Obama pledges reduction in nuclear stockpiles

Obama and Putin discuss Syria conflict

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Barack Obama have discussed the Syrian conflict in a meeting on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

The leaders of Russia and the US openly back rival sides in the country’s two-year civil war with Russia under criticism from G8 leaders for backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Our positions do not fully coincide, but we are united by the common intention to end the violence and to stop the number of victims increasing in Syria,” Putin said.

“We agreed to push the process of peace talks and encourage the parties to sit down at the negotiation table, organise the talks in Geneva.”

Obama conceded that they have a “different perspective” on Syria, but they have a shared interest in stopping the violence and securing chemical weapons in the country.

Both leaders looked tense and uncomfortable as they addressed reporters after about two hours of talks, with Putin staring mostly at the floor as he spoke about Syria and Obama only glancing occasionally at the Russian leader.

The G8 summit of leading industrial nations kicked off in Northern Ireland with Western leaders raising pressure on Russia over its support for Syria’s regime.

Earlier David Cameron, UK prime minister, welcomed the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US on Monday, and said there was “a big difference” between the positions of Russia and the West on Syria.

Western leaders have criticised Putin for supporting Assad in his battle to crush a two-year-old uprising, setting the stage for what could be a difficult meeting of world leaders over Monday and Tuesday.

Russia said it would not permit no-fly zones to be imposed over Syria.

Earlier in London, Putin insisted that Russia had abided by international law when supplying weapons to Assad’s regime and demanded that Western countries contemplating arming the opposition do the same.

“We are not breaching any rules and norms and we call on all our partners to act in the same fashion,” Putin said.

He referred to a video released last month purportedly showing a rebel Syrian fighter eating the heart of a dead soldier.

He asked if the West really wanted to support rebels “who not only kill their enemies but open up their bodies and eat their internal organs in front of the public and the cameras”.

413

U.S. Senators Want Obama To Push Putin On Russian Rights

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of U.S. senators say they will to push the Obama administration to highlight concerns about the worsening rights situation in Russia ahead of the president’s upcoming meetings with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.

“What I’m going to work [on] with Senator [Ron] Johnson, Senator [Chris] Murphy, and Senator [Rand] Paul is a bipartisan letter that we can send to the administration saying that we are very concerned and perhaps sending them a summary of this hearing — and we’ll send that to [Secretary of State] John Kerry as well,” U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat-California) said at a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 13.

“I think that would be a good way to show bipartisan support for putting this on the agenda and not letting it be swept under the rug.”

The hearing, titled, “A Dangerous Slide Backwards: Russia’s Deteriorating Human Rights Situation,” comes days before Obama and Putin are due to meet on the sidelines of the summit of the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrialized nations in Northern Ireland on June 17-18.

Putin will also host Obama in the Russian capital in September.

U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul was quoted in the Russian press this week as saying that counterterrorism cooperation would be the focus of the leaders’ G8 meeting.

Russia’s continuing support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is also expected to be a prominent, if thorny, topic of conversation.

Russian opposition leader and former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, who testified at the hearing, described the apparent absence of human rights on the agenda for the meeting as a danger sign.

“Attempts by some in the West, including in the United States, to adopt a realpolitik approach and to conduct business as usual with the Putin regime contradict the most basic values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law,” he said. “Such [a] policy is also counterproductive, since the Kremlin considers it as a sign of weakness and, therefore, as an invitation to behave even more aggressively, both at home and abroad.”

Call To Support Select Activities

As senators and witnesses, alike, recounted a laundry-list of Russian rights concerns — from a law branding foreign-funded NGOs “foreign agents,” to a crackdown on gay rights and harsh sentences against protesters — they also entertained ideas on how Washington might work to fight the trend.

Stephen Sestanovich, who formerly served as U.S. ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union, said, “Resources are just as important as letters.”

He suggested Washington take the money it formerly spent on U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs in Russia and focus on supporting a few select activities in the country’s civil society.

Russia expelled USAID from the country last autumn. The agency said it had provided “more than $ 2.6 billion toward Russia’s social and economic development” since 1992.

“I’d focus on a couple that I think are particularly at the interface between civil society and politics and I’ll give you two kinds of activities,” Sestanovich said. “One involves polling and public opinion and the other involves election monitoring.”

Election monitor Golos, which has gathered evidence of electoral fraud, and the Levada Center polling organization, which has tracked Putin’s declining popularity, are both resisting state pressure to register as “foreign agents.”

U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) was among several lawmakers who spoke in favor of expanding the Magnitsky list, a set of sanctions imposed by Washington this year on 18 alleged rights violators in Russia.

Moscow responded by issuing its own blacklist of U.S. officials and banning U.S. adoptions of Russian children.

Obama Administration: Pick Your Scandal

All can agree that the Obama administration is mired in myriads of scandals, but as yet no one can quite figure out what they all mean and where they will lead.

Benghazi differs from all the other scandals — and from both Watergate and Iran-Contra — because in this case administration lapses led to the deaths of four Americans. Nine months later, the administration’s problems of damage control remain fourfold: (a) there was ample warning that American personnel were in danger in Libya, and yet requests for increased security were denied; (b) during the actual attack, the American tradition of sending in relief forces on the chance that fellow Americans could be saved was abrogated; (c) the president and his top officials knowingly advanced a narrative of a culpable filmmaker that they knew was not accurate; (d) a through c are best explained as resulting not from honest human error or the fog of war, but from a methodical effort to assure the public in the weeks before the election that “lead from behind” in Libya had been a successful venture and that the death of Osama bin Laden had made al-Qaeda–inspired terrorism rare. All other concerns became secondary, including the safety of Americans in Libya.

Until someone proves that the administration was not wrong in failing to beef up our posts, was not wrong in not ordering immediate succor, was not wrong in blaming the violence on a filmmaker, and was not wrong in covering up the truth by promoting a demonstrably false narrative, the scandal will not go away.

