best interest of our staff and the institution that only those with the most updated information are permitted to address these issues with the media.”
New York’s Montefiore Health System requires staff get permission before speaking publicly, and sent a reminder in a March 17 newsletter that all media requests “must be shared and vetted” by the public relations department.
“Associates are not authorized to interact with reporters or speak on behalf of the institution in any capacity, without pre-approval,” according to the policy, which was seen by Bloomberg News.
Lauri Mazurkiewicz, the Chicago nurse who was fired by Northwestern Memorial Hospital after urging colleagues to wear more protective equipment, has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit.
“A lot of hospitals are lying to their workers and saying that simple masks are sufficient and nurses are getting sick and they are dying,” she said.
Mazurkiewicz, 46, has asthma and cares for her father, who suffers from a respiratory disease. At 75, he’s in one of the most at-risk groups of dying from the virus. “I didn’t want to get infected because I’m not wearing the proper mask and then spread it to my patients and my family,” she said.
A Northwestern Memorial Hospital spokesperson declined to comment, citing the lawsuit. The hospital said in an emailed statement that it “is committed to the safety of our employees.”
My babies are too young to read this now. And they’d barely recognize me in my gear. But if they lose me to COVID I want them to know Mommy tried really hard to do her job. #GetMePPE #NYC pic.twitter.com/OMew5G7mjK — Cornelia Griggs (@CorneliaLG) March 29, 2020
Charles Prosper, chief executive of PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center’s Northwest network where Lin worked in Bellingham, said in an email that Lin was “publicly critical” of the hospital’s readiness to deal with patients. Lin’s contract is through TeamHealth, which said it’s seeking to find him new work.
“Our oath is to do no harm,” Lin said. “I spoke out for patient safety and as a result I got terminated.”
Not all hospitals are blocking staff from talking to the press. New York’s Mount Sinai has been scheduling media interviews for nurses, physicians and trainees to help the public understand the severity of the crisis, a spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The University of California San Francisco Medical Center has gotten hundreds of such calls and encouraged workers to talk to reporters.
Nisha Mehta is a 38-year radiologist from Charlotte, North Carolina, who runs two Facebook groups for physicians with around 70,000 members. She’s fielded numerous requests from health-care workers hoping to get their stories into the public arena.
“I’m hearing widespread stories from physicians across the country and they are all saying: ‘We have these stories that we think are important to get out, but we are being told by our hospital systems that we are not allowed to speak to the press, and if we do so there will be extreme consequences,” she said.
Many say they get daily emails urging them not to talk to the media under any circumstances. “The public needs to hear these stories and other physicians need to hear them to be warned against what’s coming,” Mehta said. “It’s so important that everyone understands how bad this is going to get.”
— With assistance by Riley Griffin
|
www.bloomberg.com
| 2center
|
zt0WI952L6fp3Q9f
|
white_house
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/white-house-allies-refute-gates-criticism/?hpt=po_c1
|
White House allies rebuke Gates criticism
|
2014-01-07
|
( CNN ) - Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates set off shock waves in Washington with accounts from his upcoming memoir , in which he unleashes blistering criticism of Congress and his former colleagues in the Obama administration .
He also claims the President lost faith in his own Afghanistan policy .
Gates ' comments come in his memoir `` Duty : Memoirs of a Secretary at War , '' which was obtained by CNN but set to be released next week .
In the book , Gates writes , `` [ Obama ] eventually lost faith in the troop increase he ordered in Afghanistan , his doubts fed by top White House civilian advisers opposed to the strategy , who continually brought him negative news reports suggesting it was failing . ''
A Republican appointee of President George W. Bush who stayed on into Obama 's administration , Gates also writes of a pivotal 2011 meeting in which Obama questions the abilities of Gen. David H. Petraeus .
`` As I sat there , I thought : The president does n't trust his commander , ca n't stand Karzai , does n't believe in his own strategy and does n't consider the war to be his ... For him , it 's all about getting out , '' Gates writes .
A source familiar with White House thinking on how to respond to Gates ' memoir told CNN that White House officials have been in meetings on the issue and were reaching out to allies to defend the President against the claims .
The source said they are being careful not to attack Gates directly , thinking that will backfire .
Officials believe Obama 's foreign policy legacy is strong because of his Afghanistan policies and the killing of Osama bin Laden , and that Gates ' accusations do n't hurt with the Democratic base .
A White House official called attention to two parts of the book that reflect positively on the President . Gates said of Obama 's chief Afghanistan policies , `` I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions . ''
`` I never doubted Obama 's support for the troops , '' Gates writes . The official , however , did not highlight the rest of the sentence , which says `` only his support for their mission . ''
A former White House official contested the excerpts saying , `` I thought the President was a close ally of Gates . It 's disappointing , because if Gates had issues you would 've expected him to raise them . When I spoke to Gates about the president he was always effusive . ''
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the President `` deeply appreciates Gates ' service '' and is open to differing points of view from his national security team .
`` Deliberations over our policy on Afghanistan have been widely reported on over the years , and it is well known that the President has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting , dismantling and defeating al Qaeda , while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war , which will end this year , '' Hayden said in response to the comments .
A senior U.S. military official involved in some of the events described in the book expressed dismay with Gates , telling CNN that if Gates had been in uniform and felt that the President and his staff were deficient , he would have had an obligation to resign . He noted some may feel Gates also had the same obligation given that he signed orders sending troops off to war .
This official was directly involved in Afghanistan troop surge discussions . He was adamant the military commanders did not `` game '' the President on the numbers , but they came to realize Obama felt that way .
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted in response to reports of the memoir , criticizing the timing of the former defense secretary 's comments .
Gates was also critical of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden , recounting a conversation between Obama and Clinton suggesting political motives for their positions on Iraq .
`` Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [ 2007 ] surge in Iraq has been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary , ” Gates writes . “ The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political . To hear the two of them making these admissions , and in front of me , was as surprising as it was dismaying . ''
The former White House official responded , `` President Obama evaluated the merits of the surge but his opposition to it was not political , rather in line with his thought that more of the same was not the right path . ''
Of Biden , Gates wrote , `` I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades . ”
Hayden said Obama disagrees with Gates ' assessment of Biden and hailed the Vice President as `` one of the leading statesmen of his time . ''
One day after Gates book bonanza , a rare peek into Obama-Biden lunch
For as scathing as Gates was in describing the Obama administration , the former defense secretary said none of the difficulties he had with the executive branch `` compared with the pain of dealing with Congress , '' a body he describes as phony , self-centered and narrow-minded .
`` Congress is best viewed from a distance – the farther the better – because up close , it is truly ugly , '' Gates wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal , which was adapted from his book .
`` I saw most of Congress as uncivil , incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities ( such as timely appropriations ) , micromanagerial , parochial , hypocritical , egotistical , thin-skinned and prone to put self ( and re-election ) before country . ''
Gates opened the piece by writing that in the numerous times he testified before Congress , he found himself `` tempted to stand up , slam the briefing book shut and quit on the spot '' because of the `` rude , insulting , belittling , bullying and all too often highly personal attacks '' one has to endure during congressional testimony .
He said if he had done so , he would have told Congress , `` I may be the secretary of defense , but I am also an American citizen , and there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that . ''
`` Members postured and acted as judge , jury and executioner , '' he wrote .
His hypothesis as to why so many members `` were in a permanent state of outrage : '' The members must have `` suffered from some sort of mental duress that warranted confinement or at least treatment for anger management . ''
Another congressional thorn in Gates ' side brought to light in his opinion editorial is how Congress handled deciding which defense instillations and bases to close during budget tightening .
Gates wrote that `` any defense facility or contract in their district or state , no matter how superfluous or wasteful , was sacrosanct , '' even if the member had `` stridently attacked the Defense Department as inefficient and wasteful . ''
Critics of the memoir blasted Gates for publishing the critique in the middle of the Obama ’ s second term , saying the more appropriate move would have been to wait until after his former boss leaves the White House in 2016 .
A source close to Gates noted that he ’ s a historian by nature and wanted to document what went on but did n't want to wait because he believed the content of his book is all still relevant and should be discussed real time , especially issues of war and the troops .
The dysfunction in Washington and the way commanders and generals were treated really upset him , the source added .
Gates disagrees that his decision to release the book now is disloyal . In fact , he believes just the opposite and stands by all of it , the source said .
As for Gates ’ stinging criticism of Congress , the source said Gates had the most disdain for the House Foreign Affairs Committee , though he didn ’ t give specific names of lawmakers .
|
6 years ago
Updated 12:05 p.m. ET, 1/8/2014
(CNN) - Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates set off shock waves in Washington with accounts from his upcoming memoir, in which he unleashes blistering criticism of Congress and his former colleagues in the Obama administration.
He also claims the President lost faith in his own Afghanistan policy.
Follow @politicalticker
Gates' comments come in his memoir "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War," which was obtained by CNN but set to be released next week.
In the book, Gates writes, "[Obama] eventually lost faith in the troop increase he ordered in Afghanistan, his doubts fed by top White House civilian advisers opposed to the strategy, who continually brought him negative news reports suggesting it was failing."
A Republican appointee of President George W. Bush who stayed on into Obama's administration, Gates also writes of a pivotal 2011 meeting in which Obama questions the abilities of Gen. David H. Petraeus.
"As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand Karzai, doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his...For him, it's all about getting out," Gates writes.
A source familiar with White House thinking on how to respond to Gates' memoir told CNN that White House officials have been in meetings on the issue and were reaching out to allies to defend the President against the claims.
The source said they are being careful not to attack Gates directly, thinking that will backfire.
Officials believe Obama's foreign policy legacy is strong because of his Afghanistan policies and the killing of Osama bin Laden, and that Gates' accusations don't hurt with the Democratic base.
