DUBLIN |
Mon May 23, 2011
3:11pm EDT
Reuters
By Jeff Mason and Padraic Halpin
DUBLIN
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama declared solidarity between the United States
and economically struggling Ireland with a symbolic gulp of beer and a rousing
speech, telling a huge Dublin crowd on Monday: "Your best days are still ahead."
Beginning a four-nation European tour with a celebration of his Irish roots,
Obama came to Ireland as what one man called a "long-lost cousin."
Crowds packed the streets for both a stirring speech in Dublin and a visit to
the tiny village of Moneygall, where an ancestor of Obama's lived before moving
to the United States.
Introduced by Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny as "the American Dream come home,"
Obama told the throng in central Dublin: "My name is Barack Obama, of the
Moneygall Obamas."
For Ireland, Obama's arrival, and the visit of Britain's Queen Elizabeth last
week, are a welcome distraction from the global attention paid to its financial
woes and the ensuing international bailout.
Obama was also due to visit Britain, France and Poland on a week-long trip whose
agenda includes talks on issues as Afghanistan and Pakistan after the killing of
Osama bin Laden, the world economy and the "Arab spring" uprisings.
AUSTERITY
Ireland's economic slump has led to a debt crisis and drastic government
spending cuts. Apart from lifting the spirits of the Irish, the visit looked set
to provide some powerful images back home for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.
He brought back the signature phrase from his 2008 presidential campaign, "Yes
we can," but said it in Gaelic.
"This little country that inspires the biggest things -- your best days are
still ahead," Obama said.
"And Ireland, if anyone ever says otherwise ... remember that, whatever
hardships winter can bring, springtime is always just around the corner and, if
they keep on arguing with you, just respond with a simple creed, 'Is feidir
linn', Yes we can."
At O'Neill's pub in Dublin, revelers cheered and some chanted "USA! USA!" as the
president emerged on stage for his speech.
"I think it will give the country a great lift, the kind of lift we desperately
need," said Jennifer Kearney, a mother of two who brought her two daughters aged
13 and 15 into Dublin's city center for the event.
In Moneygall, Obama hoisted a glass of Guinness stout at Ollie Hayes's pub as
fiddle music played, and his wife Michelle pulled pints at the bar.
Thousands of rain-drenched people lined the village's one street, festooned with
American flags, and roared with delight as the motorcade rolled in.
The sleepy village of 300 was the birthplace of Obama's great-great-great
grandfather, Falmouth Kearney, a shoemaker who left in 1850 to begin a new life
in the United States.
This makes Obama, the son of a Kenyan father and Irish-American mother, one of
37 million Americans who claim Irish ancestry.
LONG-LOST
COUSIN
"I'm here to see Obama ... our long-lost cousin," said Moneygall resident Rob
Lewis, 28.
Inside the pub, which was lined with framed photos of Obama, the president met
Henry Healy, a 24-year-old distant cousin. He joked with the bartender to make
sure the Guinness had settled properly before he and Michelle took sips.
"I don't want to mess this up," he said before saluting the bar with a "Slainte"
-- Irish for 'cheers' -- and a long gulp.
"You look a little like my grandfather," he said to one of the men inside.
Back out on the street, three babies were handed over a security barricade for
pictures to be taken with Obama, and women hugged and kissed him under the
watchful eye of his security detail.
Moneygall is capitalizing on its famous connection, selling everything from
Obama fridge magnets to Obama plastic lighters.
T-shirts with slogans such as "What's the craic, Barack?" ("How are things?
What's going on?") and "Is feidir linn" are top-sellers.
Irish radio offers frequent airings of the popular song "There's no one as Irish
as Barack Obama," playing on a surname that almost sounds typically Irish.
"We're a tiny nation of 4 million people so it's a lovely gesture him coming
over. Given that we've had the queen as well it's been a momentous week. It's a
lift for Ireland," said Susannah Moore of Dublin.
Obama was forced to leave for London for the next stop of his trip on Monday
night rather than Tuesday due to a new volcanic ash cloud from Iceland.
(Additional
reporting by Carmel Crimmins, Conor Humphries and Roisin Maguire; Writing by
Steve Holland; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
WASHINGTON | Sun May 22, 2011
10:10pm EDT
Reuters
By Matt Spetalnick and Caren Bohan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Sunday eased Israeli anger over
his new Middle East peace proposals when he made clear that the Jewish state
would likely be able to negotiate keeping some settlements in any final deal
with the Palestinians.
Obama repeated his view that long-stalled peace talks should start on the basis
of the Israel's 1967 borders, an assertion that had infuriated Israeli leaders,
exposed a rift between the two allies and raised further doubts about peace
prospects.
But Obama's speech to Washington's most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group on
Sunday seemed to soothe some tensions over Obama's endorsement three days
earlier of a longstanding Palestinian demand on the borders of their future
state.
Obama stressed that he expected the two sides to eventually reach an accord that
included land swaps that would take into account the "new demographic realities
on the ground," signaling that Israel should be allowed to keep some Jewish
settlements built on occupied land.
The speech to Israel's staunchest U.S. supporters followed a testy encounter at
the White House on Friday. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stunned his hosts
by warning Obama against seeking peace "based on illusions" as he vowed Israel
would never pull back to old borders he regarded as "indefensible."
But the right-wing Israeli leader quickly expressed his appreciation for Obama's
remarks on Sunday, saying in a statement, "I am determined to work together with
President Obama to find ways to resume the peace negotiations."
It could still take some time, however, for Obama and Netanyahu to overcome the
latest strains in an already-fraught relationship that some analysts say is just
as much a hindrance to reviving the moribund peace process as policy
differences.
Netanyahu resisted offering any concessions in his Oval Office talks on Friday.
Obama's speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also
served as a reminder his peace formula could cost him support among Jewish and
pro-Israel voters and donors as he runs for re-election in 2012. Some
prospective Republican presidential challengers have already accused him of
betraying Israel, Washington's closest ally in the region.
ACKNOWLEDGES DIFFERENCES
"Even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds
between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the
United States to the security of Israel is ironclad," Obama said to loud
applause.
But Obama sometimes met stony silence from the AIPAC audience and at one point
drew a smattering of boos.
Israeli officials were pleased, however, to hear Obama again reject a
Palestinian plan to seek U.N. recognition of statehood in September and condemn
a recent reconciliation deal between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas
Islamists. But he also pressed Israel to "make the hard choices" for peace.
An aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said: "We appreciate President
Obama's stated position regarding a state on the 1967 borders, it is a step in
the right direction."
On Sunday, Obama reiterated the "principles" he outlined on Thursday in a speech
on Middle East upheaval, but introduced new phrasing that assuaged some of
Netanyahu's concerns.
At issue is Obama's embrace of a long-sought goal by the Palestinians: that the
state they seek in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip should largely be drawn
along lines that existed before the 1967 war in which Israel captured those
territories and East Jerusalem.
The proposal would call for negotiated land swaps for Israel to retain some
large settlements in the West Bank.
Obama chided those who he said had "misrepresented" his position, a slap at
Netanyahu, who had seized on the notion that he was being asked to return to
1967 lines while ignoring the president's stipulation there would be land
exchanges.
"By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians
-- will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June
4, 1967. That's what mutually agreed upon swaps means," Obama said.
"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken
place over the last forty-four years. ... to take account of those changes
including the new demographic realities on the ground."
IN LINE
WITH BUSH PROMISES
Obama's new wording was more in line with guarantees by former President George
W. Bush in 2004 saying it was "unrealistic" for Israel to return to old borders
and suggesting it may keep settlement blocs under any peace pact.
A senior U.S. official insisted however, that even though "people are trying to
suggest that he felt he had to clarify something he said on Thursday, he did no
such thing."
Despite that, Obama's stress on 1967 borders put the United States formally on
record as endorsing the old boundaries as a starting point, something it had
only embraced privately.
Obama's aim was to draw Palestinians back to the table and head off their U.N.
statehood drive, but the Palestinians signaled they would not be deterred.
Obama, leaving on a European tour later on Sunday, planned to try to convince
European leaders not to support a unilateral statehood bid.
U.S.-brokered talks collapsed late last year when Netanyahu refused to extend a
moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank and the Palestinians walked
away.
Netanyahu is expected to be feted when he addresses AIPAC on Monday and then
speaks to the U.S. Congress on Tuesday where he will have a chance to rally
support for his stance.
While Obama won the Jewish vote overwhelmingly in 2008, some prominent Jewish
Americans were rethinking their support for his re-election after this week's
events.
Some Israelis have never felt entirely comfortable with Obama, unnerved by his
early attempts to reach out to Iran and his support for Arab revolutions that
have unsettled Israel.
(Additional
reporting by Jeffrey Heller and Jasmin Melvin; Editing by Jackie Frank)
LANGLEY,
Virginia | Fri May 20, 2011
8:53pm EDT
Reuters
By Patricia Zengerle
LANGLEY,
Virginia (Reuters) - President Barack Obama thanked the U.S. intelligence
community on Friday for helping track down and kill Osama bin Laden and warned
remaining members of his al Qaeda network to watch their backs.
"Make no mistake. This is not over ..." Obama told members of the intelligence
community gathered at Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley,
Virginia. "We walked off with his files -- the largest treasure trove of
intelligence ever seized from a terrorist leader."
Standing before a memorial wall covered in stars to honor members of the CIA
killed in the line of duty, Obama said every member of al Qaeda should be
"watching his back."
The CIA shared a significant part of the blame for the intelligence failures
that allowed bin Laden to plot and carry out the September 11 attacks against
the United States, which dealt the agency's reputation and morale a severe blow.
Obama was greeted with thunderous applause, whistles and cheers by the crowd of
about 1,000 workers from a range of intelligence agencies and his comments were
interrupted repeatedly by more cheers, applause and laughter.
"You made it possible for us to achieve the most significant victory yet in our
war to defeat al Qaeda," he said.
"I put my bet on you," Obama said. "Now the whole world knows that faith in you
was justified."
CIA director Leon Panetta thanked Obama for making the "gutsy decision" to bring
bin Laden to justice although he had only circumstantial evidence that the
world's most wanted man was in the compound where he was killed.
"We are grateful to have a commander-in-chief who was willing to put great trust
in our work," said Panetta, Obama's nominee to be the next Secretary of Defense.
Obama said the CIA's efforts to track down bin Laden had made a critical
difference to the success of the May 2 mission of U.S. Navy SEAL commandos to
kill him in Pakistan. He said the agency's secret and generally thankless
contribution had been recognized.
"You're often the first ones to get the blame when things go wrong and you're
always the last ones to get the credit when things go right," Obama said.
In the days since the raid, Obama has visited with members of the Navy SEAL unit
who killed bin Laden and traveled to the site of the World Trade Center in New
York to lay a wreath and meet with relatives of those who were killed in the
2001 attacks.
On Friday, Obama met behind closed doors at the CIA with about 60 intelligence
officers from different agencies who had been closely involved in the effort to
track down bin Laden.
"Most of you will never get headlines for what you do; you won't get ticker tape
parades," Obama said in his public remarks in the main lobby at CIA
headquarters. "You have the thanks of a grateful nation."
(Reporting
by Patricia Zengerle; Writing by Alister Bull; Editing by Eric Walsh)
WASHINGTON
| Thu May 19, 2011
4:11pm EDT
Reuters
By Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday threw his weight behind the
tumultuous drive for democratic change in the Arab world and presented his most
detailed vision yet on the path to elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Obama, in his much-anticipated "Arab spring" speech, hailed popular unrest
sweeping the Middle East as a "historic opportunity" and said promoting reform
was his administration's top priority for a region caught up in unprecedented
upheaval.
He also ratcheted up pressure on Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, saying for the
first time that he must stop a brutal crackdown or "get out of the way," and
prodded U.S. allies Yemen and Bahrain as well for democratic transformation.
Obama's bid to reset ties with a skeptical Arab world was aimed at countering
criticism over an uneven response to the region's uprisings that threaten both
U.S. friends and foes and his failure to advance Israeli-Palestinian
peacemaking.