Other questions remained unanswered. What role was the “consulate” actually playing? Who gave the stand-down order despite the calls for help? Who dreamed up the filmmaker-as-guilty-party yarn? Did General David Petraeus’s post-Benghazi testimony square with the CIA talking points, and were any of these events related to his post-election resignation? And does Jay Carney face any consequences for blatantly lying to the press corps when he asserted that the administration had made a single adjustment to its Benghazi talking points — when there were, in fact, twelve substantive revised drafts?

In the AP and Fox News scandals, it cannot have been leaks per se that prompted the administration to go after journalists, given that the administration itself had leaked key classified information about the Stuxnet virus, the drone program, the bin Laden hit, and the Yemeni double agent. The suspect reporters were not so much enemies as rivals. They were monitored not because the administration wanted all leaks stopped so as to ensure that national security was not endangered, but because it wished to retain a monopoly on them: In-house favorable leaks were okay; unauthorized ones by others were grounds for surveillance. Note in all these scandals that when the Obama administration begins demonizing an opponent — Fox News since 2009; the Tea Party in 2010 — then usually the government finds a way unlawfully to go after it. For now, the public wonders how does Eric Holder explain his conflicting testimony to Congress, and will those in the administration who leaked favorable classified information to pet reporters be prosecuted? Will granting exclusive access to the bin Laden trove to a reporter like David Ignatius, who could be expected to present a narrative laudatory of the administration, have any repercussions?

The AP/Fox scandal affects not only the reporters involved but also the way the news is disseminated, and the IRS mess potentially affects every American. When the IRS comes calling, Americans cannot employ the sort of obfuscation and dissimulation that the IRS itself now employs. Try taking the Fifth Amendment with an IRS auditor or claiming that a suspicious visit to a business associate was due to an Easter-egg roll, and then see how well your audit goes. Because the system of voluntary tax compliance collapses without honesty and nonpartisanship, our entire tax-collection apparatus is now suspect. Every prominent conservative from now on, every tea-party-like nonprofit organization, every Republican political donor will assume, rightly or wrongly, that the next IRS letter in the mail is not legitimate, but prompted by Obama-era politics.

I don’t see how the reputation of the IRS can quite recover, especially given reports of its repugnant waste of money on entertainment and frivolity, at a time of sequester belt-tightening (e.g., why do travelers suffer airline delays supposedly due to thinned-out air-traffic controllers, while IRS agents play-act Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock in a $ 60,000 parody video?), coupled with the fact that 47 percent of the public pays no federal income tax at all. Add it all up, and there is now a historic opportunity for principled reformers to do away with the IRS as we know it, and to rebrand it as a collection agency for a flat federal income tax. Will a new gang of eight address “comprehensive tax-collection reform”?

So far, we know that the administration’s story that IRS malfeasance was confined to a single regional office cannot be true. If it turns out that Washington IRS officials were communicating with the Obama administration about inordinate scrutiny of political opponents, then the scandal will reach Nixonian proportions.

The problem with the NSA monitoring is not just Obama’s hypocrisy of once decrying elements of the Patriot Act only to embrace them, or indeed expand upon them. By now, everyone knows that what Obama demagogued in 2008 was what he adopted in 2009. Nor is the problem that the U.S. does not have a need to monitor the communications of potential terrorists who plan attacks through the Internet, e-mail, and cell phones. Rather, the dilemma for the Obama administration is that the apparently vastly expanded NSA surveillance came at a time when, in high-profile terrorist cases — the Tsarnaev bombing, Major Hasan’s murder spree — U.S. officials did not use the intelligence in their possession to preempt terrorist acts. Fairly or not, there is the impression that a James Rosen of Fox News or the tea-party affiliates were more likely to earn unlawful federal attention than was a possible terrorist. In the present climate, the NSA will be presumed guilty of something until proven innocent.

And of course the NSA disclosures do not appear in a vacuum, but amid a multitude of other scandals in which the administration’s initial explanations have proven deceptive. In other words, if even a few cases emerge in which those who by no stretch of the imagination could be suspected of terrorism were monitored, then the NSA disclosures will prove by far the most damaging of all the scandals.

Finally, the common denominator in these transgressions is that they all predated the 2012 election, were kept secret from the public, and emerged only once Barack Obama was safely elected. In that regard, they were successful operations that ensured that the voters went to the polls with the impression that al-Qaeda–inspired terror was rare, Libya was secure, the Tea Party had deflated and disappeared, and their unheralded president was, as the good leaks showed, in the shadows successfully fighting terrorists by drone, computer, SEAL teams, and double agents. The later whistle-blowers — the State Department’s Gregory Hicks, the NSA’s Edward Snowden, and Lois Lerner of the IRS in her psychodramatic response to the set-up questioner — were supposed Obama supporters and came forward only after the election. Note also the clear administration lying: Susan Rice reiterating the false story about a culpable filmmaker and a spontaneous demonstration; Jay Carney sticking to his lie about a single change in administration talking points; Eric Holder misleading Congress by assuring the House Judiciary Committee that he would not do what he in fact did in the James Rosen case; James Clapper insisting to Congress that the NSA collects data only under strict court supervision.

Paranoia over reelection, in classic Nixon style, is the common key that unlocks much of the mystery surrounding the administration’s reckless, unethical, and often unlawful behavior.

By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

AP Takes Blow-Torch to Obama Presidency

WASHINGTON (AP) — As a candidate, Barack Obama vowed to bring a different, better kind of leadership to the dysfunctional capital. He’d make government more efficient, accountable and transparent. He’d rise above the “small-ball” nature of doing business. And he’d work with Republicans to break Washington paralysis.

You can trust me, Obama said back in 2008. And — for a while, at least — a good piece of the country did.

But with big promises often come big failures — and the potential for big hits to the one thing that can make or break a presidency: credibility.

A series of mounting controversies is exposing both the risks of political promise-making and the limits of national-level governing while undercutting the core assurance Obama made from the outset: that he and his administration would behave differently.

The latest: the government’s acknowledgement that, in a holdover from the Bush administration and with a bipartisan Congress’ approval and a secret court’s authorization, it was siphoning the phone records of millions of American citizens in a massive data-collection effort officials say was meant to protect the nation from terrorism. This came after the disclosure that the government was snooping on journalists.