A White House official called attention to two parts of the book that reflect positively on the President. Gates said of Obama's chief Afghanistan policies, "I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions."
"I never doubted Obama's support for the troops," Gates writes. The official, however, did not highlight the rest of the sentence, which says "only his support for their mission."
A former White House official contested the excerpts saying, "I thought the President was a close ally of Gates. It's disappointing, because if Gates had issues you would've expected him to raise them. When I spoke to Gates about the president he was always effusive."
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the President "deeply appreciates Gates' service" and is open to differing points of view from his national security team.
"Deliberations over our policy on Afghanistan have been widely reported on over the years, and it is well known that the President has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda, while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war, which will end this year," Hayden said in response to the comments.
A senior U.S. military official involved in some of the events described in the book expressed dismay with Gates, telling CNN that if Gates had been in uniform and felt that the President and his staff were deficient, he would have had an obligation to resign. He noted some may feel Gates also had the same obligation given that he signed orders sending troops off to war.
This official was directly involved in Afghanistan troop surge discussions. He was adamant the military commanders did not "game" the President on the numbers, but they came to realize Obama felt that way.
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted in response to reports of the memoir, criticizing the timing of the former defense secretary's comments.
Criticism of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden
Gates was also critical of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, recounting a conversation between Obama and Clinton suggesting political motives for their positions on Iraq.
"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq has been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary,” Gates writes. “The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying."
Republicans use Gates' new book to hammer Clinton, Biden
The former White House official responded, "President Obama evaluated the merits of the surge but his opposition to it was not political, rather in line with his thought that more of the same was not the right path."
Of Biden, Gates wrote, "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
Hayden said Obama disagrees with Gates' assessment of Biden and hailed the Vice President as "one of the leading statesmen of his time."
One day after Gates book bonanza, a rare peek into Obama-Biden lunch
Criticism of Congress more severe
For as scathing as Gates was in describing the Obama administration, the former defense secretary said none of the difficulties he had with the executive branch "compared with the pain of dealing with Congress," a body he describes as phony, self-centered and narrow-minded.
"Congress is best viewed from a distance – the farther the better – because up close, it is truly ugly," Gates wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal, which was adapted from his book.
"I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country."
Gates opened the piece by writing that in the numerous times he testified before Congress, he found himself "tempted to stand up, slam the briefing book shut and quit on the spot" because of the "rude, insulting, belittling, bullying and all too often highly personal attacks" one has to endure during congressional testimony.
He said if he had done so, he would have told Congress, "I may be the secretary of defense, but I am also an American citizen, and there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that."
"Members postured and acted as judge, jury and executioner," he wrote.
His hypothesis as to why so many members "were in a permanent state of outrage:" The members must have "suffered from some sort of mental duress that warranted confinement or at least treatment for anger management."
Another congressional thorn in Gates' side brought to light in his opinion editorial is how Congress handled deciding which defense instillations and bases to close during budget tightening.
Gates wrote that "any defense facility or contract in their district or state, no matter how superfluous or wasteful, was sacrosanct," even if the member had "stridently attacked the Defense Department as inefficient and wasteful."
Why he wrote the book—now
Critics of the memoir blasted Gates for publishing the critique in the middle of the Obama’s second term, saying the more appropriate move would have been to wait until after his former boss leaves the White House in 2016.
A source close to Gates noted that he’s a historian by nature and wanted to document what went on but didn't want to wait because he believed the content of his book is all still relevant and should be discussed real time, especially issues of war and the troops.
The dysfunction in Washington and the way commanders and generals were treated really upset him, the source added.
Gates disagrees that his decision to release the book now is disloyal. In fact, he believes just the opposite and stands by all of it, the source said.
As for Gates’ stinging criticism of Congress, the source said Gates had the most disdain for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, though he didn’t give specific names of lawmakers.
- CNN's Brianna Keilar, Barbara Starr, Dana Bash, Dan Merica, Dana Davidsen and Ashley Killough contributed to this report.
|
www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
| 0left
|
zuynbXnKEZgc3wKH
|
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/as-tv-ad-rates-soar-super-pacs-pivot-to-core-campaign-work.html?ref=politics&_r=0&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=7439347D58953CFC299CC3E43A4F7A6F&gwt=pay
|
As TV Ad Rates Soar, ‘Super PACs’ Pivot to Core Campaign Work
|
2015-12-23
|
Nick Corasaniti, Matt Flegenheimer
|
Mr. Sousa said the group had compiled a fund-raising list of more than a million potential donors ’ email addresses , which it is renting to the Carson campaign . That follows the example set by Ready PAC , formerly known as Ready for Hillary , which spent close to a year building support for Hillary Clinton before she announced her candidacy . It never ran a television ad . ( Nor has Correct the Record , a super PAC founded by David Brock that is focusing exclusively on opposition research and rapid response in Mrs. Clinton ’ s defense . )
Many super PACs will turn to television soon enough , but even those that have done so already have recognized the need for more than just TV ads .
New Day for America , the super PAC supporting Mr. Kasich , is pursuing a highly advanced ground game in partnership with a data-analytics firm , Applecart : The firm says it mines data sources like yearbooks and local news reports to decipher which people have personally influential relationships with sought-after voters . Rather than giving phone-bank callers or canvassers lists of random people to contact , for example , the organizers are assigning each of those volunteers to reach 10 to 20 New Hampshire voters they know personally and convert them into Kasich supporters .
Right to Rise , the super PAC supporting Mr. Bush , is also starting to pour more money into online messaging , where — unlike on television — its dollars go just as far as the candidate ’ s . All advertisers — campaigns , super PACs , even Frito-Lay — pay the same rates for digital ads .
“ With TV getting a bit more crowded , we ’ re looking at frequency , ” said Sheena Arora , a digital strategist at Revolution Agency who works with Right to Rise — meaning “ how many times we ’ re hitting individuals across devices. ” The group has been creating a wide range of ads aimed at smartphones , tablets and even Xbox gaming systems .
Not everyone buys into the changing tactics . Rick Shaftan , who leads the pro-Cruz Courageous Conservatives group , suggested that spending money on field efforts made little sense for his operation . “ This is what I did as field guy : hung out with the volunteers , brought people signs and brought people literature , ” he said . “ That was 1984 . Now we ’ re in a world where it ’ s all different . People can get their own signs . ”
|
Mr. Sousa said the group had compiled a fund-raising list of more than a million potential donors’ email addresses, which it is renting to the Carson campaign. That follows the example set by Ready PAC, formerly known as Ready for Hillary, which spent close to a year building support for Hillary Clinton before she announced her candidacy. It never ran a television ad. (Nor has Correct the Record, a super PAC founded by David Brock that is focusing exclusively on opposition research and rapid response in Mrs. Clinton’s defense.)
Many super PACs will turn to television soon enough, but even those that have done so already have recognized the need for more than just TV ads.
New Day for America, the super PAC supporting Mr. Kasich, is pursuing a highly advanced ground game in partnership with a data-analytics firm, Applecart: The firm says it mines data sources like yearbooks and local news reports to decipher which people have personally influential relationships with sought-after voters. Rather than giving phone-bank callers or canvassers lists of random people to contact, for example, the organizers are assigning each of those volunteers to reach 10 to 20 New Hampshire voters they know personally and convert them into Kasich supporters.
Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Mr. Bush, is also starting to pour more money into online messaging, where — unlike on television — its dollars go just as far as the candidate’s. All advertisers — campaigns, super PACs, even Frito-Lay — pay the same rates for digital ads.
“With TV getting a bit more crowded, we’re looking at frequency,” said Sheena Arora, a digital strategist at Revolution Agency who works with Right to Rise — meaning “how many times we’re hitting individuals across devices.” The group has been creating a wide range of ads aimed at smartphones, tablets and even Xbox gaming systems.
Not everyone buys into the changing tactics. Rick Shaftan, who leads the pro-Cruz Courageous Conservatives group, suggested that spending money on field efforts made little sense for his operation. “This is what I did as field guy: hung out with the volunteers, brought people signs and brought people literature,” he said. “That was 1984. Now we’re in a world where it’s all different. People can get their own signs.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
9Bhj0JnDG8kwZVls
|
federal_budget
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/12/174087587/ryan-says-his-budget-would-balance-in-10-years
|
Ryan Says His Budget Would Balance In 10 Years
|
2013-03-12
|
Mark Memmott
|
( Note at 11:20 a.m . ET : Scroll down to see the GOP plan , which has now been released ; new comments from Rep. Ryan ; and White House reaction . )
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin , the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee , unveiled his latest budget plan Tuesday morning — and as NPR 's Tamara Keith told our Newscast Desk , he says it would bring the federal budget in balance by 2023 .
Ryan 's previous proposal , he said , would balance the budget in 20 years . How has he cut 10 years off that time ? The `` fiscal cliff '' deal reached as 2012 turned into 2013 `` raises $ 600 billion in tax revenue over the next decade , '' Tamara reported , `` and Ryan is including that in his new budget . ''
`` Otherwise , '' she added , `` Ryan has telegraphed that his new plan will include many of the same cuts as past GOP budgets , most notably it would convert Medicare into a premium support program . ''
On the op/ed pages of The Wall Street Journal today , Ryan makes his case for the new plan .