His blunt language toward U.S. ally Israel about the need to find an end to its
occupation of Arab land could complicate his talks on Friday with Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while easing Arab doubts of his commitment to
even-handed U.S. mediation.
"The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent
occupation," Obama told an audience of U.S. and foreign diplomats at the State
Department in Washington.
Most of Obama's speech focused on the unrest convulsing the Arab world, though
he did not abandon his approach of balancing support for democratic aspirations
with a desire to preserve longtime partnerships seen as crucial to fighting al
Qaeda, containing Iran and securing vital oil supplies.
"The people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have
stepped aside. More may follow," he said.
Seizing on a decades-old conflict long seen as a key catalyst of Middle East
tensions, Obama went further than he has before in offering principles for
resolving a stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians.
But he stopped short of presenting a formal U.S. peace plan -- an omission that
could disappoint many in the Arab world -- after having failed to make progress
on the Israeli-Palestinian front since taking office in 2009.
Among the parameters he laid down was that any agreement creating a state of
Palestine must be based on borders that existed before Israel captured the West
Bank in a 1967 Arab-Israel war but "with mutually agreed swaps" of land.
Though not a U.S. policy shift in itself, Obama's insistence on that point --
plus his criticism of continued Israeli "settlement activity" -- sends a message
to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that that Washington expects the
Jewish state to make concessions.
Obama will host Netanyahu, who has had strained relations with the U.S.
president, at the White House on Friday, with the prospects for progress on
peace moves considered dim.
COMMITMENT
TO ISRAEL
Obama also reaffirmed an unshakable commitment to Israel's security and
condemned what he called "symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United
Nations," referring to the Palestinians plan to seek General Assembly
recognition for statehood in September.
But he acknowledged that a new reconciliation deal between the Palestinian
Authority and the Islamist group Hamas raised "legitimate questions" for Israel,
which has condemned the accord as blocking any new peace talks.
"I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on
for generations, and at times it has hardened," Obama said. "But I'm convinced
that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future
than be trapped in the past."
Struggling to regain the initiative in a week of intense Middle East diplomacy,
Obama seized an opportunity to reach out to the Arab world following the death
of Osama bin Laden at the hands of U.S. Navy SEAL commandos.
"We have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader," Obama said. "Bin
Laden was not a martyr, he was a mass murderer ... Bin Laden and his murderous
vision won some adherents but even before his death al Qaeda was losing its
struggle for relevance."
Seeking to back democratic reform with economic incentives, Obama announced
billions of dollars in aid for Egypt and Tunisia to bolster their political
transitions after revolts toppled autocratic leaders.
Obama's speech was his first major attempt to put the anti-government protests
that have swept the Middle East in the context of U.S. national interests.
"Their voices tell us that change cannot be denied," Obama said.
He has scrambled to keep pace with still-unfolding events that have ousted
long-time leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, threatened those in Yemen and Bahrain
and engulfed Libya in civil war where the United States and other powers
unleashed a bombing campaign.
(Additional
reporting by Jeff Mason, Steve Holland and Andrew Quinn;
editing by Laura MacInnis and Mohammad Zargham)
Following is a
text of President Obama’s speech on the Middle East,
delivered on Thursday in Washington, as released by the White House:
Thank you.
Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, have a seat.
Thank you very much. I want to begin by thanking Hillary Clinton, who has
traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark --
one million frequent flyer miles. (Laughter.) I count on Hillary every single
day, and I believe that she will go down as one of the finest Secretaries of
State in our nation's history.
The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American
diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking
place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square, town by town,
country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights.
Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may
be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to
this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith.
Today, I want to talk about this change -- the forces that are driving it and
how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our
security.
Now, already, we've done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade
defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we've removed
100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan,
we've broken the Taliban's momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our
troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war
against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by
killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate –-
an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and that
violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. He
rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent
extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy -– not what he could
build.
Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his
death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming
majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their
cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda's agenda had
come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people
of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.
That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On December
17th, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a police
officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It's the same kind of
humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -– the
relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only this
time, something different happened. After local officials refused to hear his
complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics,
went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel,
and lit himself on fire.
There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens
spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has
been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots
in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as
she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor's act of
desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of
protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and
sometimes bullets, they refused to go home –- day after day, week after week --
until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.
The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come
as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their
independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. In too many
countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. In too many
countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn -– no honest
judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible
political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could
choose his leader.
And this lack of self-determination –- the chance to make your life what you
will –- has applied to the region's economy as well. Yes, some nations are
blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity.
But in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development
strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. Nor can people
reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe.
In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct
their people's grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all
ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel
became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe,
ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power,
or taking it away from somebody else.
But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and
strategies of diversion will not work anymore. Satellite television and the
Internet provide a window into the wider world -– a world of astonishing
progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social
networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. And so a
new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be
denied.
In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, "It's like I can
finally breathe fresh air for the first time."
In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, "The night must come to an end."
In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, "Our words are free now. It's a
feeling you can't explain."
In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, "After the first yelling, the
first shout, you feel dignity."
Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the
moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change
in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.
Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age -–
a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication –- people expect the
transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be
years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days
and there will bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others,
gradual. And as we've already seen, calls for change may give way, in some
cases, to fierce contests for power.
The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For
decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region:
countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the
free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up
for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.
We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America's
interests are not hostile to people's hopes; they're essential to them. We
believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al
Qaeda's brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies
crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not
tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends
and partners.
Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of
these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their
mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people
will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States
pursues our interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways
–- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and
terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to
change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United
States and the Arab world.
And that's why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based
upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then -– and I believe now
-– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the
self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies
held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a
time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.
So we face a historic opportunity. We have the chance to show that America
values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of
the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes
change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be
perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the
world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should
be.
Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It's not America
that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -– it was the people
themselves who launched these movements, and it's the people themselves that
must ultimately determine their outcome.
Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy,
and there will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with
our long-term vision for the region. But we can, and we will, speak out for a
set of core principles –- principles that have guided our response to the events
over the past six months:
The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people
of the region. (Applause.)
The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include
free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality
for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own
leaders -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.
And we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and North Africa
that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the
region.
Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. Today I want to
make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete
actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at
our disposal.
Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote
reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy. That effort
begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high -– as Tunisia was at the
vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a longstanding partner and
the Arab world's largest nation. Both nations can set a strong example through
free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective
democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership. But our support
must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place.
Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been
answered by violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi
launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As
I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we
cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and
we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is
to try to impose regime change by force -– no matter how well-intentioned it may
be.
But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for
action, and heard the Libyan people's call for help. Had we not acted along with
our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been
killed. The message would have been clear: Keep power by killing as many people
as it takes. Now, time is working against Qaddafi. He does not have control over
his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim
Council. And when Qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of
provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can
proceed.
While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it's not the only place
where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most recently, the
Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its
citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and working with the
international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the Syrian regime –-
including sanctions announced yesterday on President Assad and those around him.
The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to
democracy. President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get
out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow
peaceful protests. It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests.
It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara'a; and
start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise,
President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and
will continue to be isolated abroad.
So far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in
the tactics of suppression. And this speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian
regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses
its own people at home. Let's remember that the first peaceful protests in the
region were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized women and
men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants echo from the
rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the streets is still
seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that the Iranian people
deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their
aspirations.
Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as
well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known.
But if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends
in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change -- with
change that's consistent with the principles that I've outlined today. That's
true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment
to transfer power. And that's true today in Bahrain.
Bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security. We
recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that
the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.
Nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and
brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens, and we
will -- and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The
only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue,
and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in
jail. (Applause.) The government must create the conditions for dialogue, and
the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that
sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a
multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils
of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they've taken
full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies,
they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if
it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand
with them as a steadfast partner.
So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform
in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to
speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe
alike. Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you
will have the full support of the United States.
We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so
that we reach the people who will shape the future -– particularly young people.
We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo -– to
build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster
cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the region, we
intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be
officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. And we will use the
technology to connect with -– and listen to –- the voices of the people.
For the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone. Through our
efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access
information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of
journalists to be heard -– whether it's a big news organization or a lone
blogger. In the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden,
and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed
citizens.
Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our
worldview. Let me be clear, America respects the right of all peaceful and
law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. And sometimes we
profoundly disagree with them.
We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy.
What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others,
and to hold power through coercion and not consent. Because democracy depends
not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the
respect for the rights of minorities.
Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir
Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, "Muslims, Christians,
we are one." America will work to see that this spirit prevails -– that all
faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that
was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to
suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic
Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must
never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.
What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights
of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful
when women are empowered. And that's why we will continue to insist that
universal rights apply to women as well as men -– by focusing assistance on
child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by
standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for
office. The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of
its population is prevented from achieving their full potential. (Applause.)
Now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the
region, our efforts can't stop there. So the second way that we must support
positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic
development for nations that are transitioning to democracy.
After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping
point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the
table and providing for a family. Too many people in the region wake up with few
expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their
luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid
education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs
are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those
ideas.
The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent
of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people
harness technology to move the world. It's no coincidence that one of the
leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to
be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the
accomplishments of the street. For just as democratic revolutions can be
triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions
depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.
So, drawing from what we've learned around the world, we think it's important to
focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance. The goal must
be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness, the reigns of commerce
pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young.
America's support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial
stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other
and the global economy. And we're going to start with Tunisia and Egypt.
First, we've asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present
a plan at next week's G8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and
modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them
recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the
governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other
countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.
Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its
past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and
work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and
entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1
billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation.
And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.
Third, we're working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in
Tunisia and Egypt. And these will be modeled on funds that supported the
transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon
launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region.
And we will work with the allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions
and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in
Europe.
Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment
Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil
exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same
amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade
within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S.
and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high
standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade
arrangement. And just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in
Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a
powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.
Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -–
the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an
idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on
tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and
invest efforts at anti-corruption -- by working with parliamentarians who are
developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency
and hold government accountable. Politics and human rights; economic reform.
Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the
region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.
For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the
region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children
could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the
pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For
Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never
living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger
cost to the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater
security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people.
For over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the
international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by
previous administrations. Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement
activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks. The world looks at
a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate.
Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in
the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now.
I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are
casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the
conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That's certainly true
for the two parties involved.
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.
Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't
create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or
prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians
will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared
values. Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable. And we will stand
against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But
precisely because of our friendship, it's important that we tell the truth: The
status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting
peace.
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River.
Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing
profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just
one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. The international
community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The
dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent
occupation.
Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No
peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else.
But endless delay won't make the problem go away. What America and the
international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a
lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state
and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the
homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination,
mutual recognition, and peace.
So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those
negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States
believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent
Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli
borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be
based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and
recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must
have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a
sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be
able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also
be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration
of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased
withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption
of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.
And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness
of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know
the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic
security concerns will be met. I'm aware that these steps alone will not resolve
the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future
of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on
the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two
issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and
aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the
issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back
to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between
Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one
negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right
to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to
provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our
Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get
beyond the current impasse.
I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on
for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I'm convinced that the
majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be
trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was
killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis
and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, "I gradually
realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the
conflict." We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to
Israeli shells in Gaza. "I have the right to feel angry," he said. "So many
people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us
hope," he said, "for tomorrow."
That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope;
between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It's a choice
that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it's a choice that will
define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a
crucible of strife.
For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In
Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we
see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, "peaceful,
peaceful." In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the
courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had
never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being
claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the grip of an iron fist.
For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling,
but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through
a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful Civil War that
extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be
standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of
nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting
peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: "We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the
Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail,
and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain
inalienable rights.
It will not be easy. There's no straight line to progress, and hardship always
accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on
the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to
stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing
that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable,
and more just.
Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you.
It should be no surprise that the ferment in the Arab world has touched the
Palestinians, whose promised two-state solution is no closer than ever. On
Sunday, the anniversary of Israel’s creation, thousands marching from Syria,
Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank breached Israel’s borders and confronted Israeli
troops. More than a dozen people were killed; scores were injured.