Also, the IRS’ improper targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status has spiraled into a wholesale examination of the agency, including the finding that it spent $ 49 million in taxpayer money on 225 employee conferences over the past three years.

At the same time, Obama’s immigration reform agenda is hardly a sure thing on Capitol Hill, and debate starting this week on the Senate floor is certain to show deep divisions over it. Gun control legislation is all but dead. And he’s barely speaking to Republicans who control the House, much less working with them on a top priority: tax reform.

Even Democrats are warning that more angst may be ahead as the government steps up its efforts to implement Obama’s extraordinarily expensive, deeply unpopular health care law.

Collectively, the issues call into question not only whether the nation’s government can be trusted but also whether the leadership itself can. All of this has Obama on the verge of losing the already waning faith of the American people. And without their confidence, it’s really difficult for presidents to get anything done — particularly those in the second term of a presidency and inching toward lame-duck status.

The ramifications stretch beyond the White House. If enough Americans lose faith in Obama, he will lack strong coattails come next fall’s congressional elections. Big losses in those races will make it harder for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, especially if it’s Hillary Rodham Clinton, to run as an extension of Obama’s presidency and convince the American public to give Democrats another four years.

Obama seemed to recognize this last week. He emphasized to anxious Americans that the other two branches of government were as responsible as the White House for signing off on the vast data-gathering program.

“We’ve got congressional oversight and judicial oversight,” Obama said. “And if people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

The government is an enormous operation, and it’s unrealistic to think it will operate smoothly all of the time. But, as the head of it, Obama faces the reality of all of his successors: The buck stops with him.

If the controversies drag on, morale across America could end up taking a huge hit, just when the mood seems to be improving along with an economic uptick. Or, Americans could end up buying Obama’s arguments that safety sometimes trumps privacy, that his administration is taking action on the IRS, and that he’s doing the best he can to forge bipartisan compromise when Republicans are obstructing progress.

Every president faces the predicament of overpromising. Often the gap can be chalked up to the difference between campaigning and governing, between rhetoric and reality. As with past presidents, people desperate to turn the page on the previous administration voted for the Obama they wanted and now are grappling with the Obama they got.

From the start of his career, Obama tried to sculpt an almost nonpartisan persona as he spoke of bridging divides and rejecting politics as usual. He attracted scores of supporters from across the ideological spectrum with his promises to behave differently. And they largely believed what he said.

Back then, he held an advantage as one of the most trusted figures in American politics.

In January 2008, Obama had an 8-point edge over Clinton as the more honest and trustworthy candidate in the Democratic primary. That grew to a 23-point advantage by April of that year, according to Washington Post-ABC News polls. Later that year, the Post-ABC poll showed Obama up 8 points on Republican nominee John McCain as the more honest candidate.

Obama held such strong marks during his first term, with the public giving the new president the benefit of the doubt. Up for re-election, he went into the 2012 campaign home stretch topping Mitt Romney by 9 points on honesty in a mid-October ABC/Post poll.

But now, that carefully honed image of trustworthiness may be changing in Americans’ eyes.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted late last month found 49 percent of people consider Obama honest and trustworthy, a dip from the organization’s last read on the matter in September 2011 when 58 percent said the same. He also has taken a hit among independents, which used to be a source of strength for him, since his second-term controversies have emerged. Now just 40 percent say he is honest and trustworthy, down from 58 percent in September 2011.

Obama has waning opportunities to turn it around. He’s halfway through his fifth year, and with midterm elections next fall, there’s no time to waste.

If he can’t convince the American people that they can trust him, he could end up damaging the legacy he has worked so hard to control and shape — and be remembered, even by those who once supported him, as the very opposite of the different type of leader he promised to be.

By Liz Sidoti

Obama and Xi ‘aligned’ on N Korea issue

A senior US national security official says President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping have reached “quite a bit of alignment” on the subject of curbing North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme.

White House national security adviser Tom Donilon says the common ground between Obama and Xi on North Korea provides a key for enhanced US-China co-operation.

Donilon spoke on Saturday at the end of two days of meeting between Obama and Xi at an estate in the California desert.

Cyber issue

Donilon gave no specifics but said the president also described for China’s leader the types of problems the US has faced from cyber intrusions and theft of intellectual property.

According to Donilon, the president underscored for Xi that the US has no doubt that the intrusions are coming from inside China.

Donilon said Obama requested that the Chinese government “engage” on the issue and also understand that that type of activity is inconsistent with the kind of relationship the US desires to build with China.

Obama’s national security adviser told reporters that China now understood the depth of US worries about the problem.

187

Obama Welcomes ‘Peaceful’ Rise Of China

U.S. President Barack Obama says he welcomes the “peaceful rise” of China as he and Chinese President Xi Jinping started two days of talks in California.

“And for my part, this will give me an opportunity to reiterate how the United States welcomes the continuing peaceful rise of China as a world power and that, in fact, it is in the United States’ interest that China continues on the path of success, because we believe that a peaceful and stable and prosperous China is not only good for Chinese but also good for the world and for the United States,” Obama said alongside Xi ahead of their meeting.

Hosting Xi at a luxurious desert estate in southern California, Obama said he hoped to work together with China on cybersecurity, an issue that has created friction between the two countries.

Obama said despite inevitable areas of tension, both countries want a cooperative relationship.

“Inevitably, there are areas of tension between our two countries, but what I’ve learned over the last four years is both the Chinese people and the American people want a strong, cooperative relationship, and that I think there’s a strong recognition on the part of both President Xi and myself that it is very much in our interest to work together to meet the global challenges that we face,” Obama explained.

The two leaders later expressed their desire to resolve cybersecurity issues.

Xi expressed the hope for deeper cooperation, saying China and the United States could build a new model of “big country” relations.

“Both sides should proceed from the fundamental interests of our peoples and bear in mind human development and progress. We need to think creatively and act energetically so that working together we can build a new model of major country relationship,” Xi said.

Xi is meeting Obama for the first time since assuming the presidency in March. Among other issues, he is expected to express concern over U.S. intentions to shift U.S. military forces toward the Pacific.