`` How do we do it ? '' he writes . `` We stop spending money the government does n't have . ... Our budget matches spending with income . Under our proposal , the government spends no more than it collects in revenue — or 19.1 % of gross domestic product each year . As a result , we 'll spend $ 4.6 trillion less over the next decade . ... `` Our opponents will shout austerity , but let 's put this in perspective . On the current path , we 'll spend $ 46 trillion over the next 10 years . Under our proposal , we 'll spend $ 41 trillion . On the current path , spending will increase by 5 % each year . Under our proposal , it will increase by 3.4 % . Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending , the budget will balance by 2023 , and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy . ''
President Obama and his fellow Democrats , of course , have other ideas about how to get the federal government books in order . Politico this morning looks at the president 's new efforts to reach out to some Republicans in order to cut a deal . It concludes though , that `` the expectations for both a sustainable civil alliance and a grand bargain remain low for one very simple reason : The parties are further apart on taxes and entitlements than they were in 2011 when Obama and House Speaker John Boehner ( R-Ohio ) first entered into talks and came close to striking the ever-elusive grand bargain . ''
Update at 11:20 a.m . ET . White House Says Ryan 's Math `` Just Does n't Add Up . ''
In a statement just sent to reporters , the White House says , in part :
`` While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit , the math just does n't add up . Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class . By choosing to give the wealthiest Americans a new tax cut , this budget as written will either fail to achieve any meaningful deficit reduction , raise taxes on middle class families by more than $ 2,000 – or both . ... `` The president has put forward a balanced approach to deficit reduction with no sacred cows . It includes more Medicare savings over the next decade than the House Republican budget , but it does so by cracking down on waste and fraud , not by asking middle class seniors to bear the burden . It closes tax loopholes for the wealthiest and biggest corporations so we can still afford to create jobs by investing in education , manufacturing , infrastructure , and small businesses . The President 's plan puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path and grows our economy from the middle class out . `` While the president disagrees with the House Republican approach , we all agree we need to leave a better future for our children . The President will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to grow the economy and cut the deficit in a balanced way . This is the approach the American people overwhelmingly support , and that is what the president will continue to fight for each day . ''
Update at 10:55 a.m . ET . Ryan Says He Wo n't Surrender His Principles :
Ryan is holding a news conference this hour . A reporter noted that he 's pitched a similar budget plan before — one that focuses on cuts in projected spending and eschews tax increases — and in the time since then was on the losing presidential ticket .
Should losing an election mean `` we surrender our principles ? '' Ryan asks . That Republicans should `` stop believing in what we believe in ? ''
`` We think we owe the country a balanced budget , '' he says , and `` solutions '' to the nation 's problems .
Ryan 's `` Path to Prosperity ; a Responsible , Balanced Budget , '' plan is now out . As Tamara notes , `` it calls for the repeal of the president 's healthcare law , and approval of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline . It would cut growth in programs for the poor by turning them over to the states . And for future seniors , it would convert Medicare into a premium support program . ''
|
Ryan Says His Budget Would Balance In 10 Years
Enlarge this image toggle caption Michael Sears /MCT /Landov Michael Sears /MCT /Landov
(Note at 11:20 a.m. ET: Scroll down to see the GOP plan, which has now been released; new comments from Rep. Ryan; and White House reaction.)
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, unveiled his latest budget plan Tuesday morning — and as NPR's Tamara Keith told our Newscast Desk, he says it would bring the federal budget in balance by 2023.
Ryan's previous proposal, he said, would balance the budget in 20 years. How has he cut 10 years off that time? The "fiscal cliff" deal reached as 2012 turned into 2013 "raises $600 billion in tax revenue over the next decade," Tamara reported, "and Ryan is including that in his new budget."
"Otherwise," she added, "Ryan has telegraphed that his new plan will include many of the same cuts as past GOP budgets, most notably it would convert Medicare into a premium support program."
On the op/ed pages of The Wall Street Journal today, Ryan makes his case for the new plan.
"How do we do it?" he writes. "We stop spending money the government doesn't have. ... Our budget matches spending with income. Under our proposal, the government spends no more than it collects in revenue — or 19.1% of gross domestic product each year. As a result, we'll spend $4.6 trillion less over the next decade. ... "Our opponents will shout austerity, but let's put this in perspective. On the current path, we'll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we'll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5% each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4%. Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy."
President Obama and his fellow Democrats, of course, have other ideas about how to get the federal government books in order. Politico this morning looks at the president's new efforts to reach out to some Republicans in order to cut a deal. It concludes though, that "the expectations for both a sustainable civil alliance and a grand bargain remain low for one very simple reason: The parties are further apart on taxes and entitlements than they were in 2011 when Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) first entered into talks and came close to striking the ever-elusive grand bargain."
Update at 11:20 a.m. ET. White House Says Ryan's Math "Just Doesn't Add Up."
In a statement just sent to reporters, the White House says, in part:
"While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit, the math just doesn't add up. Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class. By choosing to give the wealthiest Americans a new tax cut, this budget as written will either fail to achieve any meaningful deficit reduction, raise taxes on middle class families by more than $2,000 – or both. ... "The president has put forward a balanced approach to deficit reduction with no sacred cows. It includes more Medicare savings over the next decade than the House Republican budget, but it does so by cracking down on waste and fraud, not by asking middle class seniors to bear the burden. It closes tax loopholes for the wealthiest and biggest corporations so we can still afford to create jobs by investing in education, manufacturing, infrastructure, and small businesses. The President's plan puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path and grows our economy from the middle class out. "While the president disagrees with the House Republican approach, we all agree we need to leave a better future for our children. The President will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to grow the economy and cut the deficit in a balanced way. This is the approach the American people overwhelmingly support, and that is what the president will continue to fight for each day."
Update at 10:55 a.m. ET. Ryan Says He Won't Surrender His Principles:
Ryan is holding a news conference this hour. A reporter noted that he's pitched a similar budget plan before — one that focuses on cuts in projected spending and eschews tax increases — and in the time since then was on the losing presidential ticket.
Should losing an election mean "we surrender our principles?" Ryan asks. That Republicans should "stop believing in what we believe in?"
"We think we owe the country a balanced budget," he says, and "solutions" to the nation's problems.
Update at 10 a.m. ET. The Plan Is Out:
Ryan's "Path to Prosperity; a Responsible, Balanced Budget," plan is now out. As Tamara notes, "it calls for the repeal of the president's healthcare law, and approval of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline. It would cut growth in programs for the poor by turning them over to the states. And for future seniors, it would convert Medicare into a premium support program."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
azpNrensPe4f9cyQ
|
world
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/politics/white-house-africa-summit/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
5 reasons Obama's Africa leaders' summit matters
|
2014-08-04
|
Kevin Liptak
|
Story highlights Majority of African leaders convene in Washington for first-ever African leaders summit
Ebola outbreak on the continent sure to distract from talks on trade
U.S. hopes to be a player on the African continent and blunt China 's influence
By any measure it 's historic : The vast majority of Africa 's leaders flying to Washington at the invite of the President , whose father was born on the continent , to mark what the White House hopes is a new era of cooperation .
While plans for the first African Leaders Summit this week in the nation 's capital are ambitious , the reality is the United States still has strides to make on the kind of political and economic relationships in Africa that can benefit both sides .
Other nations , namely China , have turned their focus to the continent as a trade partner . Terrorist networks have expanded their reach in some countries , most notably in Nigeria , where hundreds of schoolgirls remain at large after being kidnapped earlier this year . And while U.S.-backed efforts have helped slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa , countries there rate among the lowest in life expectancy and infant mortality .
`` The importance of this for America needs to be understood , '' President Barack Obama said on Friday about the summit .
JUST WATCHED West African Ebola epidemic Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH West African Ebola epidemic 04:32
JUST WATCHED Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients 04:37
JUST WATCHED Obama : U.S. prepared for Ebola Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama : U.S. prepared for Ebola 02:11
He added later that Africa `` happens to be one of the continents where America is most popular and people feel a real affinity for our way of life . ''
Here are five reasons that the U.S.-Africa Leader 's Summit , which kicked off on Monday , is important :
1 . Health scare : The health problems in Africa were underscored this week when an Ebola outbreak prompted leaders of two nations to cancel their trips to Washington .
Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf , a Nobel Peace Prize winner , and Ernest Bai Koroma , the leader of Sierra Leone , both said they would remain in their countries .
Ebola has killed more than 700 people in three nations : Guinea , Liberia and Sierra .
Summit leaders , and even Obama , have stressed there is no risk to Washingtonians from those arriving from Africa this week .
Obama said anyone who might have been exposed to the virus would be screened both in their home countries and upon arrival in the United States .
But worry over the worsening outbreak only highlighted challenges Africa faces in combating disease and poverty , despite the billions in U.S. aid over the years .
`` This is an uphill challenge for them , '' said Gayle Smith , Obama 's senior director for development and Democracy , noting both Liberia and Sierra Leone had recently emerged from periods of civil war .
Obama hopes to move past the traditional elements of humanitarian aid to Africa , focusing instead on potential trade .
But promoting commercial ties with countries engulfed in Ebola outbreaks could prove to be difficult . The State Department warned against non-essential travel to Sierra Leone and Libera last week , and some schools and businesses have closed .
`` The timing is very unfortunate , and no one would have wished for this , '' said Howard French , an associate professor of international affairs at Columbia University . `` Having high-level discussions between the U.S. and Africa on business and investment are infrequent . So to the extent that this distracts from that I think will be regretted all around . ''
2 . Security challenges : Another potential barrier to U.S. investment in Africa : Growing extremism on the continent , which has overwhelmed certain governments .
The most flagrant example came earlier this summer , when the group Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 school girls in Nigeria . The incident prompted international outrage and so far , a U.S.-backed team has not located them .
Nigeria-based Boko Haram opposes western-style education , and there are fears the group 's influence could be crossing borders .
Last month , armed gunman suspected to be Boko Haram militants abducted the wife of Cameroon 's deputy prime minister .
Intra-country sniping has followed . Nigeria has expressed frustration with Cameroon for not doing enough to fight Boko Haram on its side of the border , a charge Cameroon has denied .
The unrest has inflicted damage on African economies , including Nigeria 's , the largest on the continent . Other African nations combating violent extremism , like Mali , Kenya and Somalia , are also tough sells for U.S. investment .
Many of those nations want more U.S. assistance to counter militants , sentiments likely to be expressed at this week 's summit .