According to The Times’s Ethan Bronner, the protests were coordinated via social
media, but they also appeared to have support from Lebanon and President Bashar
al-Assad of Syria, who is eager to divert attention from his crackdown on
pro-democracy demonstrators.
Israel must defend its territory. But the protests and the casualties might have
been avoided if credible peace negotiations were under way. Since President
Obama took office, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have had just three weeks of
direct talks. Last week, George Mitchell, Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, quit.
There is blame all around: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who is
scheduled to meet with Mr. Obama at the White House on Friday, has shown little
interest in negotiations and has used the regional turmoil as one more excuse to
hunker down. Arab leaders haven’t given him much incentive to compromise.
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority wants a deal but seemed to
give up after Mr. Obama couldn’t deliver a promised settlement freeze.
President Obama has done far too little to break the stalemate. As he prepares
to give a speech on Thursday on the Arab Spring, the White House signaled that
he is unlikely to offer any new initiative to revive peace talks.
Frankly, we do not see how Mr. Obama can talk persuasively about transformation
in the Arab world without showing Palestinians a peaceful way forward. It is
time for Mr. Obama, alone or with crucial allies, to put a map and a deal on the
table. The two sides will not break the impasse by themselves.
This is a singular moment of great opportunity and challenge in the Arab world.
The United States and other democracies cannot dictate the outcome but must
invest maximum effort and creativity to help shape it. There is no
one-size-fits-all doctrine for dealing with disparate countries. The United
States and its allies are right to balance values and strategic interests.
Still Mr. Obama can use the speech to articulate principles that Arab countries
should follow as a condition of Western economic and political support:
democratic elections, free markets, peaceful relations with neighboring states —
including Israel — rights for women and minorities, the rule of law.
He should press American allies to lay out similar principles when the Group of
8 industrialized nations meets this month in France and back them up with clear
offers of support. The United States and its allies must help Tunisia and Egypt
— their struggles have inspired the region — weather severe economic problems,
providing debt relief, trade and access to international financial institutions.
Civil society groups need support.
President Obama raised great hopes in 2009 when he spoke in Cairo about “a new
beginning” with the Muslim world. The glow has faded. He has another chance this
week to bolster this country’s image and to help support democratic change in
the region. Reviving the peace process must be part of that effort. The
Israeli-Palestinian conflict wasn’t central to protests in Egypt, Libya or
Syria. But as Mr. Assad proved, it is still a far too potent weapon for
autocrats and extremists.
WASHINGTON
| Tue May 17, 2011
5:14pm EDT
Reuters
By Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday it was "more vital than ever"
to seek to revive long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, even as
political upheaval convulses much of the broader Middle East.
Speaking after talks with Jordan's King Abdullah at the start of a week of
intense diplomacy, Obama pledged to keep pressing for a two-state solution to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite his failure so far to break the
impasse.
But Obama, who wants to reconnect with an Arab world showing signs of
frustration with his approach to the restive region, offered no new ideas for
advancing the peace process.
The president plans to deliver a major policy speech on the "Arab spring" on
Thursday, meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday and address
an influential pro-Israel lobbying group on Sunday.
With the Jordanian monarch sitting at his side in the Oval Office, Obama
suggested that unrest sweeping the Middle East offered a chance for Israel and
the Palestinians to seek progress toward resolving their own decades-old
dispute.
"Despite the many changes -- or perhaps because of the many changes that have
taken place in the region -- it's more vital than ever that both Israelis and
Palestinians find a way to ... begin negotiating a process whereby they can
create two states living side by side in peace and security," he told reporters.
Obama is struggling to counter Arab perceptions of an uneven U.S. response to a
wave of popular uprisings and disarray in his Israeli-Palestinian peace
strategy. He hopes to use the U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden, which for now has
boosted his standing at home and abroad, as a chance to reach out to a large
Arab audience.
MIDEAST
UNREST
Obama and Abdullah also sought common ground on the unrest that has gripped the
Arab world, toppling autocratic U.S. allies in Egypt and Tunisia and engulfing
Libya in civil war.
Jordan has faced protests demanding curbs on the king's powers but not nearly of
the magnitude confronting neighbors Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. He replied in
March by sacking his unpopular prime minister and promising constitutional
changes.
Trying to show that reforms by Washington's autocratic Arab allies will not go
unrewarded, Obama praised Abdullah and pledged to help Jordan with fresh U.S.
economic and food aid.
But Washington also ratcheted up pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
threatening further sanctions over his violent crackdown. Human rights activists
have criticized Obama for not taking tougher action against Syria, a U.S. foe.
Obama has taken a cautious line, expressing support for democratic aspirations
in the region while trying to avoid upsetting longtime partnerships seen as
crucial to fighting al Qaeda, containing Iran and securing vital oil supplies.
The king, a U.S. ally and key player in past peace drives, made clear he wanted
a renewed push by Obama. Jordan and Egypt are the only Arab states with peace
treaties with Israel.
"We will continue to partner (with Jordan) to try to encourage an equitable and
just solution to a problem that has been nagging the region for many, many
years," Obama said.
But Obama, whose attempts to broker a peace deal have yielded little since he
took office, has no plans to roll out a new initiative during the latest
diplomatic flurry, aides say.
Many Israelis are already unsettled over the implications for the Jewish state
from unrest in the broader Middle East, and a new reconciliation deal between
the mainstream Palestinian Fatah faction and its rival, the Islamist Hamas
movement, has raised further doubts about peace prospects.
Netanyahu said on Monday a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas --
which Israel and the United States brand a terrorist group --- could not be a
peace partner.
The risk for Obama is that pushing Israel for concessions could alienate the
Jewish state's base of support among the U.S. public and in Congress as he seeks
re-election in 2012.
Obama, speaking later at a White House reception marking Jewish American
Heritage Month, reaffirmed "unshakable support and commitment" to Israel.
But in the absence of progress on the diplomatic track, the Palestinians are
threatening to seek the U.N. General Assembly's blessing for a Palestinian state
in September, a path that alarms Israel and is opposed by Washington.
Deadly clashes on Israel's borders on Sunday underscored the depth of Arab anger
over the conflict. The resignation of Obama's Middle East envoy, George
Mitchell, raises further doubts about peace prospects.
(Reporting by
Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Obama
warns of worse crisis if no debt ceiling rise
WASHINGTON | Sun May 15, 2011
9:52am EDT
Reuters
By Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned Congress that failing to
raise the debt limit could lead to a worse financial crisis and economic
recession than 2008-09 if investors began doubting U.S. credit-worthiness.
In remarks recorded last week and broadcast by CBS News on Sunday, Obama
repeated his stance that Republicans should not link the debt ceiling decision
to spending cuts as part of deficit-reducing measures.
"If investors around the world thought that the full faith and credit of the
United States was not being backed up, if they thought that we might renege on
our IOUs, it could unravel the entire financial system," Obama told a CBS News
town-hall meeting.
"We could have a worse recession than we already had, a worse financial crisis
than we already had."
The White House and congressional Republicans are locked in a debate over the
deficit and the debt ceiling.
The Treasury Department is expected to hit its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit on
Monday, making it unable to access bond markets again.
Republican leaders, who have said they agree the limit must be raised, say they
will not approve a further increase in borrowing authority without steps to keep
debt under control.
A deal may not emerge for several months.
The Treasury Department says it can stave off default until August 2 by drawing
on other sources of money to pay its bills.
Obama said he was committed to deficit reduction but discouraged a link between
that and the debt limit.
"Let's not have the kind of linkage where we're even talking about not raising
the debt ceiling. That's going to get done," he said. "But let's get serious
about deficit reduction."
A report from the think tank Third Way to be released on Monday supports Obama's
warnings. It says the United States could plunge back into recession if inaction
in Washington forced a debt default, with some 640,000 U.S. jobs vanishing,
stocks falling and lending activity tightening.
Vice President Joe Biden is leading talks between the White House and lawmakers
over how to reduce massive U.S. budget deficits and raise the credit limit. He
told reporters on Thursday that progress was being made but it was too early to
be optimistic about a deal.
(Additional
reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Obama
Urges G.O.P. to Help Overhaul Immigration Law
May 10,
2011
The New York Times
By JACKIE CALMES
EL PASO —
President Obama came to this border city on Tuesday to argue that he is doing
his part to crack down on illegal immigration, and that Republicans must now
join him in overhauling the nation’s immigration laws for the millions of
workers already here illegally.
Mr. Obama’s speech at a park within sight of the border with Mexico — and a
billowing 162-foot-by-93-foot Mexican flag — was heavy with political overtones
for 2012 and beyond, given the growing ranks of Latino voters in a number of
swing states. He sought to reassure those increasingly frustrated voters of his
commitment to liberalizing immigration laws as a moral and economic imperative,
and to blame “border security first” Republicans in Congress for his inability
to deliver on that promise.
“We have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible,”
Mr. Obama said, citing increases since the George W. Bush administration in the
amount of fencing and aerial surveillance and the number of border agents,
National Guard troops, intelligence analysts and deportations of illegal
immigrants.
His first stop here was at an inspection facility on the Rio Grande, one of the
busiest of the 327 official ports of entry to the United States for cargo,
vehicles and even walkers entering from Ciudad Juárez, a sprawling city
afflicted by Mexico’s drug wars.
“We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who
said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement,”
he added. “All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve
answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be
some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time” — to the point
of seeking a moat and alligators, he joked. “That’s politics.”
Mr. Obama’s own politics were central to the trip, his first to the border since
he was elected with 67 percent of the Latino vote, which makes up a significant
and expanding portion of the electorate in battleground states like Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and North Carolina.
In Texas, where Republicans have dominated since the 1980s, Democrats likewise
look to one day regain power through the state’s expanding Latino electorate —
though not likely in 2012. Even so, broadcasts of Mr. Obama’s trip reached next
door into New Mexico.
The visit, however, underscored a tension over Mr. Obama’s immigration record
that colors his re-election prospects: his boasts of strengthening border
security win him no credit among Republican lawmakers and only alienate many
Latinos so long as he cannot deliver on his campaign promise to them — a path to
citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants already here illegally, many
of them for years.
“If they think that this is going to be the thing that mobilizes an increasingly
disappointed Latino electorate, I think they’re wrong,” said Frank Sharry,
executive director of America’s Voice, a group advocating for liberalized
immigration. “They are going to have to make some big administrative action to
make up for the fact that he promised something big.”
Mr. Obama did not push comprehensive immigration legislation in his term’s first
two years, when Democrats controlled Congress, and it has virtually no chance of
passage now that Republicans have a House majority. And he does not plan to
introduce such legislation now, to the disappointment of some advocates.
But in his speech, Mr. Obama reiterated his goals: a path to citizenship for
illegal immigrants that would require them to come forward, pay taxes and a
penalty, and learn English; legal status for foreigners who graduate from
colleges here and want to remain and start businesses; and the so-called Dream
Act, providing citizenship to young people who were brought to the United States
as children and receive an education or want to enter the military.
Back in Washington, Congressional Republicans dismissed his proposals.
“Providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as the president called
for again today, without requiring illegal immigrants to return to their
countries of origin and apply for legal status, is amnesty,” said Representative
Elton Gallegly of California, the chairman of a House subcommittee on
immigration. “Amnesty will not pass Congress, Mr. President.”
Without much chance of immigration changes becoming law, pro-immigration
advocates are pushing Mr. Obama to take executive actions at least. Chief among
them, they want the administration to quit deporting illegal immigrants and
residents without criminal records. But Mr. Obama refuses to do that — as he
acknowledged here.
His administration is not acting “haphazardly,” he told the crowd, but “as long
as the current laws are on the books, it’s not just hardened felons who are
subject to removal, but sometimes families who are just trying to earn a living,
or bright, eager students, or decent people with the best of intentions.”