Based on Reuters and AP reporting

Obama calls for ‘new model’ at China summit

The US president has said he welcomed the “peaceful rise” of China and that, despite inevitable areas of tension, both countries want a co-operative relationship, as he and Chinese President Xi Jinping kicked off two days of meetings.

Hosting Xi at a luxurious desert estate in southern California on Friday, Barack Obama said he hoped to work together with China on cybersecurity, an issue that has created friction between the two countries.

Xi expressed the hope for deeper co-operation, saying China and the United States could build a new model of “big country” relations.

‘New model’

Speaking to reporters at the start of Friday’s talks, Obama said he wanted to achieve a “new model of co-operation” with China – a goal many feel eluded him in his first term when dealing with former Chinese president Hu Jintao.

A strong relationship between the world’s two largest economies is “important… for the world,” Obama said.

Obama voiced hope that the two countries would “work together” on issues including cyber-security, which has soared to the top of the agenda amid charges of a vast hacking campaign by China against the US.

For his part, Xi said he hoped the meetings will “shape the future” of the US-China relationship,” and renewed his call for a “new model” of relationships between major world powers.

Obama and Xi had not been scheduled to meet until a Group of 20 summit in Russia in September, but both sides decided to hold a less formal and more free-flowing meeting to try to develop a chemistry between the leaders.

US experts believe that Xi, the son of one of communist China’s founding revolutionaries, has rapidly consolidated power and may prove to be a more dynamic leader than his notoriously stiff predecessor Hu Jintao.

297

blog comments powered by
FPIF Latest Content

Who Could Have Imagined That President Obama Would Double-Down on Some of Bush’s Policies?

By Russ Wellen, May 29, 2013

At least he doesn’t enjoy taking out terrorists like Bush did.

drone-predator-president obama-target killing As the Daily Beast’s Daniel Klaidman reported about President Obama’s appearance at the National Defense University on Thursday, May 23:

“At a highly anticipated speech on counterterrorism this afternoon, President Obama announced reforms that would dramatically ratchet down the administration’s drone program. But one thing that will not change, two highly placed administration sources tell The Daily Beast, is Obama’s singular involvement in making individual kill decisions—this despite the fact that the military made an aggressive push to wrest back control over final targeting calls from the commander in chief.”

I was just about to make a snide comparison to President Bush, but first I googled. Turns out, in 2012, at the Daily Beast, Eleanor Clift wrote:

Reports … on how Obama personally signs off on a “kill list” of al-Qaeda terrorists prepared by the CIA and the Pentagon is chillingly reminiscent of the deck of playing cards that Bush used to keep score of top terrorist targets when he was in the Oval Office.

Liked this Post? Share it!

Obama To Raise Issue Of Cyberspying With Chinese Leader

The White House says President Barack Obama will discuss cyberspying with Chinese President Xi Jinping during their meeting next week in California.

The statement came after U.S. reports, including in “The Washington Post,” cited officials as saying Chinese computer hackers were believed to have gained access to designs of some major U.S. weapons systems.

Reports said the designs included those for combat aircraft and ships, as well as missile defenses in Europe, Asia, and the Gulf.

The Pentagon later issued a statement saying it was wrong to suggest that U.S. military capabilities or technological advantages had been eroded by the reported hacking.

In a report to Congress earlier this month, the Pentagon accused China’s government and military of carrying out cyberespionage operations.

Based on reporting by Reuters, dpa, and AFP

Islamabad Remains Opposed To Drones After Obama Address

The Pakistani government has reiterated its view that U.S. drone attacks on its territory remain illegal, after President Barack Obama unveiled new rules for their use.

Islamabad said on May 24 that it welcomes some aspects of Obama’s speech, particularly his recognition that “force alone cannot make us safe”, but said it remained firm that “the drone strikes are counter-productive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives, [and] have human rights and humanitarian implications.”

The statement by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry added that drone attacks “violate the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and international law.”

The Foreign Ministry says a minimum of 330 drone strikes have been carried out in Pakistan since 2004, causing at least 2,200 deaths.

The attacks typically target suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants but are believed to have killed some civilians.

Based on reporting by AFP, AP, and dpa

Where is President Obama As Egypt’s Coptic Christians Die and Churches Burn?

KNOXVILLE, TN (Catholic Online) – According to Asia News, Coptic Christians are experiencing an escalation of attacks by Islamists, and they are becoming a daily occurrence. Asia News reported two attacks that occurred last week. Furthermore, as Copts continue to suffer and die and their churches and property are destroyed, Christians have begun to notice President Obama’s silence.

On May17, over 20 thousand Muslims attacked the church of St. Mary in Alexandria. They set fire to the entrance of the building and shattered the windows. In response to the attack, hundreds of courageous Copts formed a human wall around the perimeter of the church, effectively using their bodies as shields against the huge mob. Some Islamists were armed with guns and knives. They shot at the Copts, causing some serious injuries.

The attack on the church apparently began because of a dispute between two neighbors. According to one report, Basem Ramzy Michael, a Coptic Christian, behaved inappropriately towards the sister of a Muslim man, Alloshy Hamada. Another report stated that Basem leaned over his “balcony to gaze at the flat of Alloshy’s sister, who lives on the ground floor.”

The Assyrian International News Agency (AINA) reported that a 36-year-old Coptic man, a father of three children, died during the attack. His name is Sedky Sherif. While witnesses said his body was covered with bruises and marks from bird shot, it is believed he may have died from a heart attack.

A 19-year-old Coptic man, Mina Milad Saber, was severely injured in the attack and required brain surgery. AINA reported that the police shackled him to his bed after his surgery for fear he might escape, although he was still in a coma. They also reported that “most Christians who were injured during the attack either went privately for treatment or quietly left the hospital, ‘as it will end by them being arrested too,’ said Weesa Fawzy.”

Another incident occurred on May 13 in the village of Menbal, north of the Minya province. This time, a Muslim mob attacked a church named Tadros el-Mashreki. They threw stones at the church, forced their way into it, trashed it, and assaulted one person. The mob then looted Christian shops, set cars on fire, and beat up Copts caught outside. The Coptic minority was also threatened with expulsion from the village.