`` We are concerned about efforts by terrorist groups to gain a foothold in Africa , '' said Ben Rhodes , Obama 's deputy national security adviser .
He pointed to U.S. counterterror efforts that aim to partner with nations in stemming unrest .
`` We 're looking at how do we get at the broader issue of countering violent extremism in Africa so that these groups , like Boko Haram , like al-Shabaab , like al-Qaeda , are not able to prey on young people with disinformation and intimidation , '' he said .
3 . Countering China : The United States has some catching up to do in Africa when it comes to trade and investment .
China 's imports of African oil and natural minerals have skyrocketed over the past two decades . Alongside have come massive Chinese investments in African infrastructure and construction projects , manned by waves of Chinese workers who ended up remaining in Africa . More than a million Chinese citizens now live there .
`` Africa is in a very particular moment , economically speaking , '' said French during an interview with CNNI from Nairobi . `` The continent has been growing very fast . Demographically , there 's a bulge in terms of it 's youth population . And Africa needs partnerships . ''
Obama wants to make sure the United States is one of those partners , and a more attractive one than China .
`` My advice to African leaders is to make sure that if , in fact , China is putting in roads and bridges , number one , that they 're hiring African workers ; number two , that the roads do n't just lead from the mine to the port to Shanghai , but that there 's an ability for the African governments to shape how this infrastructure is going to benefit them in the long term , '' Obama told The Economist last week .
4 . Cementing legacy : Obama 's two predecessors both secured legacy achievements in Africa -- Bill Clinton through his African Growth and Opportunity Act , and George W. Bush through his program combating HIV/AIDS .
Obama similarly hopes for a way to leave his mark on the continent after he leaves office , though his status as the first president of African descent has already made history .
That fact led some Africans to regard Obama with outsized expectations when he took office in 2009 , leading to some disappointment that he has n't focused more on shoring up U.S.-Africa ties .
During his time in office , Obama has focused on terrorism , uprisings in the Arab world , Russian provocations , and the much-awaited pivot to Asia .
Obama made his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa in 2009 when he visited Ghana . He did n't return again until 2013 with tour of Senegal , Tanzania and South Africa .
He 's embarked upon an initiative that aims to bring electricity to more Africans , and a program supporting young leaders working toward Democratic governments .
Both are elements to a legacy designed to shore up conditions for individuals on the continent .
And the summit itself , while not expected to produce any large-scale trade agreements , is meant to signal a shift from purely humanitarian assistance to a two-way partnership .
`` We believe it can be a game-changer in the U.S.-Africa relationship , '' Rhodes said of the summit .
5 . Not invited : While the bulk of Africa 's leaders will be in Washington , the continent 's most reviled leaders wo n't be attending . They include Zimbabwe 's Robert Mugabe and Sudan 's Omar al-Bashir .
They were n't invited because of their alleged human rights abuses .
Other controversial leaders -- like Kenya 's Uhuru Kenyatta , accused of crimes at the International Criminal Court -- will attend .
Like any major diplomatic gathering , the Africa Leaders Summit has been an exercise in protocol and careful planning .
Instead of meeting with leaders separately , Obama has been scheduled for larger group discussions , to the disappointment of some who wanted to talk to him one-on-one .
`` We just would n't be able to do bilats with everybody , and so the simplest thing is for the President to devote his time to engaging broadly with all the leaders . That way we 're not singling out individuals at the expense of the other leaders , '' Rhodes said .
He noted Obama would speak with each leader individually during a dinner at the White House on Tuesday .
That event has taken on state dinner-type proportions , with a large tent constructed on the South Lawn . Organizers have the added stress of accommodating leaders of 50 nations , all with varied religious and cultural sensitivities that must be respected .
For example , servers must know who drinks alcohol and who abstains for religious reasons .
It 's a reflection of just how diverse Africa is , and how high the stakes are for Obama as he forges new relationships there .
|
Story highlights Majority of African leaders convene in Washington for first-ever African leaders summit
Ebola outbreak on the continent sure to distract from talks on trade
U.S. hopes to be a player on the African continent and blunt China's influence
By any measure it's historic: The vast majority of Africa's leaders flying to Washington at the invite of the President, whose father was born on the continent, to mark what the White House hopes is a new era of cooperation.
While plans for the first African Leaders Summit this week in the nation's capital are ambitious, the reality is the United States still has strides to make on the kind of political and economic relationships in Africa that can benefit both sides.
Other nations, namely China, have turned their focus to the continent as a trade partner. Terrorist networks have expanded their reach in some countries, most notably in Nigeria, where hundreds of schoolgirls remain at large after being kidnapped earlier this year. And while U.S.-backed efforts have helped slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, countries there rate among the lowest in life expectancy and infant mortality.
"The importance of this for America needs to be understood," President Barack Obama said on Friday about the summit.
JUST WATCHED West African Ebola epidemic Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH West African Ebola epidemic 04:32
JUST WATCHED Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients 04:37
JUST WATCHED Obama: U.S. prepared for Ebola Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: U.S. prepared for Ebola 02:11
He added later that Africa "happens to be one of the continents where America is most popular and people feel a real affinity for our way of life."
Here are five reasons that the U.S.-Africa Leader's Summit, which kicked off on Monday, is important:
1. Health scare: The health problems in Africa were underscored this week when an Ebola outbreak prompted leaders of two nations to cancel their trips to Washington.
Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Ernest Bai Koroma, the leader of Sierra Leone, both said they would remain in their countries.
Ebola has killed more than 700 people in three nations: Guinea, Liberia and Sierra.
Summit leaders, and even Obama, have stressed there is no risk to Washingtonians from those arriving from Africa this week.
Obama said anyone who might have been exposed to the virus would be screened both in their home countries and upon arrival in the United States.
But worry over the worsening outbreak only highlighted challenges Africa faces in combating disease and poverty, despite the billions in U.S. aid over the years.
"This is an uphill challenge for them," said Gayle Smith, Obama's senior director for development and Democracy, noting both Liberia and Sierra Leone had recently emerged from periods of civil war.
Obama hopes to move past the traditional elements of humanitarian aid to Africa, focusing instead on potential trade.
But promoting commercial ties with countries engulfed in Ebola outbreaks could prove to be difficult. The State Department warned against non-essential travel to Sierra Leone and Libera last week, and some schools and businesses have closed.
"The timing is very unfortunate, and no one would have wished for this," said Howard French, an associate professor of international affairs at Columbia University. "Having high-level discussions between the U.S. and Africa on business and investment are infrequent. So to the extent that this distracts from that I think will be regretted all around."
2. Security challenges: Another potential barrier to U.S. investment in Africa: Growing extremism on the continent, which has overwhelmed certain governments.
The most flagrant example came earlier this summer, when the group Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 school girls in Nigeria. The incident prompted international outrage and so far, a U.S.-backed team has not located them.
Nigeria-based Boko Haram opposes western-style education, and there are fears the group's influence could be crossing borders.
Last month, armed gunman suspected to be Boko Haram militants abducted the wife of Cameroon's deputy prime minister.
Intra-country sniping has followed. Nigeria has expressed frustration with Cameroon for not doing enough to fight Boko Haram on its side of the border, a charge Cameroon has denied.
The unrest has inflicted damage on African economies, including Nigeria's, the largest on the continent. Other African nations combating violent extremism, like Mali, Kenya and Somalia, are also tough sells for U.S. investment.
Many of those nations want more U.S. assistance to counter militants, sentiments likely to be expressed at this week's summit.
"We are concerned about efforts by terrorist groups to gain a foothold in Africa," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser.
He pointed to U.S. counterterror efforts that aim to partner with nations in stemming unrest.
"We're looking at how do we get at the broader issue of countering violent extremism in Africa so that these groups, like Boko Haram, like al-Shabaab, like al-Qaeda, are not able to prey on young people with disinformation and intimidation," he said.
3. Countering China: The United States has some catching up to do in Africa when it comes to trade and investment.
China's imports of African oil and natural minerals have skyrocketed over the past two decades. Alongside have come massive Chinese investments in African infrastructure and construction projects, manned by waves of Chinese workers who ended up remaining in Africa. More than a million Chinese citizens now live there.
"Africa is in a very particular moment, economically speaking," said French during an interview with CNNI from Nairobi. "The continent has been growing very fast. Demographically, there's a bulge in terms of it's youth population. And Africa needs partnerships."
Obama wants to make sure the United States is one of those partners, and a more attractive one than China.
"My advice to African leaders is to make sure that if, in fact, China is putting in roads and bridges, number one, that they're hiring African workers; number two, that the roads don't just lead from the mine to the port to Shanghai, but that there's an ability for the African governments to shape how this infrastructure is going to benefit them in the long term," Obama told The Economist last week.
4. Cementing legacy: Obama's two predecessors both secured legacy achievements in Africa -- Bill Clinton through his African Growth and Opportunity Act, and George W. Bush through his program combating HIV/AIDS.
Obama similarly hopes for a way to leave his mark on the continent after he leaves office, though his status as the first president of African descent has already made history.
That fact led some Africans to regard Obama with outsized expectations when he took office in 2009, leading to some disappointment that he hasn't focused more on shoring up U.S.-Africa ties.
During his time in office, Obama has focused on terrorism, uprisings in the Arab world, Russian provocations, and the much-awaited pivot to Asia.
Obama made his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa in 2009 when he visited Ghana. He didn't return again until 2013 with tour of Senegal, Tanzania and South Africa.
He's embarked upon an initiative that aims to bring electricity to more Africans, and a program supporting young leaders working toward Democratic governments.
Both are elements to a legacy designed to shore up conditions for individuals on the continent.
And the summit itself, while not expected to produce any large-scale trade agreements, is meant to signal a shift from purely humanitarian assistance to a two-way partnership.
"We believe it can be a game-changer in the U.S.-Africa relationship," Rhodes said of the summit.