The president’s trip to Texas was his fifth event in four weeks to promote
comprehensive immigration changes. He previously hosted three meetings at the
White House with a wide range of groups, including Republicans, business leaders
and Latino celebrities like the actress Eva Longoria of “Desperate Housewives.”
And Mr. Obama gave the commencement address at Miami-Dade Community College in
Florida, where his lines on immigration were among the most applauded.
Through the increased activities, including those involving cabinet members, the
White House is seeking to show that Mr. Obama is not just checking a political
box with an occasional speech or rally, but is actively pressing the issue — and
making sure people know Republicans are standing in the way.
“For the president’s message to take hold, he must show that this is not a
Hispanic issue, this is an American issue,” said Lillian Rodríguez-López,
chairwoman of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of the 30
leading Hispanic organizations in the United States.
“With a struggling economy and weakened labor force,” Ms. Rodríguez-López added,
“we cannot afford to prohibit the millions currently living in the shadows from
fully contributing to our economy.”
Mr. Obama similarly put his case in economic terms. “One way to strengthen the
middle class in America is to reform the immigration system so that there is no
longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while
depressing wages for everybody else,” he said.
As with many trips lately, Mr. Obama combined the immigration policy speech with
Democratic fund-raising. From El Paso, he flew to Austin, the state’s liberal
capital, for two such events, one a larger rally with lower-priced tickets and
the other a smaller private dinner for high-dollar donors.
Julia
Preston contributed reporting from Tucson, and Michael D. Shear from Washington.
NEW YORK | Thu May 5, 2011
6:53pm EDT
By Mark Egan and Jeff Mason
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Days after the killing of Osama bin
Laden, President Barack Obama met New York firefighters and police on Thursday
and visited Ground Zero to offer comfort to a city still scarred by the
September 11 attacks.
His predecessor, George W. Bush, just three days after hijacked planes destroyed
the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, had stood bullhorn in hand in the
smoldering wreckage to declare, "The people who knocked these buildings down
will hear all of us soon."
Almost a decade later, in a bookend to that historic visit, Obama came to New
York to say that promise had been kept.
He said the killing of bin Laden told the world "that when we say we will never
forget, we mean what we say."
Obama visited Engine 54 in midtown, which with 15 deaths lost more members on
9/11 than any other firehouse, before heading to Lower Manhattan to talk with
police and lay a wreath at Ground Zero, the Twin Towers site, where he also met
with victims' families.
Obama told firefighters at the "Pride of Manhattan" firehouse, "I wanted to just
come here to thank you."
"This is a symbolic site of the extraordinary sacrifice that was made on that
terrible day almost 10 years ago," he said. "It didn't matter who was in charge,
we were going to make sure that the perpetrators of that horrible act -- that
they received justice.
Talat Hamdani, 59, whose New York police cadet son, Salman, 23, was killed in
the September 11 attacks, met Obama along with other families of victims at the
World Trade Center site and said it was a "very healing" experience.
"I thanked him for being there for me today and ... that I was very proud of him
as our president," said Hamdani, who moved to the United States from Pakistan.
"He was there sharing our feelings ... many people broke down."
She cried as she showed a picture of Salman and told Obama her Pakistani-born
son had been a "proud American."
Bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader who masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks,
was shot in the head by U.S. forces who stormed his compound in Pakistan on
Monday after a decade-long manhunt. Nearly 3,000 people were killed when al
Qaeda hijackers crashed commercial planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon
outside Washington, and a Pennsylvania field.
"We have been waiting for this for 10 years. It puts a little more American
pride in people," said Al Fiammetta, 57, a safety engineer from Bellport, New
York, who said he worked at Ground Zero clearing debris and waited to see Obama.
New York City resident Caroline Epner, 32 said, "It's OK for him to take a
victory lap."
RED, WHITE AND BLUE
Obama later met New York police, thanked them and urged them to be vigilant,
saying extremist threats remained.
At Ground Zero during a sunny afternoon, Obama laid a wreath of red, white and
blue flowers to honor those who died. He then paused for a moment of silence.
Obama, who made no remarks at the site, greeted relatives of victims. The brief
ceremony took place by the "Survivor's Tree," which survived the attacks and was
nursed back to health and then returned to be part of the memorial that will
open on the 10th anniversary of the attacks.
He stood in a place that almost a decade ago was the pulverized remains of what
were once the world's tallest buildings, which for weeks after the attacks
spread a ghoulish dust over Lower Manhattan.
Visible progress in the $11 billion project to rebuild the World Trade Center
site is now being made after delays from political, security and financing
concerns. The 1,776-foot (541-meter) centerpiece, 1 World Trade Center, already
stands more than 60 stories high.
Democrat Obama had invited Bush to join him, but the Republican declined, saying
through his spokesman he had preferred to remain out of the spotlight since
leaving office in 2009.
Some among the thousands at Ground Zero, where many waved American flags, said
they would have liked to see Bush return to the site on Thursday.
"I want to thank Bush for what he started and Obama for what he finished," said
Al Smith, 52, who said he delivered newspapers to the Twin Towers hours before
they collapsed.
At the Pentagon, Vice President Joe Biden placed a wreath by a blackened stone,
charred by flames after a plane crashed into the building, inscribed with the
words "September 11, 2001" which honors the people killed there.
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows urged Obama to close the U.S.
military prison housing foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and
bring home American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bin Laden's killing coincided with the first anniversary of a failed attempt to
bomb New York's Times Square, one of at least 11 plots against the city since
9/11.
Several recent polls showed Obama's job approval rating boosted after bin
Laden's death, although such bounces are often short-lived. Obama's popularity
before the 2012 election where he is seeking a second term had been hurt by
economic woes and high gasoline prices.
(Additional reporting by Michelle Nichols; Writing by Mark Egan;
Editing by Peter Cooney)
Obama defends bin Laden sea burial as "respectful"
WASHINGTON | Thu May 5, 2011
5:33pm EDT
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said U.S. forces
were "respectful of the body" of Osama bin Laden when they buried his remains at
sea, despite criticism from some Muslim clerics that it violated Islamic
practice.
"We took more care on this than, obviously, bin Laden took when he killed 3,000
people. He didn't have much regard for how they were treated and desecrated,"
Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes" program, referring to the September 11, 2001,
attacks that the al Qaeda leader masterminded.
"But that, again, is something that makes us different. And I think we handled
it appropriately," Obama said, according to an advance excerpt of an interview
that will air in full on Sunday.
Questions have multiplied since the White House said bin Laden was unarmed when
U.S. helicopter-borne commandos shot and killed him on Monday at the fortified
villa where he had been hiding in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad.
Bin Laden's swift burial at sea from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the
north Arabian sea has also stirred misgivings, with some Muslims saying it was
done contrary to Islamic custom.
U.S. officials have insisted that bin Laden's body was washed and that Islamic
prayers were recited in accordance with religious laws. They said there was
concern that a grave could have served as a shrine and rallying point for his
followers.
"It was a joint decision," Obama said when asked whether he personally made the
decision for burial at sea. "We thought it was important to think through ahead
of time how we would dispose of the body if he were killed in the compound."
"And I think that what we tried to do was -- consulting with experts in Islamic
law and ritual-- to find something that was appropriate, that was, respectful of
the body," Obama added.
Saudi Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obaikan, an adviser to the Saudi Royal Court, said:
"That is not the Islamic way. The Islamic way is to bury the person in land (if
he has died on land) like all other people."
(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Vicki Allen)
May 1, 2011
The New York Times
By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON
— Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American
soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world, was killed in a
firefight with United States forces in Pakistan on Sunday, President Obama
announced.
In a dramatic late-night appearance in the East Room of the White House, Mr.
Obama declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that American
military and C.I.A. operatives had finally cornered Bin Laden, the leader of Al
Qaeda who had eluded them for nearly a decade, and shot him to death at a
compound in Pakistan.
“For over two decades, Bin Laden has been Al Qaeda’s leader and symbol,” the
president said in a statement carried on television around the world. “The death
of Bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s
effort to defeat Al Qaeda. But his death does not mark the end of our effort.”
He added, “We must and we will remain vigilant at home and abroad.”
The death of Bin Laden is a defining moment in the American-led war on
terrorism. What remains to be seen is whether it galvanizes his followers by
turning him into a martyr, or whether the death serves as a turning of the page
in the war in Afghanistan and gives further impetus to the Obama administration
to bring American troops home.
Bin Laden was killed nearly 10 years after Qaeda terrorists hijacked three
American passenger jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York
and the Pentagon outside Washington. A fourth hijacked jet crashed into
countryside of Pennsylvania.
Late Sunday night, as the president was speaking, cheering crowds gathered
outside the gates of the White House as word of Bin Laden’s death began
trickling out, waving American flags, shouting in happiness and chanting
“U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” In New York City, crowds sang "The Star-Spangled Banner."
“This is important news for us, and for the world,” said Gordon Felt, president
of the Families of Flight 93, the airliner that crashed into the Pennsylvania
countryside after passengers fought with hijackers. “It cannot ease our pain, or
bring back our loved ones. It does bring a measure of comfort that the
mastermind of the Sept. 11 tragedy and the face of global terror can no longer
spread his evil.”
Bin Laden escaped from American troops in the mountains of Tora Bora,
Afghanistan, in 2001 and, although he was widely believed to be in Pakistan,
American intelligence had largely lost his trail for most of the years that
followed. They picked up fresh clues last August. Mr. Obama said in his national
address Sunday night that it had taken months to firm up that information, and
that last week he had determined that there was enough to authorize a secret
operation in Pakistan.
The forces killed Bin Laden in what Mr. Obama called a “targeted operation.”
“No Americans were harmed,” the president said. “They took care to avoid
civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took
custody of his body.”
Mr. Obama noted that the operation that had Bin Laden was carried out with the
cooperation of Pakistani officials. But a senior American official and a
Pakistani intelligence official said that the Pakistanis had not been informed
of the operation in advance.
The fact that Bin Laden was killed deep inside Pakistan was bound once again to
raise questions about just how much Pakistan is willing to work with the United
States, since Pakistani officials denied for years that Mr. bin Laden was in
their country. It also raised the question of whether Bin Laden’s whereabouts
were known to Pakistan’s spy agency.
It was surprising that Bin Laden was killed not in Pakistan’s remote tribal
area, where he had long been rumored to have taken refuge, but rather in in the
city of Abbottadad, about an hour’s drive drive north of the Pakistani capital,
Islamabad.
Abbottabad is home to a large Pakistani military base, a military academy of the
Pakistani army, and a major hospital and other facilities that would could have
served as support for Osama Bin Laden.
A senior Indonesian militant, Umar Patek, was arrested in Abbottabad this year.
Mr. Patek was protected by a Qaeda operative, a postal clerk who worked under
cover at the main post office, a signal that Al Qaeda may have had others in the
area.
In apparent preparation for the American operation, many officials posted at the
United States Consulate in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's northwest region,
were told suddenly to leave on Friday, leaving behind only a core group of
essential staff members.
The officials said they had been told to leave because of kidnapping fears. They
said they were not told of the impending operation in nearby Abbotabad against
Bin Laden.
Bin Laden's death comes as relations between the United States and Pakistan have
fallen to their lowest point in memory and as differences over how to fight Al
Qaeda-linked militants have become clearer.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, publicly criticized
the Pakistani military two weeks ago for failing to act against extremists
allied to Al Qaeda who are sheltered in the Pakistani tribal areas of North
Waziristan.
The United States has supported the Pakistani military with nearly $20 billion
since 9/11 for counterterrorism campaigns, but American officials have
complained that the Pakistanis were unable to quell the militancy.
Last week, the head of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, said that
Pakistan had broken the back of terrorism in Pakistan, a statement that was
received with much skepticism by American officials.
Mr. Obama made it clear in his remarks at the White House on Sunday that the
United States still faces significant national security threats despite Bin
Laden's death.
“His death does not mark the end of our effort,” Mr. Obama said. “There’s no
doubt that Al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must and we
will remain vigilant at home and abroad.”