This incident apparently began when a group of Coptic girls, who were going to church, ignored the advances from a group of young Muslims. According to the report, the Muslims waited for the Coptic girls to come out of church. Then they threw bags filled with urine at the girls. This provoked an argument between the girls’ Coptic friends and the Muslims.

As a result of the escalating violence against the Coptic Christian community in Egypt, but prior to these two incidents, on April 18, American Copts gathered in Washington D.C. in front of the White House seeking justice for their fellow Copts. They wanted the United States government to do more to persuade the new Islamist government in Egypt to protect its Christian minority from attacks. One demonstrator shouted, “We need justice! Obama, Obama, where are you?”

Of course, the answer to this question seems to be clear. By all accounts, President Obama and his administration have positioned themselves in the same camp as President Morsi of Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood.

President Obama denounces violent attacks against the oppressed Christian minority in Egypt and throughout the Muslim world, but he chokes on the word “terrorism” when Muslim’s commit acts of terror. Yet, he had no problem this past Monday telling the new leader of Myanmar, Thein Sein, that the predominately Buddhist nation needs to end its violence against its Muslim minority.

It is right that President Obama, and all of us, should be concerned about the ongoing violence in Myanmar and the tragic displacement of its Muslim minority; however, this concern should go both ways, and it apparently does not for President Obama. Take the attacks on the U. S. embassies in Egypt and Libya on September 11, 2012, which are currently under investigation, although the attack in Benghazi, Libya is the main focus.

Right from the start, the Obama administration blamed these attacks on an obscure, 14-minute video clip about the Prophet Muhammad that was made by an American Coptic Christian. Before the attacks even began, the U.S. embassy in Cairo released a statement condemning “misguided individuals [who] . . . abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” About two weeks later, the administration flooded Pakistani television with an ad featuring President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the video in anticipation of the “Love the Prophet Day” protests.

In the ad, President Obama says, “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” Secretary of State Clinton says, “Let me state very clearly, the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”

The President and key members in his administration continued to blame the embassy attacks on the video for weeks. In the process, they caused massive unrest in many Muslim countries resulting in numerous injuries, deaths and wide-scale property damage. What’s more, the aftershocks of this lie about the video are still being felt.

For instance, it has undermined efforts to establish goodwill between the Copts living in Egypt and their Muslim neighbors; it has endangered the Copts and other Christians living in Muslim countries; it has damaged the relationship between the United States and some Muslim nations; and it has left the American Copt who made the video in jail on a technicality, a victim of Machiavellian politics.

Last week, hundreds of Egyptian Copts stood up to a mob of 20 thousand Muslims. They risked their lives to protect their church, their religious freedom and each other. Last month, members of the American Coptic community stood up to our government. They called on President Obama, and all they got was silence. He was not there for them.

We wonder where President Obama is, but where are we? The American Coptic community also asked for our prayers and if we would stand with them. Our Christian brothers and sisters in Egypt and Muslim countries around the world need our help. Their blood is crying out to us. Will they get silence from us too? Will we be there for them?

One thing is certain, there will be no peace in the world while arrogant leaders incessantly lie to the people, manipulate them and deny them religious freedom. For this reason, I believe it is imperative for Christians in the United States to be there for the Copts and all persecuted Christians. We need to stand up for religious freedom everywhere, even in our own country.

With these thoughts in mind, let us always pray for those being persecuted for their faith and for religious freedom in our own country. Let us also write to our leaders. If they do not listen, then let us go to Washington D. C. and form a human wall around the perimeter of religious freedom for all the world to see.

By Michael Terheyden
http://www.catholic.org

Intelligence Analyst: Obama Made ‘A Promise He Can’t Keep’

Anthony Cordesman is a former director of intelligence assessment for the U.S. secretary of defense’s office and a recipient of the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal. He now holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He gave RFE/RL Washington Bureau Chief Heather Maher his thoughts about U.S. President Barack Obama’s May 23 national security speech.

WASHINGTON, May 23, 2013 (RFE/RL)

RFE/RL: Did this speech do what President Obama hoped, which was recast America’s fight against terrorists and make his policies more transparent to Congress and the country?

Anthony Cordesman: I think the president opened a debate. The fact is that people who see terrorism as a serious threat, and particularly as a serious threat in very simplistic terms, are going to have to listen to more than one speech to change their perspective. The people who want an instant end to any kind of U.S. action that involves the use of force obviously didn’t listen during the president’s speech because they interrupted the president towards the end of it.

But if you look at what he said, I think he focused on issues which many people in the counterterrorism world would agree with. You can’t focus on a monolithic Al-Qaeda anymore. It is a matter of looking at extremism, and extremism that is sometimes violent. It has to be nuanced. You are talking about targeting individual movements. You do need partners because you are dealing with such a complex world and you can’t act militarily everywhere, and you do need diplomatic engagement. But is this going to end all of the president’s problems in communicating with the Congress or the issue of terrorism? The answer is very clearly ‘no.’

RFE/RL: Are the new, higher standards for U.S. drone strikes – someone must be a ‘continuing, imminent threat” versus just “a significant threat” — going to make that much difference?

Cordesman: I think the problem that is raised in the president’s speech, which is raised every time that you go to a specific [issue], [is] whenever you talk about individual [terrorist] movements, you have to ask yourself, ‘What is it the movement is trying to do?’ And the difference between “imminent” and ‘non-imminent” is something where you never really know. [Osama] bin Laden was not seen as an imminent threat in terms of a direct, specific threat, until [Al-Qaeda] actually attacked and hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

And I think this is going to be the problem. The president perhaps put more restraints on the use of drones, but as he pointed out in his speech, they often are the best mechanism for striking terrorist groups that otherwise would have a sanctuary. And you’re really going to have to apply those rules movement by movement and case by case. I think that is one of the themes of his speech that people won’t pay enough attention to, because if you are going to target, you can’t be generic.

RFE/RL: How significant is it that he appeared to signal his willingness to establishing an independent review board or special court to oversee the choice of U.S. targets?