5. Not invited: While the bulk of Africa's leaders will be in Washington, the continent's most reviled leaders won't be attending. They include Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir.
They weren't invited because of their alleged human rights abuses.
Other controversial leaders -- like Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta, accused of crimes at the International Criminal Court -- will attend.
Like any major diplomatic gathering, the Africa Leaders Summit has been an exercise in protocol and careful planning.
Instead of meeting with leaders separately, Obama has been scheduled for larger group discussions, to the disappointment of some who wanted to talk to him one-on-one.
"We just wouldn't be able to do bilats with everybody, and so the simplest thing is for the President to devote his time to engaging broadly with all the leaders. That way we're not singling out individuals at the expense of the other leaders," Rhodes said.
He noted Obama would speak with each leader individually during a dinner at the White House on Tuesday.
That event has taken on state dinner-type proportions, with a large tent constructed on the South Lawn. Organizers have the added stress of accommodating leaders of 50 nations, all with varied religious and cultural sensitivities that must be respected.
For example, servers must know who drinks alcohol and who abstains for religious reasons.
It's a reflection of just how diverse Africa is, and how high the stakes are for Obama as he forges new relationships there.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
nRVhRQrlqN4s7S5E
|
elections
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/18/reince-priebus-rnc-chief-threatens-john-kasich-oth/
|
RNC chief threatens John Kasich, other Republicans who won’t support Donald Trump
|
2016-09-18
|
David Sherfinski, Ben Wolfgang
|
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Sunday threatened Ohio Gov . John Kasich and other Republicans who refuse to support presidential nominee Donald Trump , saying the party may take steps to ensure it ’ s not “ that easy for them ” to seek the White House again .
Speaking on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation , ” Mr. Priebus said every Republican who ran in 2016 needs to get behind Mr. Trump .
Those who haven ’ t — including Mr. Kasich , former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush , and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — could see diminished support from the party moving forward .
“ People who agreed to support the nominee , that took part in our process , they used tools from the RNC . They agreed to support the nominee . They took part in our process . We ’ re a private party , we ’ re not a public entity . Those people need to get on board , ” Mr. Priebus said .
“ And if they ’ re thinking they ’ re going to run again someday , I think we ’ re going to evaluate our process , the nomination process , and I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be that easy for them , ” he said .
Mr. Kasich said it ’ s “ very unlikely ” he ’ ll vote for Mr. Trump … “ too much water under the bridge , ” the Ohio governor said in an interview with CNN that aired Friday .
SEE ALSO : 48 % of Democratic voters say Bernie Sanders should replace Hillary if she drops out of race
Mr. Bush has expressed similar sentiments , and Mr. Cruz famously withheld an endorsement of Mr. Trump during the Republican National Convention and instead told Republicans to “ vote their conscience ” in November .
Mr. Priebus denied that he was threatening Mr. Kasich , Mr. Cruz or anyone else , yet he clearly suggested the party would put roadblocks in front of the electoral hopes of anyone who hasn ’ t offered a full-throated endorsement of Mr. Trump .
“ People in our party are talking about what we ’ re going to do about this … It ’ s not a threat . It ’ s just a question , ” the RNC chairman said . “ What should a private party do about that if those same people come around in four or eight years ? ”
Mr. Kasich , a former 2016 GOP presidential candidate himself , said it ’ s still important to get out the vote for Republicans like Sen . Rob Portman , who is running for re-election in Ohio .
“ We want to get people out to vote . We want to re-elect Senator Portman , and we want to re-elect people down ticket , ” Mr. Kasich said . “ I ’ m not voting for Hillary [ Clinton ] . ”
“ I ’ ll let everybody know … but I think my actions have spoken very loudly . Louder than even my words , ” he said .
Mr. Kasich was in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention in July , but he did not attend the convention itself .
Asked about Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson , Mr. Kasich said : “ I haven ’ t even gone there yet . It ’ s a long way [ until ] Election Day . ”
|
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Sunday threatened Ohio Gov. John Kasich and other Republicans who refuse to support presidential nominee Donald Trump, saying the party may take steps to ensure it’s not “that easy for them” to seek the White House again.
Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Mr. Priebus said every Republican who ran in 2016 needs to get behind Mr. Trump.
Those who haven’t — including Mr. Kasich, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — could see diminished support from the party moving forward.
“People who agreed to support the nominee, that took part in our process, they used tools from the RNC. They agreed to support the nominee. They took part in our process. We’re a private party, we’re not a public entity. Those people need to get on board,” Mr. Priebus said.
“And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think we’re going to evaluate our process, the nomination process, and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them,” he said.
Mr. Kasich said it’s “very unlikely” he’ll vote for Mr. Trump … “too much water under the bridge,” the Ohio governor said in an interview with CNN that aired Friday.
SEE ALSO: 48% of Democratic voters say Bernie Sanders should replace Hillary if she drops out of race
Mr. Bush has expressed similar sentiments, and Mr. Cruz famously withheld an endorsement of Mr. Trump during the Republican National Convention and instead told Republicans to “vote their conscience” in November.
Mr. Priebus denied that he was threatening Mr. Kasich, Mr. Cruz or anyone else, yet he clearly suggested the party would put roadblocks in front of the electoral hopes of anyone who hasn’t offered a full-throated endorsement of Mr. Trump.
“People in our party are talking about what we’re going to do about this … It’s not a threat. It’s just a question,” the RNC chairman said. “What should a private party do about that if those same people come around in four or eight years?”
Mr. Kasich, a former 2016 GOP presidential candidate himself, said it’s still important to get out the vote for Republicans like Sen. Rob Portman, who is running for re-election in Ohio.
“We want to get people out to vote. We want to re-elect Senator Portman, and we want to re-elect people down ticket,” Mr. Kasich said. “I’m not voting for Hillary [Clinton].”
“I’ll let everybody know … but I think my actions have spoken very loudly. Louder than even my words,” he said.
Mr. Kasich was in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention in July, but he did not attend the convention itself.
Asked about Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, Mr. Kasich said: “I haven’t even gone there yet. It’s a long way [until] Election Day.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
SUFgzIyyoyxOE2zn
|
elections
|
Guest Writer
| 11
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/24/wesley-pruden-with-joe-biden-campaign-2016-fun-abo/
|
OPINION: With Joe Biden, campaign 2016 fun about to begin
|
2015-08-24
|
Wesley Pruden
|
This may be the most entertaining road show yet . Round and round the presidential campaign goes , and where it stops nobody knows . Even Mitt Romney is said to be thinking about jumping in again , no doubt figuring that some of Jeb ’ s “ investors , ” who are familiar indeed , may be looking for another place to place their bets .
Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign still gets respectful attention , but nobody ’ s any longer practicing what to call her if , as in a prospect ever more unlikely , she ’ s actually elected . Madame President ? That sounds like something from a bordello , or worse , from France . Mrs. President ? The feminists wouldn ’ t like that , because it pays homage to a husband . “ Miss President ” sounds like everybody ’ s seventh-period Latin teacher , perhaps fetching in her own way , but not much fun .
Joe Biden , everybody ’ s good old , slightly daffy uncle , lovable but prone to gaffes , boners and extravagant slips not only of the tongue but sometimes of the brain , like his suggestion , meant to warm the hearts of gun owners , that if you hear a varmint or a prowler in the middle of the night , the thing to do is to take your shotgun to the front porch and blast away at the night . ( Hoping nobody is still up across the street is optional . )
The Republican establishment has the opposite problem . They ’ re having to quit laughing at Donald Trump and start taking him seriously . He keeps increasing his polling lead over the field , and where that stops nobody knows , either . He ’ s an “ outlier , ” the currently fashionable $ 2 word for “ outsider , ” but he ’ s not as outsiderly as he used to be .
The liberal media , the Greek chorus assigned to enlightening the halt , the unhip and the dumb , spent the weekend chortling over the fact that the Donald attracted “ only ” 20,000 fans to a football stadium that seats 30,000 in Mobile . The cops wisely declined to offer an estimate of the size of the crowd , but it was bigger than anyone else has drawn so far . Who but the Donald , who compared it to a crowd at a Billy Graham revival meeting , would risk holding a political rally in a football stadium in Alabama , exposing empty seats and inviting unwanted comparisons .
President Obama himself threw a big flat rock in the Democratic pond on Monday with a resounding splash . He sent his press agent out to suggest to reporters that he might endorse someone in the Democratic primaries , and it didn ’ t sound like he was talking about Hillary . The president , said press secretary Josh Earnest , thinks taking Joe Biden on his ticket seven years ago was the smartest political decision he ever made . He reminded everyone that he had spoken “ warmly ” about Hillary , too . Then it was back to praising good old Joe .
“ I ’ ll just say that the vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice . He ’ s been on a national ticket through two election cycles … So I think you could make the case that there is no one who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign … I wouldn ’ t rule out the possibility of an endorsement in the Democratic primary . ”
A press agent always speaks for the man who pays him , so we can safely assume that Mr . Earnest didn ’ t make a semi-endorsement , sort of , on his own .
Mr. Obama ’ s endorsement would be valuable in a Democratic primary , a signal that he has found someone who will protect his “ legacy , ” such as it will be . In the general election , his endorsement might be a sloppy kiss of death , where voters of all kinds could rush to make the judgment that is likely to be the verdict of history — Mr. Obama was a freak of history , elected by a well-meaning but naive electorate eager to show good faith and hope for the best .
Taking a flier is rarely a substitute for making a sound judgment . Nominating a candidate with little political experience can be tempting . The Republicans tried it in 1940 , nominating Wendell Willkie , a Wall Street lawyer who had never been elected to anything , thinking everyone shared their contempt for Franklin D. Roosevelt .