Reporting was
contributed by Mark Mazzetti from Washington, Jane Perlez from Australia
and Pir
Zubair Shah from New York
TUSCALOOSA,
Alabama | Fri Apr 29, 2011
3:38pm EDT
Reuters
By Verna Gates and Alister Bull
TUSCALOOSA,
Alabama (Reuters) - President Barack Obama promised federal aid on Friday to the
tornado-ravaged South after he got a close-up look at the "heartbreaking" impact
of deadly twisters that killed at least 310 people.
"We are going to do everything we can to help these communities rebuild," Obama
told reporters after touring scores of smashed homes and talking with survivors
in Tuscaloosa, a university city in Alabama that was wrecked by the tornadoes.
Alabama was the hardest hit of seven southern states that were blasted this week
by a swarm of tornadoes and violent storms that flattened whole neighborhoods.
It was the deadliest U.S. natural catastrophe since Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
"I have never seen devastation like this. It is heartbreaking," said Obama,
accompanied by his wife Michelle Obama and Alabama Governor Robert Bentley.
"This is something I don't think anyone has seen before."
In Alabama alone, 210 people lost their lives and 1,700 were injured, Bentley
said.
"We can't bring those who've been lost back. They're alongside God at this point
... but the property damage, which is obviously extensive, that's something we
can do something about," Obama said.
The president was eager to show that federal relief is on its way and that he is
not taking the disaster lightly. His predecessor President George W. Bush was
fiercely criticized for what was viewed as a slow response to Hurricane Katrina.
Flying into Tuscaloosa aboard Air Force One, Obama and his family saw a wide
brown scar of devastation several miles (kilometers) long and hundreds of yards
(meters) wide.
Obama and his family flew on to Cape Canaveral in Florida where they had been
due to witness the final launch of the space shuttle Endeavour, but the launch
was postponed due to a technical problem.
Tuscaloosa resident Jack Fagan, 23, was glad that Obama saw the damage. "Perhaps
federal funds will help us, but I'm sure it will take longer than they say
because it always does."
Recovery could cost billions of dollars and even with federal disaster aid it
could complicate efforts by affected states to bounce back from recession. It
will place an added burden on municipalities grappling with fragile finances.
Tornadoes are a regular feature of life in the U.S. South and Midwest, but they
are rarely so devastating. Deaths also were reported in Mississippi, Tennessee,
Arkansas, Georgia, Virginia and Louisiana.
NUCLEAR
PLANT SHUT, INDUSTRIES DAMAGED
The tornadoes battered Alabama's poultry industry -- the state is the No. 3 U.S.
chicken producer -- and other manufacturers in the state.
It halted coal production at the Cliffs Natural Resources mine in Alabama.
The second-biggest U.S. nuclear power plant, the Browns Ferry facility in
Alabama, may be down for weeks after its power was knocked out and the plant
automatically shut, avoiding a nuclear disaster, officials said.
Apparel producer VF Corp, owner of clothing brands such as North Face and
Wrangler Jeans, said one of its jeanswear distribution centers, located in
Hackleburg, Alabama, was destroyed and an employee killed.
In Tuscaloosa, the twisters, including one a mile-wide, cut a path of
destruction, reducing houses to rubble, flipping cars and knocking out power and
other utilities.
"We are bringing in the cadaver dogs today," said Heather McCollum, assistant to
the mayor of Tuscaloosa. She put the death toll in the city at 42 but said it
could rise.
Of the more than 150 tornadoes that rampaged from west to east across the South
this week, the National Weather Service confirmed that one that struck
Smithville in Mississippi's Monroe County on Wednesday was a rare EF-5 tornado,
with winds reaching 205 miles per hour.
This is the highest rating on the Enhanced Fujita scale that measures tornado
intensity.
"The homes here are made well ... but when you are talking about a direct hit,
it does not matter. ... Right now, those homes are slabs of concrete. There is
nothing left," Monroe County Sheriff Andy Hood said.
Across the South, many were made homeless by the tornadoes and stayed in
shelters. Other residents provided food, water and supplies to neighbors whose
homes were destroyed.
Tuscaloosa resident Antonio Donald, 50, received help. "I got no light, no
water. I have a newborn baby at home, a daughter who is pregnant and an
88-year-old aunt," he said.
The storms left up to 1 million homes in Alabama without power. Water and
garbage collection services were also disrupted in some areas.
Alabama's Jefferson County, which is fighting to avoid what would be the largest
municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, suffered damage and 19 dead but said the
storms would have little direct impact on its struggling finances because
federal grants were expected.
(Additional
reporting by Peggy Gargis in Birmingham and Colleen Jenkins in St. Petersburg,
Leigh Coleman in Mississippi, Phil Wahba in New York; writing by Matthew Bigg
and Pascal Fletcher,
Editing by Will Dunham)
Obama’s Pentagon and C.I.A. Picks Show Shift in How U.S. Fights
April 28,
2011
The New York Times
By MARK MAZZETTIand ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s decision to send an intelligence chief to the
Pentagon and a four-star general to the Central Intelligence Agency is the
latest evidence of a significant shift over the past decade in how the United
States fights its battles — the blurring of lines between soldiers and spies in
secret American missions abroad.
On Thursday, Mr. Obama is expected to announce that Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A.
director, will become secretary of defense, replacing Robert M. Gates, and that
Gen. David H. Petraeus will return from Afghanistan to take Mr. Panetta’s job at
the C.I.A., a move that is likely to continue this trend.
As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta hastened the transformation of the spy agency
into a paramilitary organization, overseeing a sharp escalation of the C.I.A.’s
bombing campaign in Pakistan using armed drone aircraft, and an increase in the
number of secret bases and covert operatives in remote parts of Afghanistan.
General Petraeus, meanwhile, has aggressively pushed the military deeper into
the C.I.A.’s turf, using Special Operations troops and private security
contractors to conduct secret intelligence missions. As commander of the United
States Central Command in September 2009, he also signed a classified order
authorizing American Special Operations troops to collect intelligence in Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other places outside of traditional war zones.
The result is that American military and intelligence operatives are at times
virtually indistinguishable from each other as they carry out classified
operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. Some members of Congress have
complained that this new way of war allows for scant debate about the scope and
scale of military operations. In fact, the American spy and military agencies
operate in such secrecy now that it is often hard to come by specific
information about the American role in major missions in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and now Libya and Yemen.
The operations have also created tension with important allies like Pakistan,
while raising fresh questions about whether spies and soldiers deserve the same
legal protections.
Officials acknowledge that the lines between soldiering and spying have blurred.
“It’s really irrelevant whether you call it a covert action or a military
special operation,” said Dennis C. Blair, a retired four-star admiral and a
former director of national intelligence. “I don’t really think there is any
distinction.”
The phenomenon of the C.I.A. becoming more like the Pentagon, and vice versa,
has critics inside both organizations. Some inside the C.I.A.’s clandestine
service believe that its bombing campaign in Pakistan, which has become a
cornerstone of the Obama administration’s counterterrorism strategy, has
distorted the agency’s historic mission as a civilian espionage agency and
turned it into an arm of the Defense Department.
Henry A. Crumpton, a career C.I.A. officer and formerly the State Department’s
top counterterrorism official, praised General Petraeus as “one of the most
sophisticated consumers of intelligence.” But Mr. Crumpton warned more broadly
of the “militarization of intelligence” as current or former uniformed officers
assume senior jobs in the sprawling American intelligence apparatus.
For example, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired Air Force general, is director of
national intelligence, Mr. Obama’s top intelligence adviser. Maj. Gen. Michael
Flynn, formerly the senior intelligence officer in Afghanistan, is soon expected
to become one of Mr. Clapper’s top deputies.
“If the intelligence community is populated by military officers, they
understandably are going to reflect their experiences,” Mr. Crumpton said.
At the Pentagon, the new roles raise legal concerns. The more that soldiers are
used for espionage operations overseas, the more they are at risk of being
thrown in jail and denied Geneva Convention protections if they are captured by
hostile governments.
And yet few believe that the trend is likely to be reversed. A succession of
wars has strained the ranks of both the Pentagon and the C.I.A., and the United
States has come to believe that many of its current enemies are best fought with
timely intelligence rather than overwhelming military firepower.
These factors have pushed military and intelligence operatives more closely
together in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
“In the field, there is a blurring of the mission,” said Senator Jack Reed, a
senior Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who served as an
officer in the 82nd Airborne Division. “Military operations can buy time to
build up local security forces, but intelligence is the key to operations and
for anticipating your adversary.”
American officials said that, for the most part, the tensions and resentments
were greatly reduced from the days when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
expanded Pentagon intelligence-gathering operations to become less dependent on
the C.I.A.
The secret “Execute Order” signed by General Petraeus in September 2009
authorized American Special Operations troops to carry out reconnaissance
missions and build up intelligence networks throughout the Middle East and
Central Asia in order to “penetrate, disrupt, defeat and destroy” militant
groups and “prepare the environment” for future American military attacks. But
that order greatly expanding the role of the military in spying was drafted in
consultation with the C.I.A., administration officials said.
General Petraeus has worked closely with the C.I.A. since the Bosnia mission in
the 1990s, a relationship that grew during his command tours in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In fact, some of the missions he has overseen seem to have been
more like clandestine operations than traditional military missions.
Even before General Petraeus took over as the leader of the military’s Central
Command overseeing Middle East operations nearly three years ago, he ordered a
study of the threat posed by militants in a country few American policy makers
had focused on — Yemen. Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen is now considered the most
immediate threat to the United States.
The general’s relationship with Yemen’s mercurial president, Ali Abdullah Saleh,
was well documented in the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks last year.
And the military’s operations there, beginning with airstrikes in December 2009,
are shrouded in even more secrecy than the C.I.A.’s drone attacks in Pakistan.
Mr. Saleh, however, drew the line at General Petraeus’s request to send American
advisers to accompany Yemeni troops on counterterrorism operations.
Now, with Mr. Saleh’s government teetering on the verge of collapse, General
Petraeus is taking over at the C.I.A. — and will once again be part of America’s
secret war in Yemen.
President
Obama began his presidency vowing to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace. He
backed off in the face of both sides’ obstinacy and after a series of diplomatic
missteps. Since then, the stalemate, and the mistrust, have only deepened, and
it is clear that nothing good will happen until the United States fully engages.
It is time for Mr. Obama — alone or, better yet, in concert with Europe, Russia
and the United Nations — to put a map and a deal on the table.
The outlines of a deal are no secret. They were first proposed by President Bill
Clinton in 2000. But neither side has been willing to make the necessary
concessions — on land swaps, how Jerusalem can be shared and how many displaced
Palestinians can go home, or not. The Israelis need to know that their closest
ally won’t enable more inaction. The Palestinians need to know they will have
American support so long as their demands are realistic. Mr. Obama needs to
speak up before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel pre-empts the debate
with what is certain to be an inferior proposal when he addresses a joint
meeting of Congress next month.
Mr. Netanyahu has made some concessions, most notably giving Palestinians more
control over their own security in the West Bank. But he has long insisted that
the Palestinians aren’t serious about negotiating a final deal, and he is now
hinting that he will unilaterally offer them an interim, step-by-step
arrangement that will put off statehood to some undefined future.
He also has used the upheavals in the Middle East as one more excuse not to act,
rather than a reason to reinforce Israel’s security with a durable peace deal.
Mr. Netanyahu — who is coming to speak at the invitation of Representative John
Boehner, the House speaker — seems to think that the Republicans’ new power
means he has carte blanche in Washington. So long as Mr. Obama sits on the
sidelines, he will surely continue to believe that.
The address to Congress isn’t the only deadline Mr. Obama has to worry about.
The Palestinians are threatening to ask the United Nations General Assembly —
which admitted the state of Israel in 1949 — to declare a Palestinian state when
it meets in September. Israel and the United States dismiss this as theater. But
it is certain to pass, further isolating Israel. If Washington votes against it,
as it inevitably will, it would further isolate this country.
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and his aides have been
building their capacity to govern in the West Bank. But Mr. Abbas isn’t helping
his cause by refusing to return to the negotiating table. He suspended talks
last fall after Israel refused to extend a moratorium on settlement
construction. Holding to his position only gives Mr. Netanyahu an excuse not to
seriously engage.