Cordesman: Well, there already has been a great deal of oversight. I think the problem is here, what kind of oversight. One problem you have is when the environment consists of the people who want to do it, in which case, it’s inherently permissive. It is a nightmare for anybody in the special operations world to try to deal with anything that attempts to be a legal process. Combat – and the president made this point in his speech – [and[ dealing with foreign threats does not allow you to assemble the equivalent of case law and people who have legal backgrounds simply are not prepared to deal with much of anything else. Can you make the review process better? Probably, but then the problem gets to be how serious -- and in this case, how imminent -- is the threat going to be? Because assembling too much evidence means often missing the target or reacting too slowly.

RFE/RL: Obama called closing the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay a matter of national security and asked opponents in Congress to see it that way. He’s already decided to lift the moratorium on sending Yemenese detainees home – will he take more unilateral action on this matter if Congress won’t cooperate?

Cordesman: The problem he faces is the problem in law – that is the question you really have to ask both senior [lawyers] on [Capitol] Hill on the committees that oppose this, and then the White House counsel. Of course there is the Congressional power of the purse, and that really matters. It’s not something where I believe the president can simply act on his own without it creating a legal problem. Whether he chooses to do that is another question entirely.

But I think he made a good case that this is not the way to deal with the problem. Essentially, parking people indefinitely with no clear procedure for either reintroducing them to the country involved or punishing them legally, at a cost of $ 1 million a prisoner a year, is not going to be a major step forward in fighting terrorism.

RFE/RL: The president said that someday this war against terrorists, like all wars, must end. Will there come a day when the United States isn’t fighting terrorist groups, and if so, how far off is it?

Cordesman: So far we have no idea when it’s going to happen. The truth is that the forces at work here have not gotten better. He talked in a way about dealing with the causes of terrorism. Well, the problem is that every measure he outlined can’t work. You can’t deal with the massive pressures of population increase, the sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shiite, there isn’t something U.S. diplomats or U.S. aid can do that can deal with the fact that young men in many developing countries face something like a 40 percent unemployment rate. You can’t deal with the whole problems of simply hyper-urbanization, just to name one of the many causes involved.

The fact is that extremism is likely to be with us for decades. It will change in form, it will be a threat that is intense or limited depending on factors we can’t predict today. You can talk about it ending, but the fact is that history doesn’t end, violence doesn’t end, war doesn’t end, and extremism doesn’t end, and I think the president made a promise which neither he nor history can keep.

Obama defends US use of drones

President Barack Obama has defended his country’s controversial drone attacks as legal, effective and a necessary tool in an evolving US counterterrorism policy.

But addressing an audience at the National Defence University on Thursday, he acknowledged the targeted strikes are no “cure-all” and said he is haunted by the civilians unintentionally killed.

Obama framed his speech as an attempt to redefine the nature and scope of terror threats facing the US, noting the weakening of al-Qaeda and the impending end of the US war in Afghanistan.

“So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and the scope of the struggle, or else it will define us,” said Obama, saying that threats to diplomatic facilities must be dealt with as well as “homegrown extremists”.

His speech came a day after his administration revealed for the first time that a fourth American citizen had been killed in secretive drone strikes abroad.

Guantanamo Bay a ‘glaring exception

The speech also reaffirmed Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where terror suspects have been held.

Obama said the US is is committed to “capturing terrorist suspects” and prosecuting them, but that “The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay”.

“When I ran for president the first time, John McCain supported closing Gitmo. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States,” said Obama.

“Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offences, including some who are more dangerous than most Gitmo detainees….there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened,” said the president, who was heckled by a person in the audience on the issue of forcefeeding hunger-striking detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Indeed, he was interrupted repeatedly by a woman who shouted “I love my country, I love the rule of law. The drones are making us less safe”.

The White House said on Wednesday that Obama’s speech coincided with the signing of new “presidential policy guidance” on when the US can use drone strikes.

Drafts of the guidance reviewed by counterterrorism officials gave control of drone strikes outside Pakistan and Yemen to the US military, enshrining into policy what is already common practice, according to two US officials briefed on the proposed changes.

Drone controversy

Obama has pledged to be more open with the public about the scope of the drone strikes. But a growing number of legislators in Congress are seeking to limit US authorities that support the deadly drone strikes, which have targeted a wider range of threats than initially anticipated.

“America cannot take strikes wherever we choose,” said Obama, saying that such strikes “save lives.”

He acknowledged civilian deaths as “a hard fact” that will “haunt us as long as we live.”

The speech comes amid growing impatience in Congress with the sweeping authority it gave the president after the September 11, 2001, attacks in light of the targeting of suspected terrorists with lethal drone strikes.

Republicans and Democrats fear that they have given the president a blank check for using military force worldwide.

Shifting the responsibility of some of the drone programme from the Central Intelligence Agency to the military has given Congress greater oversight of the secretive programme and members say they want even more.

Under the draft guidance, the CIA drone programme would remain up and running, to target al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas, with US troops drawing down in Afghanistan and concern rising that al-Qaeda might return in greater numbers to the region.

The military and the CIA currently work side by side in Yemen, with the CIA flying its drones over the northern region out of a covert base in Saudi Arabia, and the military flying its unmanned aerial vehicles from Djibouti.

641

Obama Charts New Counterterrorism Course

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is delivering a major national security speech in which he is outlining a new course in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Obama, in his remarks at the National Defense University, announced new limits on the use of drone strikes against suspected terrorists and a shift of control of lethal force operations from the CIA to the military.

“Neither I nor any president can promise the total defeat of terror,” Obama said. “We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do — what we must do — is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and [we must] make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.”

Obama signed a presidential order this week that allows lethal force to be used against someone who represents a “continuing, imminent threat to Americans.” Until now, the lower standard was a “significant threat.”

On the eve of Obama’s speech, the U.S. administration had revealed for the first time that four American citizens have been killed in drone strikes outside war zones. Attorney General Eric Holder made the admission in a letter to Congress.

In his May 23 speech, Obama defended those targeted killings as both effective and legal but said he was “haunted” by civilians unintentionally killed.

Obama also reiterated his desire to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

He announced his decision to lift a moratorium on relocating Guantanamo inmates to unstable Yemen.

He derided the detention center at Guantanamo as a facility that “never should have been opened.”