That ’ s what terrifies the Republican establishment about Donald Trump . If the establishment understood politics a little better than it does , establishment Republicans would recognize how they brought the Donald to political prominence themselves . The establishment doesn ’ t understand how cable-TV , the Internet and a succession of mushmouth candidates have changed everything .
The Republican grass roots hankers for rough justice , applied without mercy . These are the grass roots that are a minority of a minority , but they ’ re loud , they ’ re angry , and they ’ re out for blood .
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
This may be the most entertaining road show yet. Round and round the presidential campaign goes, and where it stops nobody knows. Even Mitt Romney is said to be thinking about jumping in again, no doubt figuring that some of Jeb’s “investors,” who are familiar indeed, may be looking for another place to place their bets.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign still gets respectful attention, but nobody’s any longer practicing what to call her if, as in a prospect ever more unlikely, she’s actually elected. Madame President? That sounds like something from a bordello, or worse, from France. Mrs. President? The feminists wouldn’t like that, because it pays homage to a husband. “Miss President” sounds like everybody’s seventh-period Latin teacher, perhaps fetching in her own way, but not much fun.
Joe Biden, everybody’s good old, slightly daffy uncle, lovable but prone to gaffes, boners and extravagant slips not only of the tongue but sometimes of the brain, like his suggestion, meant to warm the hearts of gun owners, that if you hear a varmint or a prowler in the middle of the night, the thing to do is to take your shotgun to the front porch and blast away at the night. (Hoping nobody is still up across the street is optional.)
The Republican establishment has the opposite problem. They’re having to quit laughing at Donald Trump and start taking him seriously. He keeps increasing his polling lead over the field, and where that stops nobody knows, either. He’s an “outlier,” the currently fashionable $2 word for “outsider,” but he’s not as outsiderly as he used to be.
The liberal media, the Greek chorus assigned to enlightening the halt, the unhip and the dumb, spent the weekend chortling over the fact that the Donald attracted “only” 20,000 fans to a football stadium that seats 30,000 in Mobile. The cops wisely declined to offer an estimate of the size of the crowd, but it was bigger than anyone else has drawn so far. Who but the Donald, who compared it to a crowd at a Billy Graham revival meeting, would risk holding a political rally in a football stadium in Alabama, exposing empty seats and inviting unwanted comparisons.
President Obama himself threw a big flat rock in the Democratic pond on Monday with a resounding splash. He sent his press agent out to suggest to reporters that he might endorse someone in the Democratic primaries, and it didn’t sound like he was talking about Hillary. The president, said press secretary Josh Earnest, thinks taking Joe Biden on his ticket seven years ago was the smartest political decision he ever made. He reminded everyone that he had spoken “warmly” about Hillary, too. Then it was back to praising good old Joe.
“I’ll just say that the vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice. He’s been on a national ticket through two election cycles … So I think you could make the case that there is no one who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign … I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of an endorsement in the Democratic primary.”
A press agent always speaks for the man who pays him, so we can safely assume that Mr. Earnest didn’t make a semi-endorsement, sort of, on his own.
Mr. Obama’s endorsement would be valuable in a Democratic primary, a signal that he has found someone who will protect his “legacy,” such as it will be. In the general election, his endorsement might be a sloppy kiss of death, where voters of all kinds could rush to make the judgment that is likely to be the verdict of history — Mr. Obama was a freak of history, elected by a well-meaning but naive electorate eager to show good faith and hope for the best.
Taking a flier is rarely a substitute for making a sound judgment. Nominating a candidate with little political experience can be tempting. The Republicans tried it in 1940, nominating Wendell Willkie, a Wall Street lawyer who had never been elected to anything, thinking everyone shared their contempt for Franklin D. Roosevelt.
That’s what terrifies the Republican establishment about Donald Trump. If the establishment understood politics a little better than it does, establishment Republicans would recognize how they brought the Donald to political prominence themselves. The establishment doesn’t understand how cable-TV, the Internet and a succession of mushmouth candidates have changed everything.
The Republican grass roots hankers for rough justice, applied without mercy. These are the grass roots that are a minority of a minority, but they’re loud, they’re angry, and they’re out for blood.
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 2center
|
fPrMX9N0tQ7PwU1h
|
immigration
|
HotAir
| 22
|
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/16/illegal-immigration-is-it-a-crime-or-not/
|
Illegal immigration. Is it a crime or not?
|
2013-02-16
|
Jazz Shaw, Ed Morrissey, John Sexton
|
The President has been back out on the road again , spinning heartwarming tales and pushing for his second term agenda , as you ’ d expect any recently reelected leader to do . I ’ ll confess that I had a hard time paying attention to a lot of it , what with asteroids crashing to Earth on poop filled cruise ships and all , but there was one theme which caught my attention . He ’ s going all in on the hot new fad of comprehensive immigration reform .
President Barack Obama told a group of Senate Democrats Wednesday that Congress must move forward with comprehensive immigration reform , or else he will propose his own legislation on the hot-button topic… In a description of Wednesday ’ s meeting , the White House said Obama “ reiterated the key principles he believes must be a part of any bipartisan , commonsense effort , including continuing to strengthen border security , creating an earned path to citizenship , holding employers accountable and streamlining legal immigration . ”
Everyone seems to be talking about it these days , and not just Democrats . Republicans from Marco Rubio to John McCain have their own proposals , many of which involve some form of what the President is talking about . You can call it a “ path to citizenship ” or amnesty or Expedited Entry… whatever you like . But for some reason there are still quite a few of us who hear proposals such as these and get an uneasy feeling . For some of us , it may even be hard to quantify exactly what ’ s wrong . But if you harbor any such qualms , of course , you will be immediately labeled… say it with me…
Whatever . But as I considered the question this week , I realized that there might be a better way to describe exactly why this sounds troubling . And to understand it , you really need to talk about the story of Ray Bowman and William Kirkpatrick . Those names might not be familiar unless you lived in the Pacific Northwest in the 90s , but they were something of a legend . In a career spanning more than 16 years they robbed 28 banks around the country for a total of more than $ 7 million . I ’ m not going all anti-hero worship on you here , but you ’ ve got to admit… in terms of raw focus and mission attention , these guys were good . They stole a LOT of money without getting caught .
But the law finally caught up with them , and in 1999 they went to trial and were sent to lengthy stretches in the Crowbar Motel . Now here ’ s the thing about their story… during the trial , not one person – not in the media , the public , the courts or the government – not one single person stood up to say anything remotely like the following :
You know , yeah… okay .. they stole the money . But they ’ ve had it for a really long time now . And their families are depending on it for retirement and the kids ’ college . Some of it is invested in various places and we ’ d have to draw it out . Maybe , after all this time , we should just let them keep it .
Why did nobody say that ? The answer is because they broke the law and they got caught . This applies for virtually any other law you could name… except for illegal immigration . As things stand now , crossing the border without the proper authorization and paperwork is a crime . Beyond that , continuing to stay here without said credentials is also a crime . If you do this , you are committing a crime each and every day that you are here . But for some reason , we seem to be reaching the point where we ’ re fine with treating this as more of a game of Red Rover Red Rover . Yes , it ’ s a crime to come over the border uninvited , but if you make it to home base , maybe we ’ ll just forget about it .
Now , before the inevitable , hollow argument comes flying back at me here , I ’ m not talking about anything resembling the statute of limitations . ( Why we have a statute of limitations is a debate for another day . ) Bowman and Kirkpatrick kept committing crimes all through their run . And people who are here illegally continue to break the law every single day by the simple fact of being in the country . If you want to have a discussion about a statute on illegal immigration where people can leave for seven years and have it dropped from their record… fine . We can have that debate . But it doesn ’ t apply to this situation .
Allow me to also answer the second , inevitable question which crops up every time we have this discussion . No , I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country . I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it . I also don ’ t know what to do about the 90 % of robberies that go unsolved each year . But I ’ m pretty sure that the answer isn ’ t to decriminalize theft .
I ’ ve had some conflicting feelings about this immigration question myself , I confess . But America either is or it is not a nation of laws . If we are to change our system so that entering our nation without permission is no longer a crime – or at least not that serious of one – then lawmakers need to make that clear . But don ’ t tell us you ’ re doing it just because you can ’ t figure out how to stop people from breaking the law . And if keeping control of our borders and retaining management of who does or does not enter is still an important priority and a criminal matter , that should be made clear also . What we ’ re getting out of Washington now is static , clarifying nothing and selling a feel-good product which doesn ’ t seem to address any of these questions .
|
The President has been back out on the road again, spinning heartwarming tales and pushing for his second term agenda, as you’d expect any recently reelected leader to do. I’ll confess that I had a hard time paying attention to a lot of it, what with asteroids crashing to Earth on poop filled cruise ships and all, but there was one theme which caught my attention. He’s going all in on the hot new fad of comprehensive immigration reform.
President Barack Obama told a group of Senate Democrats Wednesday that Congress must move forward with comprehensive immigration reform, or else he will propose his own legislation on the hot-button topic… In a description of Wednesday’s meeting, the White House said Obama “reiterated the key principles he believes must be a part of any bipartisan, commonsense effort, including continuing to strengthen border security, creating an earned path to citizenship, holding employers accountable and streamlining legal immigration.”
Everyone seems to be talking about it these days, and not just Democrats. Republicans from Marco Rubio to John McCain have their own proposals, many of which involve some form of what the President is talking about. You can call it a “path to citizenship” or amnesty or Expedited Entry… whatever you like. But for some reason there are still quite a few of us who hear proposals such as these and get an uneasy feeling. For some of us, it may even be hard to quantify exactly what’s wrong. But if you harbor any such qualms, of course, you will be immediately labeled… say it with me…
A racist.