The status quo is not sustainable, as a recent surge of violence should make
clear. And the options on the ground for creating a territorially coherent
Palestinian state keep narrowing as Israel steps up settlement construction in
the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel could oust the settlers — and will have
to in certain areas. But the more settlers they let in, the harder it will be
politically for any Israeli leader to cut a deal.
Last month, Robert Gates made the first visit to the West Bank by an American
defense secretary to reinforce Washington’s commitment to a Palestinian state.
But President Obama’s peace envoy, George Mitchell, who is supposed to move the
process forward, hasn’t been to the region since December.
Mr. Gates was absolutely correct when he declared in Israel that despite the
uncertainty caused by the upheaval in the Arab world, “there is a need and an
opportunity for bold action to move toward a two-state solution.” He was talking
to the Israelis and the Palestinians. We hope President Obama was listening
closely, too.
Obama sees no magic bullet to push down gas prices
WASHINGTON | Sat Apr 23, 2011
6:10am EDT
Reuters
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barack Obama told Americans on Saturday there is no
"magic bullet" to bring down high gasoline prices and said he wants to end what
he called $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies.
Obama is feeling the heat from gasoline prices that are about $4 a gallon and
may surge higher. A New York Times-CBS News poll found that 70 percent of
Americans believe the country is on the wrong track and analysts believe gas
prices are a main reason.
The president devoted his weekly radio and Internet address to outlining his
views on the U.S. energy predicament, saying clean energy is ultimately the way
forward for a country long addicted to gas-guzzling vehicles.
"Now, whenever gas prices shoot up, like clockwork, you see politicians racing
to the cameras, waving three-point plans for $2 gas. You see people trying to
grab headlines or score a few points. The truth is, there's no silver bullet
that can bring down gas prices right away," he said.
Obama, in the early stages of his 2012 re-election campaign, has been seeing
steady improvement in the U.S. economy. But rising gasoline prices are forcing
Americans to pay more out of their income, which some fear could harm the
fragile economic recovery.
Obama said it is time to eliminate what he called $4 billion in annual "taxpayer
subsidies" to oil and gas companies.
"That's $4 billion of your money going to these companies when they're making
record profits and you're paying near record prices at the pump. It has to
stop," he said.
The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a working group of federal
agencies to probe potential fraud in the energy markets that affects pump
prices, including actions by speculators.
RENEWABLE
ENERGY
Obama accused Republicans of seeking to cut 70 percent in government spending to
encourage development of clean energy projects.
"Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in
tomorrow's. We need to invest in clean, renewable energy," he said.
"Yes, we have to get rid of wasteful spending -- and make no mistake, we're
going through every line of the budget scouring for savings. But we can do that
without sacrificing our future," he added.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in response to the president that
the Obama administration over the past two years has "declared what can only be
described as a war on American energy."
"It's canceled dozens of drilling leases, imposed a moratorium on drilling off
the Gulf Coast and increased permit fees. It's done just about everything it can
to keep our own energy sector from growing," McConnell said.
McConnell said more must be done to increase domestic oil production.
The comments by Obama and McConnell came three days after the anniversary of the
giant BP Plc oil spill off the coast of Louisiana that caused economic and
environmental harm to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Obama
blasts Syria's Assad for "outrageous" violence
WASHINGTON | Fri Apr 22, 2011
6:34pm EDT
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama called on the Syrian government on
Friday to stop using "outrageous" violence against demonstrators and accused
President Bashar al-Assad of seeking help from Iran.
"This outrageous use of violence to quell protests must come to an end now,"
Obama said in a statement.
"Instead of listening to their own people, President Assad is blaming outsiders
while seeking Iranian assistance in repressing Syria's citizens through the same
brutal tactics that have been used by his Iranian allies."
PALO ALTO, Calif | Wed Apr 20, 2011
6:53pm EDT
Reuters
By Jeff Mason
PALO ALTO, Calif (Reuters) - President Barack Obama sought to reignite the
youthful energy that propelled his 2008 election Wednesday with a campaign-style
visit to the nexus of social communications, Facebook.
Democrats acknowledge that Obama will need to rally many of the same forces that
propelled him into the White House in order to win re-election in 2012: an army
of young, energetic voters as well as a sizable showing from independent voters.
By visiting Facebook headquarters in California's Silicon Valley, where
26-year-old founder Mark Zuckerberg is a folk hero, Obama sought to connect to
tens of millions of people who have adopted social media as a prime method of
communications.
"My name is Barack Obama and I'm the guy who got Mark to wear a jacket and tie,"
the president said, to laughter, at the beginning of a live-streamed town hall
event with Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg, dressed in jeans, sneakers and a tie, and Obama, dressed in a
business suit, then took off their jackets before the president started fielding
questions about how to reduce the budget deficit, which is projected to hit $1.4
trillion this fiscal year.
Promoting his plan of spending cuts and tax increases for the wealthiest
Americans, Obama told the rich Facebook founder that both of them would have to
pay more taxes to help out.
"I'm cool with that," Zuckerberg said.
Obama heads to San Francisco for Democratic fund-raising events after the
Facebook session.
He then plans stops in Las Vegas and Los Angeles before returning to Washington
Friday.
Jon Krosnick, a political science professor at Stanford University, said having
Obama on stage with Zuckerberg could help the president with young people.
"That alone is a way of trying to re-energize this young generation that might
be crucial for him to be re-elected again," Krosnick said.
Obama held his deficit-cutting roadshow as policy-makers and financial markets
recover from ratings agency Standard & Poor's threat to downgrade America's
triple-A credit rating on worries Washington won't address its fiscal woes.
A potential Republican challenger to Obama, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt
Romney, said S&P "downgraded the Obama presidency" and that Obama should meet
with S&P officials to try to gain their confidence.
DEEPENING ECONOMIC PESSIMISM
It is early in the 2012 election cycle, but Obama has much work ahead. An ABC
News/Washington Post poll released on Tuesday showed Obama's approval ratings
near record lows because of deepening economic pessimism among Americans.
Ipsos pollster Cliff Young said rising gasoline prices are taking their toll but
they probably did not present a long-term problem for Obama, who he called the
odds-on favorite.
Obama is using the first steps on the road to 2012 to promote a budget ideology
that is at odds with the fiscal views of Republicans who are planning
presidential campaigns.
He wants to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to fund social programs while
making some budget cuts, a plan he says would bring down deficits by $4 trillion
over 12 years.
Republican Representative Paul Ryan has called for slightly higher cuts, $4.4
trillion over 10 years, without raising taxes. He would make deep cuts in
spending, including overhauls in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs for
the elderly and poor that Democrats say would violate the "social compact" with
Americans.
Obama said Ryan's plan was "fairly radical" and that his budget proposal was not
"particularly courageous."
"Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the backs of people who are poor or
people who are powerless or don't have lobbyists or don't have clout," he said
to applause.
Polls suggests Americans so far are siding with Obama.
Data released from the ABC News/Washington Post poll on Wednesday said 72
percent of those surveyed favor higher taxes for wealthy Americans and 78
percent opposed to cutting health benefits for the elderly. The survey of 1,001
adults has a 3.5 percentage point error margin.
(Additional reporting by Kim Dixon, Alister Bull, Peter Henderson, Alexei
Oreskovic and David Morgan; Writing by Steve Holland and Jeff Mason; Editing by
Deborah Charles)
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into law a bill changing
his signature healthcare legislation to repeal a tax measure that business
groups said would cause an avalanche of paperwork.
"I was pleased to take another step to relieve unnecessary burdens on small
businesses," Obama said in a statement.
"Small business owners are the engine of our economy and because Democrats and
Republicans worked together, we can ensure they spend their time and resources
creating jobs and growing their business, not filling out more paperwork," he
said.
The law repeals a requirement in last year's healthcare overhaul for businesses
and landlords to file a Form 1099 document with the Internal Revenue Service for
purchases of goods and services exceeding $600 a year.
The tax reporting provision was meant to improve tax compliance and help pay for
the healthcare law, but small firms and the self-employed complained it would
bury them in paperwork.
Obama promised to continue working on that issue.
"I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to improve the tax credit
policy in this legislation and I am eager to work with anyone with ideas about
how we can make healthcare better or more affordable," he said.
(Reporting by
Tabassum Zakaria; Editing by Eric Walsh)
For months, the original President Obama had disappeared behind mushy
compromises and dimly seen principles. But on Wednesday, he used his budget
speech to clearly distance himself from Republican plans to heap tax benefits on
the rich while casting adrift the nation’s poor, elderly and unemployed. Instead
of adapting the themes of the right to his own uses, he set out a very different
vision of an America that keeps its promises to the weak and asks for sacrifice
from the strong.
The deficit-reduction plan he unveiled did not always live up to that vision and
should have been less fixated on spending cuts at the expense of tax increases.
It may give up too much as an opening position. But at least it was a reasonable
basis for a conversation and is far better than its most prominent competitors.
That is because it is grounded in themes of generosity and responsibility that,
until recently, had been shared by leaders of both parties.
Because everyone deserves “some basic measure of security and dignity,” he said,
the nation contributes to programs like Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment
insurance. He said that “we would not be a great country without those
commitments.”
But House Republicans and many of their party’s presidential candidates are
trying to terminate that promise, he said, leaving seniors on their own and
abandoning 50 million uninsured Americans. They are saying no to rebuilding
bridges, sending students to college, to investing in research while giving the
rich $1 trillion in tax cuts.
“That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m president,” he
said.
Perhaps it was inevitable that Mr. Obama would begin to restate his most
appealing principles as he embarks on his re-election campaign, which opened
with this speech. But the timing could not have been better. It came just days
after he seemed to swallow the Republican Party’s insincere talk of deficit
reduction by praising a six-month budget deal that cuts too deeply, and a week
after Republicans released their proposal to cut taxes and erase decades of
social progress by rewriting entitlement programs.
Mr. Obama said he would “refuse to renew” the Bush tax cuts for the rich when
they expire at the end of 2012. That alone would save $700 billion over 10
years, and he proposed another $1 trillion in savings by limiting itemized
deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent and by ending various unspecified
loopholes.
Still, his plan relies on about two parts spending cuts to one part tax
increases. It should have been closer to 50-50, broadening the sacrifice. That
could have been achieved by reminding those in the middle class that their
income taxes remain low and will need to go up, and also through new revenue
sources like energy taxes, a financial-transactions tax or a value-added tax.
Along with $770 billion in cuts to nonsecurity domestic spending over 12 years —
more than is prudent — he also calls for $360 billion in savings from mandatory
programs like agricultural subsidies and pension insurance. To remain true to
the ideals he espoused in his speech, cuts to other programs in this category
like food stamps and subsidies for the working poor should be off the table.
He said he wouldn’t follow Representative Paul Ryan’s plan to make Medicare a
voucher program “that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry.”
Instead, he would wring savings in the plan by using governmental tools to hold
down annual increases in spending.
His target for those increases was surprisingly low, much less than the current
rate of growth, and it is not clear that that goal can be met without harming
providers or beneficiaries. He would try to do so by giving greater powers to a
special board to promote and enforce changes in health care delivery. He also
promised real savings on prescription drug costs in Medicare and refused to
accept Mr. Ryan’s notion of shrinking Medicaid into block grants.
Negotiations with an implacable opposition are about to get much tougher, but it
was a relief to see Mr. Obama standing up for the values that got him to the
table.
What have
they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his
supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem
to stand for anything in particular?
I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much
Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left
is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to
reinforce his enemies’ narrative.
His remarks after last week’s budget deal were a case in point.
Maybe that terrible deal, in which Republicans ended up getting more than their
opening bid, was the best he could achieve — although it looks from here as if
the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself,
making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with
the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.
And bear in mind that this was just the first of several chances for Republicans
to hold the budget hostage and threaten a government shutdown; by caving in so
completely on the first round, Mr. Obama set a baseline for even bigger
concessions over the next few months.