White House aides had said the speech would be aimed at creating more transparency with the American people, outlining how terrorist threats have changed since 2001, and envisioning a day when the country “is no longer on a war footing.”

Obama Says More Reforms Planned In Burma

President Barack Obama says Burmese President Thein Sein has pledged to release more political prisoners and institutionalize democratic reforms in that southeast Asian country.

Obama met with Thein Sein at the White House on May 20 in what was seen as a gesture of U.S. support for Burma’s moves toward democracy after decades of repressive military rule.

It the first visit to the U.S. in 47 years by a leader of Burma, which is also known as Myanmar.

Obama told reporters he had expressed U.S. concerns to Thein Sein about violence against Burmese minority Muslims.

Thein Sein said his country faced challenges in carrying out reforms but pledged to continue moves in the reform direction.

Some pro-democracy activists have criticized the visit, saying reforms remain unfinished in Burma.

Based on reporting by AP and Reuters

Myanmar president set to meet Obama

Myanmar President Thein Sein is set to become the first leader of his country to visit the White House in nearly half a century, in one of the most symbolic US gestures yet to support his reforms.

In a scene that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, the former general will meet with President Barack Obama on Monday and later seek to woo US businesses that see a lucrative market in the former Western pariah nation.

Critics say that Obama’s invitation was premature and takes pressure off Myanmar to address still-alarming abuses such as recent anti-Muslim violence to which security forces allegedly turned a blind eye.

Thein Sein, who took office as a nominal civilian in 2011, surprised even cynics by freeing hundreds of political prisoners, easing censorship and letting long-detained opposition icon Aung San Suu Kyi enter parliament.

Speaking at the office of Voice of America, Thein Sein said he would tell Obama that the reform path is stable and call for a complete end to the economic sanctions which the United States has mostly suspended.

“Relations have greatly improved thanks to the policies of President Obama,” he told a forum at the broadcaster on Sunday. “For our political reforms, we also need more economic development.”

Preserving independence

The most critical test of reform will come in 2015, when Myanmar is scheduled to hold elections — testing whether the military and its allies would be willing to cede power, potentially to Suu Kyi.

Thein Sein did not budge on the constitution’s allocation of 25 percent of seats in parliament to the armed forces, saying that the military had preserved Myanmar’s independence.

“It is a defensive force. You cannot deny their place in politics,” he said.

The army seized control of the country then known as Burma in 1962, ushering in decades of isolation.

Military ruler Ne Win in 1966 was the last leader to visit the White House, where he met president Lyndon Johnson.

Obama has made Myanmar a key priority and visited in November. To some, Myanmar represents the biggest success from his pledge in his 2009 inaugural address to reach out to US foes if they “unclench” their fists.

363

President Obama Tries to Pass Guantanamo Closure Buck to Congress

As the Guantanamo hunger strike widens, the president deflects blame.

Cross-posted from the People’s Blog for the Constitution.

Guantanamo As the hunger strike at Guantánamo has widened to include all of the men held there, President Obama recently announced that he would renew a push on Congress to close the prison and examine his administrative options. However, the implication that Congress is preventing the closure of Guantánamo is at best disingenuous.

Obama has the power to transfer prisoners from Guantánamo right now. The president himself has placed a uniform ban on transferring any prisoners to Yemen, a collective punishment policy that he could reverse immediately. He could also release prisoners by issuing a certification through the Department of Defense and State that the administration has steps to assure the secure release and monitoring of the prisoners.

Moreover, President Obama’s seemingly newfound rhetorical opposition to indefinite detention runs counter to the policies of his administration. While he may have tried to move the prisoners to the United States, he still wanted them indefinitely detained, in violation of the Constitution and International Law. This has left even supporters of his detention policy befuddled.

The Guantánamo hunger strike can only be ended by the administration taking meaningful steps to close the prison. Those steps can begin immediately by releasing the 86 men who have been cleared for release by the government itself. The remaining men should either be given a speedy and fair trial or released as well.

The men at Guantánamo are resolute to peacefully protest through a hunger strike until they receive justice. One of them, Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi put it this way:

I do not want to kill myself. My religion prohibits suicide. But I will not eat or drink until I die, if necessary, to protest the injustice of this place. We want to get out of this place. It is as though this government wishes to smother us in this injustice, to kill us slowly here, indirectly, without trying us or executing us.

Currently, 21 of the men, including Mr. al-Alwi, are being force-fed in violation of medical ethics. The force-feeding process is brutal, as was described by one prisoner in an New York Times op-ed and can constitute torture, if undertaken as a form of punishment.

As the hunger strike continues, people across the world are pushing for the closure of Guantánamo and an end to indefinite detention. A change.org petition started by a former Guantánamo prosecutor, calling for the prison’s closure, has gained over 100,000 signers in less that two days. From May 17-19, people of conscience will stand together to demand that President Obama close the United States’ forever prison.

Michael Figura is a legal fellow for the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

FPIF Latest Content

Obama says US tax actions ‘intolerable’

Barack Obama, the US president, has said that the federal tax agency’s targeting of conservative political groups was “intolerable and inexcusable”.

The US president said on Tuesday in a statement that some Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees failed to apply the law fairly and impartially, adding that regardless of how it happened, it was wrong.

Obama said he had asked Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to hold accountable those responsible to ensure it never happens again.

The report, from the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, blamed ineffective IRS management for allowing agents to improperly target tea party groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status.

The IRS apologised for the practice on Friday.

Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, said on Tuesday he had ordered the FBI to open a criminal probe into the matter.

‘Heads need to roll’

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell urged Obama to make all of those who knew about IRS misconduct available for questioning, and said there should be “no more stonewalling”.

“Heads need to roll today,” said Republican Representative Vern Buchanan, a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the IRS and is scheduled to hold a hearing on the scandal on Friday.

It is unclear precisely what charges a criminal probe of the IRS could yield.

Obama’s administration has denied playing any role in choosing IRS audit targets, insisting that the IRS operates independently from the White House.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the results of independent investigations must be known “before we can jump to conclusions about what happened, whether there was a deliberate targeting of groups inappropriately and, if that’s the case, what action should be taken”.