Whatever. But as I considered the question this week, I realized that there might be a better way to describe exactly why this sounds troubling. And to understand it, you really need to talk about the story of Ray Bowman and William Kirkpatrick. Those names might not be familiar unless you lived in the Pacific Northwest in the 90s, but they were something of a legend. In a career spanning more than 16 years they robbed 28 banks around the country for a total of more than $7 million. I’m not going all anti-hero worship on you here, but you’ve got to admit… in terms of raw focus and mission attention, these guys were good. They stole a LOT of money without getting caught.
But the law finally caught up with them, and in 1999 they went to trial and were sent to lengthy stretches in the Crowbar Motel. Now here’s the thing about their story… during the trial, not one person – not in the media, the public, the courts or the government – not one single person stood up to say anything remotely like the following:
You know, yeah… okay.. they stole the money. But they’ve had it for a really long time now. And their families are depending on it for retirement and the kids’ college. Some of it is invested in various places and we’d have to draw it out. Maybe, after all this time, we should just let them keep it.
Why did nobody say that? The answer is because they broke the law and they got caught. This applies for virtually any other law you could name… except for illegal immigration. As things stand now, crossing the border without the proper authorization and paperwork is a crime. Beyond that, continuing to stay here without said credentials is also a crime. If you do this, you are committing a crime each and every day that you are here. But for some reason, we seem to be reaching the point where we’re fine with treating this as more of a game of Red Rover Red Rover. Yes, it’s a crime to come over the border uninvited, but if you make it to home base, maybe we’ll just forget about it.
Now, before the inevitable, hollow argument comes flying back at me here, I’m not talking about anything resembling the statute of limitations. (Why we have a statute of limitations is a debate for another day.) Bowman and Kirkpatrick kept committing crimes all through their run. And people who are here illegally continue to break the law every single day by the simple fact of being in the country. If you want to have a discussion about a statute on illegal immigration where people can leave for seven years and have it dropped from their record… fine. We can have that debate. But it doesn’t apply to this situation.
Allow me to also answer the second, inevitable question which crops up every time we have this discussion. No, I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country. I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it. I also don’t know what to do about the 90% of robberies that go unsolved each year. But I’m pretty sure that the answer isn’t to decriminalize theft.
I’ve had some conflicting feelings about this immigration question myself, I confess. But America either is or it is not a nation of laws. If we are to change our system so that entering our nation without permission is no longer a crime – or at least not that serious of one – then lawmakers need to make that clear. But don’t tell us you’re doing it just because you can’t figure out how to stop people from breaking the law. And if keeping control of our borders and retaining management of who does or does not enter is still an important priority and a criminal matter, that should be made clear also. What we’re getting out of Washington now is static, clarifying nothing and selling a feel-good product which doesn’t seem to address any of these questions.
Discuss.
|
www.hotair.com
| 1right
|
xUYb6nZnCIJCrdGy
|
impeachment
|
Yahoo! News
| 00
|
https://news.yahoo.com/marie-yovanovitch-092100947--abc-news-topstories.html
|
Who is Marie Yovanovitch?
|
2019-11-15
|
Stephanie Ebbs, Conor Finnegan
|
But to most of the rest of the world , she 's Marie Yovanovitch , the career diplomat caught up in the blizzard of headlines about Ukraine and President Donald Trump 's possible impeachment .
Until a few months ago , she was the tough-minded U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , living in the embassy in Kyiv with her mother Nadia and her dog Scout , she said in a 2017 interview .
Now , she 's telling her story about being smeared and threatened to millions of Americans watching the House impeachment hearings on television .
Yovanovitch has served under the past six administrations -- both Republican and Democrat -- and won high praise , including the Senior Foreign Service Performance Award six times and the State Department 's Superior Honor Award five times . She was nominated to be U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Armenia by George W. Bush and to Ukraine by Barack Obama .
But earlier this year , Yovanovitch was attacked in conservative media and by Ukraine 's former public prosecutor , who accused her of giving him a `` do not prosecute '' list and blocking him from traveling to the U.S. to investigate Democrats after she publicly criticized the country 's lack of progress in tackling corruption .
( MORE : Former Ukraine ambassador felt threatened , told to 'watch my back ' : Deposition )
The State Department and U.S. embassy went on record to deny the allegations , and the prosecutor later recanted them . But Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have repeated them , and they may have influenced Trump 's decision to recall Yovanovitch early from her post in May .
She learned only in late September , when the White House released a memo of Trump 's now infamous July 25 with Ukraine 's president , that the president called her `` bad news , '' saying she was `` going to go through some things . ''
Since then , Yovanovitch , who just turned 61 , indeed , has been going through `` some things . ''
Still an active Foreign Service officer , she 's been teaching at Georgetown University while the scandal unfolded across Washington -- her name , her photo , and the accusations , coming up repeatedly in news accounts and on television .
She was heralded as a hero when she complied with a House subpoena in defiance of the White House -- the first current administration official to do so -- marching to Capitol Hill on Oct. 11 to speak to House impeachment investigators behind closed doors .
She learned about being a survivor from her parents , whom she credits as teaching her the values of `` freedom and democracy the U.S . represents . ''
They emigrated to North America in the 1940s -- fleeing Nazi and communist regimes in Europe . Young Masha grew up in Kent , Connecticut , according to The Middletown Press , where her parents taught foreign languages at a private boarding school .
`` My parents survived poverty , war , and displacement , '' she said at her confirmation hearing in 2016 . `` They finally arrived in the United States with me in tow in search of freedom , accountability , and opportunity , the very values that Ukrainians demanded in the revolution of dignity . ''
( MORE : Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump had her removed based on 'false claims ' )
She told a Connecticut newspaper in 2005 that she first thought about working abroad when she was in school but did n't pursue it until years later , after studying in Moscow and working in advertising in New York . She joined the Foreign Service in 1986 .
|
Who is Marie Yovanovitch? originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Her friends and colleagues all know her as "Masha."
But to most of the rest of the world, she's Marie Yovanovitch, the career diplomat caught up in the blizzard of headlines about Ukraine and President Donald Trump's possible impeachment.
Until a few months ago, she was the tough-minded U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, living in the embassy in Kyiv with her mother Nadia and her dog Scout, she said in a 2017 interview.
Then, her whole world changed.
PHOTO: U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Louise Yovanovitch is seen during a ceremony to mark World AIDS Day in Kiev, Ukraine, Dec. 1, 2017. (Gleb Garanich/Reuters, FILE) More
Now, she's telling her story about being smeared and threatened to millions of Americans watching the House impeachment hearings on television.
Yovanovitch has served under the past six administrations -- both Republican and Democrat -- and won high praise, including the Senior Foreign Service Performance Award six times and the State Department's Superior Honor Award five times. She was nominated to be U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Armenia by George W. Bush and to Ukraine by Barack Obama.
But earlier this year, Yovanovitch was attacked in conservative media and by Ukraine's former public prosecutor, who accused her of giving him a "do not prosecute" list and blocking him from traveling to the U.S. to investigate Democrats after she publicly criticized the country's lack of progress in tackling corruption.
(MORE: Former Ukraine ambassador felt threatened, told to 'watch my back': Deposition)
The State Department and U.S. embassy went on record to deny the allegations, and the prosecutor later recanted them. But Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have repeated them, and they may have influenced Trump's decision to recall Yovanovitch early from her post in May.
She learned only in late September, when the White House released a memo of Trump's now infamous July 25 with Ukraine's president, that the president called her "bad news," saying she was "going to go through some things."
Since then, Yovanovitch, who just turned 61, indeed, has been going through "some things."
Still an active Foreign Service officer, she's been teaching at Georgetown University while the scandal unfolded across Washington -- her name, her photo, and the accusations, coming up repeatedly in news accounts and on television.
PHOTO: U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, center, sits during her meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Kyiv, Ukraine, March 6, 2019. (Mikhail Palinchak/AP, FILE) More
She was heralded as a hero when she complied with a House subpoena in defiance of the White House -- the first current administration official to do so -- marching to Capitol Hill on Oct. 11 to speak to House impeachment investigators behind closed doors.
She learned about being a survivor from her parents, whom she credits as teaching her the values of "freedom and democracy the U.S. represents."
They emigrated to North America in the 1940s -- fleeing Nazi and communist regimes in Europe. Young Masha grew up in Kent, Connecticut, according to The Middletown Press, where her parents taught foreign languages at a private boarding school.
"My parents survived poverty, war, and displacement," she said at her confirmation hearing in 2016. "They finally arrived in the United States with me in tow in search of freedom, accountability, and opportunity, the very values that Ukrainians demanded in the revolution of dignity."
(MORE: Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump had her removed based on 'false claims')
She told a Connecticut newspaper in 2005 that she first thought about working abroad when she was in school but didn't pursue it until years later, after studying in Moscow and working in advertising in New York. She joined the Foreign Service in 1986.
|
www.news.yahoo.com
| 0left
|
g4DOMamtoHgrf17l
|
education
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/09/six-things-obama-didnt-tell-you-about-his-free-college-plan-n1940903
|
Six Things Obama Didn't Tell You About His "Free" College Tuition Plan
|
2015-01-09
|
Conn Carroll, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Guy Benson, Timothy Meads
|
Previewing yet another item on his 2015 State of the Union Friday , President Obama announced a new plan to make community college tuition `` free . ''
`` Today I 'm announcing an ambitious new plan to bring down the cost of community college tuition in America , '' Obama said . `` I wan na bring it down to zero . I wan na make it free . ''
Obama may have spoken for over half-an-hour in Knoxville , Tennessee , where he was joined by both Sens . Bob Corker ( R-TN ) and Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) , but he left out a few details about his new program :
Obama may have sold his plan as `` free '' college tuition , but it is n't free to students and it definitely is n't free to taxpayers . First , Obama 's plan will only cover `` three-qarters of the average cost of community college . '' States are expected to pick up the tab for the remaining 25 percent . But even then , the program will only cover the `` average cost '' of tuition . Many students who go to schools with higher tuitions will still be on the hook for money .