But let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that $38
billion in spending cuts — and a much larger cut relative to his own budget
proposals — was the best deal available. Even so, did Mr. Obama have to
celebrate his defeat? Did he have to praise Congress for enacting “the largest
annual spending cut in our history,” as if shortsighted budget cuts in the face
of high unemployment — cuts that will slow growth and increase unemployment —
are actually a good idea?
Among other things, the latest budget deal more than wipes out any positive
economic effects of the big prize Mr. Obama supposedly won from last December’s
deal, a temporary extension of his 2009 tax cuts for working Americans. And the
price of that deal, let’s remember, was a two-year extension of the Bush tax
cuts, at an immediate cost of $363 billion, and a potential cost that’s much
larger — because it’s now looking increasingly likely that those irresponsible
tax cuts will be made permanent.
More broadly, Mr. Obama is conspicuously failing to mount any kind of challenge
to the philosophy now dominating Washington discussion — a philosophy that says
the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must
accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and
corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay.
Shared sacrifice!
I’m not exaggerating. The House budget proposal that was unveiled last week —
and was praised as “bold” and “serious” by all of Washington’s Very Serious
People — includes savage cuts in Medicaid and other programs that help the
neediest, which would among other things deprive 34 million Americans of health
insurance. It includes a plan to privatize and defund Medicare that would leave
many if not most seniors unable to afford health care. And it includes a plan to
sharply cut taxes on corporations and to bring the tax rate on high earners down
to its lowest level since 1931.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center puts the revenue loss from these tax cuts at
$2.9 trillion over the next decade. House Republicans claim that the tax cuts
can be made “revenue neutral” by “broadening the tax base” — that is, by closing
loopholes and ending exemptions. But you’d need to close a lot of loopholes to
close a $3 trillion gap; for example, even completely eliminating one of the
biggest exemptions, the mortgage interest deduction, wouldn’t come close. And
G.O.P. leaders have not, of course, called for anything that drastic. I haven’t
seen them name any significant exemptions they would end.
You might have expected the president’s team not just to reject this proposal,
but to see it as a big fat political target. But while the G.O.P. proposal has
drawn fire from a number of Democrats — including a harsh condemnation from
Senator Max Baucus, a centrist who has often worked with Republicans — the White
House response was a statement from the press secretary expressing mild
disapproval.
What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the
day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself
as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political
strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself
as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.
But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the
nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a
stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing.
WASHINGTON
— Congressional leaders and President Obama headed off a shutdown of the
government with less than two hours to spare Friday night under a tentative
budget deal that would cut $38 billion from federal spending this year.
After days of tense negotiations and partisan quarrelling, House Republicans
came to preliminary terms with the White House and Senate Democrats over
financing the government for the next six months, resolving a stubborn impasse
that had threatened to disrupt federal operations across the country and around
the globe.
Speaker John A. Boehner, who had pressed Democrats for cuts sought by members of
the conservative new House majority, presented the package of widespread
spending reductions and policy provisions and won a positive response from his
rank and file shortly before 11 p.m.
Both Democrats and Republicans proclaimed they had reached a deal and would
begin the necessary steps to pass the bill and send it to Mr. Obama next week.
Democrats said that under the agreement, the budget measure would not include
provisions sought by Republicans to limit environmental regulations and to
restrict financing for Planned Parenthood and other groups that provide
abortions. But Mr. Boehner said in a statement that the agreement included a
restriction on abortion financing in Washington.
“This has been a lot of discussion and a long fight,” Mr. Boehner said as he
left the party meeting. “But we fought to keep government spending down because
it really will in fact help create a better environment for job creators in our
country.”
Speaking from the White House after the Republican meeting ended, Mr. Obama said
that both sides gave ground in reaching the bargain and that some of the cuts
accepted by Democrats “will be painful.”
“Programs people rely on will be cut back,” said Mr. Obama, who said Americans
had to begin to live within their means. “Needed infrastructure projects will be
delayed.”
The announcements capped a day of drama as lawmakers and members of the federal
work force waited anxiously to see whether money for government agencies would
run out at midnight.
“We didn’t do it at this late hour for drama,” Senator Harry Reid, the
Democratic majority leader, said. “We did it because it has been hard to arrive
at this point.”
In the closed-door Republican session, according to people present in the room,
Mr. Boehner described the plan as the best deal he could wring from Democrats
and said the cuts — an estimated $38 billion in reductions — represented the
“largest real dollar spending cut in American history.”
Although both sides compromised, Republicans were able to force significant
spending concessions from Democrats in exchange for putting to rest some of the
vexing social policy fights that had held up the agreement.
Because of the need to put the compromise into legislative form, Congressional
leaders said the House and Senate would vote overnight to pass a stopgap measure
financing the government through Thursday to prevent any break in the flow of
federal dollars. The actual budget compromise would be considered sometime next
week.
The Senate approved the stopgap measure by 11:20 p.m. and the House approved it
after midnight. The Office of Management and Budget issued a memo saying normal
government operations were back on track.
The developments came after Republicans and Democrats spent the day blaming each
other for what could have been the first lapse in government services brought on
by Congress in 15 years.
As the midnight deadline approached, efforts to finish a deal intensified, and
Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner spoke by telephone to try to find an agreement.
“Both sides are working hard to reach the kind of resolution Americans desire,”
said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, who had
consulted closely with Mr. Boehner on strategy during the fractious talks. “A
resolution is actually within reach. The contours of a final agreement are
coming into focus.”
Mr. McConnell’s optimism could not disguise the fact that time was steadily
slipping away, and testy leaders of the two parties were pushing hard to shape
public perceptions of who was responsible for an impasse that threatened to have
serious political repercussions — and to presage even more consequential fiscal
showdowns in the months ahead. Democrats said Republicans were insisting on
overreaching policy provisions; Republicans said it remained about money.
After nightlong negotiations that ended before dawn on Friday yielded no
agreement, Senator Reid went on the offensive. He told reporters and said on the
Senate floor that Mr. Boehner, the Senate Democrats and Mr. Obama had
essentially settled on $38 billion in cuts from current spending, a figure that
represented a substantial concession for Democrats.
But he said that Republicans were refusing to abandon a policy provision that
would withhold federal financing for family planning and other health services
for poor women from Planned Parenthood and other providers.
“This is indefensible, and everyone should be outraged,” Mr. Reid said on the
Senate floor. “The Republican House leadership have only a couple of hours to
look in the mirror, snap out of it and realize how truly shameful they have
been.”
In a terse statement of his own to reporters, Mr. Boehner said there was “only
one reason we do not have an agreement yet, and that is spending.” He asked,
“When will the White House and when will Senate Democrats get serious about
cutting spending?”
As the day went on, aides reported progress in attempts to reach an
accommodation on the family planning provision. Even veteran anti-abortion
Republicans, like Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, indicated a willingness to
compromise, not wanting the party to be accused of shutting down the government
over divisive social policy and diluting its new emphasis on cutting spending.
Other Republicans, in interviews and statements, indicated that it was time to
end the stalemate.
The dueling characterizations of the negotiations added to the frustration,
extending far beyond the nation’s capital, among federal employees and the
people who rely on their services, as they waited to find out whether serious
disruptions were imminent, and how long they might last.
Despite the disagreement over what still divided the two parties, it was clear
the dollar difference had been reduced considerably, to about $1 billion or $2
billion. That amount left some lawmakers and their constituents grappling to
understand how the federal government could be shut down over such a relatively
small sum. Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, said he was embarrassed.
“People across Virginia cannot understand why we can’t get this done,” he said.
Allies of Mr. Boehner, the veteran lawmaker in his first months as speaker, said
he seemed to be pursuing a strategy of pushing the negotiations to the last
possible tick of the clock to appease rank-and-file conservatives, who have been
very reluctant to give an inch from the $61 billion in cuts approved by the
House.
In a private party meeting Friday afternoon, Mr. Boehner told Republican
lawmakers that he was fighting for all the cuts he could get, and regaled them
with reports of how angry Mr. Obama was with him for the hard line he has taken
in the talks — news that elated his membership.
Emerging from the meeting, Mr. Boehner called the negotiations “respectful,” but
added: “We’re not going to roll over and sell out the American people like has
been done time and time again in Washington.”
In the absence of a deal, Mr. Boehner again urged the Senate to pass a temporary
House budget resolution that would finance the military for the balance of the
fiscal year, cut $12 billion in spending from the current year’s budget and keep
the rest of the government operating for another week, as Republicans in the
House had voted to do.
“This is the responsible thing to do,” he told reporters.
Senate Democrats rejected that approach as a gimmick, and Mr. Obama said he
would veto the resolution.
Mr. Reid, who at one news conference was surrounded by about three dozen
Democratic senators in an unusual tableau, told reporters that the Senate would
explore the possibility of a stopgap bill that would keep the government open
for another week. But it was unlikely to clear procedural barriers.
It was an unusual Friday on Capitol Hill, a day when corridors are often empty
of lawmakers who have left for the weekend. Instead, they milled about, and took
the Senate floor to expound, as they nervously awaited news of an agreement or
braced for the expiration of government financing. It was frustrating to some
because most lawmakers were not privy to the high-level talks.
“I hope that negotiations are continuing by someone somewhere,” Senator Pat
Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said as he spoke about six hours before funding
would run out.
Lawmakers said they realized that the outcome of the negotiations would have
implications not only for them, but also for the federal work force, the public,
the economy and the nation’s image.
“We know the whole world is watching us today,” Mr. Reid said.
Analysis: Billion-dollar Obama to run moneyed campaign
WASHINGTON
| Mon Apr 4, 2011
6:14am EDT
By Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama is no longer the outsider candidate who
fueled his bid for the White House in 2008 with a flood of small donations from
new and young voters inspired by his message of hope and change.
As a sitting president he has far greater authority and media access and his
2012 re-election campaign is expected to raise $1 billion, which is
unprecedented in U.S. politics.
"In 2008, he was very much an insurgent candidate, somebody from out of nowhere
with a wholly different story. And the Obama campaign was as much a crusade as
it was a traditional campaign for president," said Christopher Arterton, a
professor of political management at George Washington University who has also
been a Democratic consultant.
With early polls showing Obama leading potential Republican rivals, he is
expected to announce this week he will run for re-election and file campaign
papers with the Federal Election Commission as early as Monday.
That would allow him to start campaign fund-raising and much of his war chest is
expected to come from the kind of big-money donations he has criticized in the
past.
This time, the former Illinois senator is no longer the fresh political face
seeking to become the first black U.S. president. His 2012 campaign will be a
bigger, slicker machine likely to dwarf that of his eventual Republican
opponent.
Aides note the huge number of individual donors who gave to Obama's campaign --
a record 4 million. But only 25 percent of the money came from small donors who
gave $200 or less, according to the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute in
Washington.
Obama will inevitably lose many of the individual donors who backed him four
years ago, said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College and
expert on campaign fundraising.
"That's something that we're not going to see this time around, that level of
excitement about the Obama candidacy that we saw last time, from people who are
not traditional donors or traditional Democratic primary voters," he said.
COULD RAISE
$1 BILLION
Obama amassed a record $750 million as he surged to victory in 2008. His 2012
campaign total is expected to hit $1 billion or more, even without a major
Democratic primary opponent or the emergence of a strong Republican contender.
"It's definitely within reach, as he raised three quarters of a billion last
time. As the incumbent president it's quite plausible to imagine him raising $1
billion," said CFI Executive Director Michael Malbin.
Jim Messina, a former White House deputy chief of staff who will run Obama's,
has been telling big supporters they will need to collect $350,000 each. His
campaign headquarters will be in Chicago will be staffed with White House
veterans.
Obama made his message clear on Tuesday at a $30,800-plate fund-raiser at a
popular New York restaurant.
"I could not do what I do ... if I didn't know that I had a lot of people out
there rooting for me and a lot of friends supporting me," Obama told donors at
the dinner, which raised $1.5 million for the Democratic National Committee.
Although he has received boost from the recovering economy, Obama's approval
ratings could easily fall if the Libya war drags on and gas prices stay high, or
if voters blame him for the huge U.S. budget deficit.
"The reality of governing means that he cannot now be all things to all people.
He has a record," said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, a
Washington non-profit group focused on campaign finance and ethics issues.
Obama has railed against a Supreme Court decision last year that removed
restrictions on corporate and union campaign spending and Democrats say the
decision opened the floodgates for special interest money in politics.
While experts expect the ruling to benefit Republicans more than Democrats,
given corporate displeasure with Obama's laws to overhaul the U.S. healthcare
industry and put tighter regulations on big banks, Democrats will also cash in.
"It's unrealistic to ask candidates to forego this money, when by definition, if
you do what you think should be done, you are going to lose," McGehee said.
An effective Obama fund-raising effort could help the Democratic Party, which
lost control of the House of Representatives to Republicans and has a smaller
majority in the Senate after last November's congressional elections.
Obama gave millions from his campaign war chest to Congressional candidates in
2008.
Every seat in the House will be up for grabs again in 2012, as well as one-third
of the seats in the Senate, and many experts say the battle for Congress --
particularly for the Senate -- could be the real fight.
Republican donors will be even more focused on Congress if their party cannot
find a presidential candidate with a real chance of defeating Obama and some
have admitted it will be difficult to deny Obama a second term.
Karl Rove, a strategist whose Crossroad GPS plans to help raise $120 million for
Republican candidates, was quoted as saying Obama should be considered the
favorite.
More recently, a Republican operative reflected on his party's lack of any
strong White House contender, and quipped: "Obama could win if he raises only
$1."
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday opened his 2012 re-election
campaign with a website announcement and e-mails and text messages to
supporters.
"This campaign is just kicking off," a short announcement said on
www.barackobama.com. "We're opening up offices, unpacking boxes and starting a
conversation with supporters like you to help shape our path to victory. 2012
begins now..."
The two-minute, 10-second video on the site, titled "It Begins With Us,"
features supporters from around the country discussing the Democratic president
and the state of the nation. But Obama is not shown or heard.
Political observers expect the Obama campaign to raise an unprecedented $1
billion for the race.
Several Republicans are considering running against Obama but have not made
their candidacies official. Early polls showing Obama leading potential
Republican rivals.
Obama was expected to file campaign papers with the Federal Election Commission
as early as Monday, which would allow him to start raising campaign funds.
While running for president as a senator from Illinois, Obama raised a record
$750 million to win the 2008 election.
WASHINGTON
| Mon Apr 4, 2011
6:14pm EDT
Reuters
By David Alexander and James Vicini
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama yielded to political opposition Monday,
agreeing to try the self-professed mastermind of the September 11 attacks in a
military tribunal at Guantanamo and not in a civilian court as he had promised.
Attorney General Eric Holder blamed lawmakers for the policy reversal, saying
their December decision to block funding for prosecuting the 9/11 suspects in a
New York court "tied our hands" and forced the administration to resume military
trials.
His announcement was an embarrassing reversal of the administration's decision
in November 2009 to try September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four
co-conspirators in a court near the site of the World Trade Center attack that
killed nearly 3,000 people.
That decision had been welcomed by civil rights groups but strongly opposed by
many lawmakers -- especially Republicans -- and New Yorkers, who cheered
Holder's announcement that the Obama administration had reversed course.
In moving the case back to the military system, the Justice Department unsealed
a nine-count criminal indictment that detailed how Mohammed trained the 9/11
hijackers to use short-bladed knives by killing sheep and camels.
Another of the five -- Walid bin Attash -- tested air security by carrying a
pocket knife and wandering close to the doors of aircraft cockpits to check for
reactions, said the indictment, which prosecutors asked the court to drop so the
case can be handled by a military commission.
PRISON
STILL HOLDS 172 PEOPLE
The decision to abandon civilian prosecution was an admission that Obama has not
been able to overcome political opposition to his effort to close the prison for
terrorism suspects and enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a key 2008
campaign promise. It came on the day he kicked off his campaign for re-election
in 2012.
James Carafano, a foreign policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation
think tank, said a military trial for the five men was "the only rational course
of action" and Obama was unlikely to be hurt politically by the decision.
"The (U.S.) public basically just ignores the issue these days. Even overseas,
Europeans who were so critical before of Guantanamo have really gone to sleep on
the issue," he said.
Obama has called the Guantanamo Bay facility, set up by his predecessor
President George W. Bush, a recruiting symbol for anti-American groups and said
allegations of prisoner mistreatment there had tarnished America's reputation.
He promised to close the prison by the end of his first year in office, but that
deadline passed with no action as the administration confronted the hard reality
of finding countries willing to accept custody of the inmates.
The prison still holds 172 people, down from 245 when Obama took office in
January 2009.
DECISION
WELCOMED
The decision to try the five men before military commissions was praised in New
York and Washington. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the cost of
holding and securing the trials in Manhattan would have been near "a billion
dollars" at a time of tight budgets.
Chuck Schumer, a Democratic senator for New York, called it "the final nail in
the coffin of that wrong-headed idea."
Julie Menin, who spearheaded opposition to the trials in New York, said the
decision was a "victory for lower Manhattan and my community."
But others, like Valerie Lucznikowska, said the use of military commissions was
"just not satisfying to people who want real justice." The 72-year-old New
Yorker, whose nephew died in the World Trade Center attack, said the military
commissions could be viewed by the world as "kangaroo courts."
Holder said he still believed the 9/11 suspects would best be prosecuted in U.S.
civilian courts, despite strong congressional opposition.
Captain John Murphy, the chief prosecutor of the office of military commissions,
said his office would swear charges in the near future against the five suspects
for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks.
In addition to Mohammed, an al Qaeda leader captured in Pakistan in 2003, and
bin Attash, the accused co-conspirators are Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali
and Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi.
(Reporting by
Phil Stewart, James Vicini, Jeremy Pelofsky, Matt Spetalnick and Susan Cornwell
in Washington and Basil Katz in New York; writing by David Alexander; Editing by
Sandra Maler and Todd Eastham)
WASHINGTON | Sat Apr 2, 2011
8:57pm EDT
By Jeff Mason
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Saturday
the killings in Afghanistan after a fundamentalist Christian U.S. preacher
burned a Koran were "outrageous" while calling the desecration of the holy text
an act of bigotry.
"The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme
intolerance and bigotry," Obama said in a statement released by the White House.
"However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an
affront to human decency and dignity," he said.
At least 10 people have been killed and 83 wounded in the southern Afghan city
of Kandahar, officials said on Saturday, on a second day of violent protests
over the actions of extremist Christian preacher Terry Jones, who supervised the
burning of the Koran in front of about 50 people at a church in Florida on March
20, according to his website.
A suicide attack also hit a NATO military base in the capital Kabul, the day
after protesters overran a U.N. mission in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif
and killed seven foreign staff in the deadliest attack on the U.N. in
Afghanistan.
"No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there
is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act," Obama said.
"Now is a time to draw upon the common humanity that we share, and that was so
exemplified by the U.N. workers who lost their lives trying to help the people
of Afghanistan."
Obama did not mention Jones by name in his statement.
JONES UNREPENTANT
In an interview with Reuters at the tiny church he leads in Gainesville,
Florida, Jones was unrepentant and vowed to lead an anti-Islam demonstration
later this month in front of the largest mosque in the United States, located in
Dearborn, Michigan.
Last year, Jones threatened to burn a Koran but did not end up following through
at that time. His threat last year came amid controversy over plans by Muslim
leaders seeking to build an Islamic center and mosque near the site of the
September 11, 2001 attacks in New York.
Obama appealed to Americans then to respect religious freedom while warning that
burning the Koran would endanger U.S. troops abroad.
The recent burning initially passed relatively unnoticed in Afghanistan, but
after criticism from President Hamid Karzai, and calls for justice during Friday
sermons, thousands poured into the streets in several cities to denounce Jones.
The United States has said it would help the United Nations in any way after the
attack.
Obama said in his statement that the American people honor the people killed in
the attack on the United Nations in Mazar-i-Sharif.
"Once again, we extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of
those who were killed, and to the people of the nations that they came from."
LANDOVER,
Maryland (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday the U.S. economy is
showing real strength after a positive jobs report for March that he said was
good news.
Speaking at a UPS shipping facility, Obama said much work remains to get
millions of Americans back to work, after the Labor Department reported a drop
in the jobless rate to 8.8 percent, a two-year low.
"Our economy is showing signs of real strength," Obama said.
Fri, Apr 1
2011
WASHINGTON | Fri Apr 1, 2011
5:25pm EDT
By Steve Holland and Emily Stephenson
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama warned lawmakers on Friday that it would be
the "height of irresponsibility" to shut down the government over a spending
battle, pressuring Republicans not to pursue deeper cuts.
Obama's comments set the stage for an attempt to blame Republicans should
congressional negotiations collapse and the U.S. government runs out of cash
when a short-term funding measure expires on April 8.
"We know that a compromise is within reach. And we also know that if these
budget negotiations break down, it could shut down the government and jeopardize
our economic recovery," Obama said at a UPS shipping facility in Landover,
Maryland.
Obama weighed in at a sensitive time in the negotiations.
The talks could still fall apart, but neither party is eager to cause a
government shutdown that could lead to thousands of layoffs when voters are
nervous about the shaky economic recovery and rising gas prices brought on by
political unrest in the Middle East.
Both sides are believed to have tentatively agreed to $33 billion in cuts but
are haggling over where the budget knife should fall.
"I'm happy to say that negotiations toward a compromise are moving forward. Not
as fast as I would like, but they are moving forward," Senate Democratic Leader
Harry Reid said on a conference call.
Democrats want to cut defense spending and some benefit programs that normally
lie beyond the reach of the annual budget process, and protect education and
scientific research programs. Republicans hope to deny funding to some of
Obama's top priorities, such as Obama's healthcare overhaul and greenhouse-gas
regulation.
A $33 billion cut would represent a big victory for Republicans, as Obama had
initially proposed a budget that would have increased spending by $41 billion
but was never enacted.
But newly elected Tea Party conservatives in the House of Representatives want
deeper cuts, presenting a challenge to House Speaker John Boehner.
And that is just for the budget for the fiscal year that ends September 30. A
bigger battle may be looming for the 2012 budget as Republicans eye further
spending cuts, tax cuts and a revamp of big-ticket benefits like the Medicaid
program for the poor and disabled.
BOEHNER
WARNS AGAINST SHUTDOWN
Boehner said on Friday that a shutdown would undermine Republican goals to cut
government spending.
"Let's all be honest, if you shut the government down, it'll end up costing more
than you save because you interrupt contracts. There are a lot of problems with
the idea of shutting the government. It is not the goal. The goal is to cut
spending," Boehner told a news conference.
On Friday, several House Republicans said they would resist meeting Democrats in
the middle on the size of the cut as they stood on the steps of the Senate. They
want to stick to $61 billion in cuts that have already passed the House.
"Anything less than $61 billion is an insult to the problem," said Republican
Representative Paul Broun.
The size of the package could change, as Republicans are inclined to push for
deeper cuts in return for dropping measures that would block funding for birth
control, environmental regulation and other agency activities.
Dozens of such restrictions are included in the Republican plan, and some of
them will probably make it into the final bill.
"Let's not shut down the government on a fight over some bumper sticker issue
that may have been around for the last 10 or 20 years," Democratic Senator Dick
Durbin said.
Congressional Democrats who saw Republicans punished by voters after a 1995
shutdown when Democrat Bill Clinton was president are eager to place the blame
on Republicans once again.
Until Friday, Obama had largely resisted weighing in on the battle.
Obama chose to do so because a Labor Department report showed a slight decline
in the U.S. jobless rate to 8.8 percent and he felt it important to comment on
the possibility of a shutdown that he believes could hinder the fragile
recovery, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
Democratic and Republican staffers were expected to work through the weekend to
lay the legislative groundwork for the deal. Boehner said he would not be in
town.
(Additional
reporting by Andy Sullivan, David Alexander,
Thomas Ferraro,
Richard Cowan and
Matt Spetalnick;