Second , nothing is ever free for taxpayers . On Air Force One today , Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz confirmed that the program will cost at least $ 60 billion over ten years .
`` There are no free rides in America , '' Obama insisted today . And he 's right . Nothing is ever really free . `` Colleges would to do their part by offering high quality academics and helping students actually graduate , '' Obama continued . `` States would have to do their part to . This is n't a blank check . It is not a free lunch . ''
All this accountability may sound great in a political speech , but in real life what it all translates to is tons of paperwork and red tape for states and schools . If you loved the federalization of elementary education through No Child Left Behind , and all the millions of hours of paperwork that came with it , then you 'll love Obama 's plan to federalize community colleges .
3 ) Too Many High School Students Are n't Prepared For Community College
Too many high schools are already failing to prepare their graduates for college and making community college as universal as high school , which is what Obama said the goal of his new plan was , would only make the situation worse .
A 2004 study found that not only did 68 percent of community college students take at least one remedial course , but of those that did take remedial courses , they had to take 2.9 of them . All Obama 's plan would really do is create nationally funded 6-year high schools .
If community colleges had a strong track record of taking unprepared or financially strained students through graduation and onto four-year institutions , then maybe Obama 's plan might begin to make some sense . But the simple fact is that they do n't .
Less than 20 percent of first-time , full-time community college students complete their two-year degrees in three years . And of the only 20 percent of community college students who do transfer to four-year institutions , only 72 percent of them will finish or still be in school after another four years .
No government spending program exists in a vacuum . If the government subsidizes the price of a service , then the price of that service will go up . Which is exactly what has happened to the price of four-year college tuition since the federal government has been ramping up their grant and loan-guarantee spending .
Not only will government subsidized tuition at public community colleges drive up the price of tuition at those colleges , but it will also crowd out private sector solutions . The Manhattan Institute 's Judah Bellin explains :
|
Previewing yet another item on his 2015 State of the Union Friday, President Obama announced a new plan to make community college tuition "free."
"Today I'm announcing an ambitious new plan to bring down the cost of community college tuition in America," Obama said. "I wanna bring it down to zero. I wanna make it free."
Obama may have spoken for over half-an-hour in Knoxville, Tennessee, where he was joined by both Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), but he left out a few details about his new program:
1) It Isn't Free
Obama may have sold his plan as "free" college tuition, but it isn't free to students and it definitely isn't free to taxpayers. First, Obama's plan will only cover "three-qarters of the average cost of community college." States are expected to pick up the tab for the remaining 25 percent. But even then, the program will only cover the "average cost" of tuition. Many students who go to schools with higher tuitions will still be on the hook for money.
Second, nothing is ever free for taxpayers. On Air Force One today, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz confirmed that the program will cost at least $60 billion over ten years.
2) It Will Drown Community Colleges In Red Tape
"There are no free rides in America," Obama insisted today. And he's right. Nothing is ever really free. "Colleges would to do their part by offering high quality academics and helping students actually graduate," Obama continued. "States would have to do their part to. This isn't a blank check. It is not a free lunch."
All this accountability may sound great in a political speech, but in real life what it all translates to is tons of paperwork and red tape for states and schools. If you loved the federalization of elementary education through No Child Left Behind, and all the millions of hours of paperwork that came with it, then you'll love Obama's plan to federalize community colleges.
3) Too Many High School Students Aren't Prepared For Community College
Too many high schools are already failing to prepare their graduates for college and making community college as universal as high school, which is what Obama said the goal of his new plan was, would only make the situation worse.
A 2004 study found that not only did 68 percent of community college students take at least one remedial course, but of those that did take remedial courses, they had to take 2.9 of them. All Obama's plan would really do is create nationally funded 6-year high schools.
4) Community College's Have A Poor Track Record
If community colleges had a strong track record of taking unprepared or financially strained students through graduation and onto four-year institutions, then maybe Obama's plan might begin to make some sense. But the simple fact is that they don't.
Less than 20 percent of first-time, full-time community college students complete their two-year degrees in three years. And of the only 20 percent of community college students who do transfer to four-year institutions, only 72 percent of them will finish or still be in school after another four years.
5) "Free" Tuition Will Drive Up Costs
No government spending program exists in a vacuum. If the government subsidizes the price of a service, then the price of that service will go up. Which is exactly what has happened to the price of four-year college tuition since the federal government has been ramping up their grant and loan-guarantee spending.
6) Government Spending Crowds Out Private Sector Solutions
Not only will government subsidized tuition at public community colleges drive up the price of tuition at those colleges, but it will also crowd out private sector solutions. The Manhattan Institute's Judah Bellin explains:
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
eJU1UR8yDnZ8ACK8
|
middle_east
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-nuclear-deal/2017/10/07/id/818292/
|
Iranian President Defends Nuclear Deal, Says Trump Can Not Undermine
|
2017-10-07
|
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani defended the nuclear deal with Western powers Saturday and said that U.S. President Donald Trump could not undermine it .
Under the 2015 deal , Iran agreed to limit its disputed nuclear programme in return for the easing of economic sanctions .
However , Trump is expected to announce soon that he will decertify the deal , a senior administration official has said , in a step that potentially could cause the accord to unravel .
`` In the nuclear negotiations and agreement we reached issues and benefits that are not reversible . No one can turn that back , not Mr. Trump or anyone else , '' Rouhani said at a ceremony at Tehran University marking the start of the university academic year , according to state media .
`` Even if 10 other Trumps are created in the world , these are not reversible . ''
Trump , who has called the pact an `` embarrassment '' and `` the worst deal ever negotiated '' , has been weighing whether the deal serves U.S. security interests as he faces the Oct. 15 deadline for certifying that Iran is complying with its terms .
The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it , especially as the world grapples with another nuclear crisis , North Korea 's nuclear and ballistic missile development .
If Trump does not certify that Iran is in compliance , the U.S. Congress will have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the deal . U.N. inspectors have verified Iranian compliance with the terms .
Rouhani said Saturday that if the United States violated the deal then it would hurt its own reputation in the international community .
`` If America carries out any violations today , the whole world will condemn America . They will not condemn Iran , '' Rouhani said , according to state media . `` Then they will say why did you trust America and sign an agreement with them ? ''
Separately , former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami has been forbidden from attending `` public political , cultural and promotional ceremonies '' , for a period of three months , two of his lawyers told the Iranian Labour News Agency ( ILNA ) on Saturday .
Khatami has long been a lightning rod of criticism for hardliners who accuse him of fomenting unrest in the protests that followed the disputed election of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009 . Local media are forbidden from quoting Khatami in articles or publishing his image .
The new restrictions were issued by Iranian security forces , Khatami 's lawyers told ILNA , and there does not appear to be any judicial mechanism to dispute the restrictions .
In the lead-up to the presidential election last May , Khatami posted a message online encouraging his supporters to vote for Rouhani .
Rouhani made a reference to the new restrictions placed on Khatami during his speech Saturday but did not name him .
`` If anybody repeats that people should come to the ballot box , they should be punished ? '' he said , according to ILNA .
Khatami 's lawyers told ILNA that the restrictions began on the first day of the Iranian month of Mehr , which is Sept. 23 . ( Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh ; Editing by Alison Williams )
|
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani defended the nuclear deal with Western powers Saturday and said that U.S. President Donald Trump could not undermine it.
Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to limit its disputed nuclear programme in return for the easing of economic sanctions.
However, Trump is expected to announce soon that he will decertify the deal, a senior administration official has said, in a step that potentially could cause the accord to unravel.
"In the nuclear negotiations and agreement we reached issues and benefits that are not reversible. No one can turn that back, not Mr. Trump or anyone else," Rouhani said at a ceremony at Tehran University marking the start of the university academic year, according to state media.
"Even if 10 other Trumps are created in the world, these are not reversible."
Trump, who has called the pact an "embarrassment" and "the worst deal ever negotiated", has been weighing whether the deal serves U.S. security interests as he faces the Oct. 15 deadline for certifying that Iran is complying with its terms.
The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it, especially as the world grapples with another nuclear crisis, North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile development.
If Trump does not certify that Iran is in compliance, the U.S. Congress will have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the deal. U.N. inspectors have verified Iranian compliance with the terms.
Rouhani said Saturday that if the United States violated the deal then it would hurt its own reputation in the international community.
"If America carries out any violations today, the whole world will condemn America. They will not condemn Iran," Rouhani said, according to state media. "Then they will say why did you trust America and sign an agreement with them?"
Separately, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami has been forbidden from attending "public political, cultural and promotional ceremonies", for a period of three months, two of his lawyers told the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA) on Saturday.
Khatami has long been a lightning rod of criticism for hardliners who accuse him of fomenting unrest in the protests that followed the disputed election of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009. Local media are forbidden from quoting Khatami in articles or publishing his image.
The new restrictions were issued by Iranian security forces, Khatami's lawyers told ILNA, and there does not appear to be any judicial mechanism to dispute the restrictions.
In the lead-up to the presidential election last May, Khatami posted a message online encouraging his supporters to vote for Rouhani.
Rouhani made a reference to the new restrictions placed on Khatami during his speech Saturday but did not name him.
"If anybody repeats that people should come to the ballot box, they should be punished?" he said, according to ILNA.
Khatami's lawyers told ILNA that the restrictions began on the first day of the Iranian month of Mehr, which is Sept. 23. (Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh; Editing by Alison Williams)
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
v1FoROR1ESlXkCWx
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
News Articles with Political Bias Annotations (Random Splits)
Source
Derived from Baly et al.'s work: We Can Detect Your Bias: Predicting the Political Ideology of News Articles (Baly et al., EMNLP 2020)
Information
This dataset contains 36,274 news articles manually annotated for political ideology, either "left", "center", or "right". This version contains randomly selected test/training/validation splits, identical to those used by Baly (according to their git repository).
- Downloads last month
- 103