284

Obama and Cameron discuss Syria crisis

US President Barack Obama says he and British Prime Minister David Cameron have agreed to “increase the pressure” on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, with his departure the goal.

Obama and Cameron addressed the media after a meeting between the two leaders in Washington on Monday.

“We’re going to continue our efforts to increase pressure on the Assad regime, to provide humanitarian aid … to strengthen the moderate opposition and to prepare for a democratic Syria without Bashar al-Assad,” Obama said.

Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington DC, said that while there was a lot of talk in local media about the possibility of arming the rebels, there were concerns about which country was arming which Syrian rebel group.

She said it would be a tough battle if the Obama administration decides to arm the rebels.

Cameron said he ruled out tougher action in Syria but pledged to double non-lethal aid to Syria.

Under pressure

Our correspondent said there was no real change in position from the statements made by the two leaders.

She said the Obama administration is under a lot of pressure as some rebels groups are believed to be linked to al-Qaeda.

Obama has also said publicly that the use of chemical weapons would be the “red line” that would have to be crossed for the US to reconsider its position.

Spotlight

In-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria

Cameron, fresh from a trip to Moscow, one of Assad’s few remaining backers, said the US efforts that had convinced Russia to join a conference on a political transition in Syria were a significant step forward.

He told National Public Radio that John Kerry, US secretary of state, made a “real breakthrough” in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin “when they agreed to an American-Russia peace conference”.

Cameron also said that Putin was “keen now to move from the generalities of having a peace conference to talking through the specifics of how we can make [this] work.

“There are still big hurdles to overcome … but I sense there is an understanding now that the current trajectory of Syria … this is not in anybody’s interest”.

Amid the diplomatic developments, reverberations mounted from a string of deadly bombings in the Turkish town of Reyhanli, which the Turkish government blamed on Syria.

Protests in Turkey

Thousands of Turks took to the streets on Sunday to urge their government to rethink its outspoken support for rebels battling Assad, warning that the decision had provoked reprisals against Turkey, including the bombings, which killed 48 people.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish prime minister, is due to meet Obama at the White House on Thursday, with Syria also topping their agenda.

In another sign of accelerating diplomacy on Syria, the Kremlin said Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, will hold talks on Tuesday with Putin amid concerns Russia plans to deliver advanced missiles to the Assad government.

Arrangements for the peace talks sponsored by Russia and the US, which could take place later this month, meanwhile remain unclear.

Opposition response

Syrian opposition forces said they will consult Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey before deciding whether to take part in the talks.

“It is too early to decide whether or not we will take part, because the circumstances of this conference are not yet clear,” George Sabra, acting head of the opposition National Coalition, said in Istanbul.

Tim Carstairs, the Head of Communications at Geneva Call, has published several videos on rules of war.

“There is no agenda or calendar yet. The list of participating states and their representatives has not yet been announced.”

Sabra’s statements came as the organisation Geneva Call said it had produced several videos on the rules of war, aimed at encouraging rebel fighters on the ground to follow international criminal laws.

The European Union gave warning on Sunday that the humanitarian aid community was at “breaking point” because of the scale of needs created by the conflict.

Kristalina Georgieva, EU’s humanitarian aid commissioner, issued the warning as she visited Syrian refugees in Jordan and unveiled $ 84m in additional aid.

“Unless all those involved in the fighting, as well as the international community, find a political solution to the violence very soon, the humanitarian community will simply be unable to cope with the unprecedented scale of the needs – we are already at breaking point,” Georgieva said.

767

Obama Taps Veteran Diplomat As Envoy To Afghanistan, Pakistan

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama has named veteran diplomat James Dobbins as his special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry issued the announcement on May 3 in Washington, D.C. and State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell announced it to journalists.

“In the statement, Secretary Kerry says that this morning he called the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan to tell them that Ambassador James F. Dobbins has agreed to serve as the next special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Ventrell said.

“He has a deep and long understanding of the region, deep and long understanding of the relationships in the region, and the secretary is very grateful that he has agreed to take on this position.”

Dobbins, 70, has previously served as assistant secretary of state for European affairs and as U.S. ambassador to the European Union.

Most recently, he has been director of the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center.

He has also served under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as envoy to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, Bush appointed Dobbins the U.S. representative to the Afghan opposition and he later participated in the process to form the post-Taliban Afghan government.

“Ambassador Dobbins was our first diplomatic envoy to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, he represented the U.S. at the Bonn Conference that established the new Afghan government, and he reopened the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in 2001, raising the flag over our embassy,” Ventrell noted.

The position of special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan was created in 2009 and filled initially by diplomat Richard Holbrooke. After Holbrooke’s death in 2010, it was filled by Marc Grossman, until he stepped down in December 2012.

Obama talks security, economy in Mexico visit

US president Barack Obama has promised cooperation in fighting drug-trafficking and organised crime in Mexico following his meeting with his Mexican counterpart, Enrique Pena Nieto.

Appearing alongside his Mexican counterpart at a news conference on Thursday, Obama recommitted the US to fighting the demand for illegal drugs in the US and the flow of illegal guns across the border, even as its southern neighbour rethinks how much access it gives to American security agencies.

“I agreed to continue our close cooperation on security, even as the nature of that cooperation will evolve,” Obama said.

“It is obviously up to the Mexican people to determine their security structures and how it engages with other nations, including the United States.”

Obama’s remarks come as Pena Nieto, in a shift from his predecessor, has moved to end the widespread access that US security agencies have had in Mexico.

The White House has been cautious in its public response to the changes, with the president and his advisers saying they need to hear directly from the Mexican leader before making a judgment.

Obama’s visit is part of a three-day trip to Mexico and Costa Rica, his first to Latin America since winning re-election last year.

Pena Nieto said his government’s new security strategy emphasizes reducing violence. But he downplayed the notion that it would mean a diminished effort to fight organised crime, saying “there is no clash between these two goals.”

This so-called “single-door” policy would be an abrupt change from the wide latitude the US government previously enjoyed under Pena Nieto’s predecessor, Felipe Calderon.

“From their perspective, it’s the effort to have better control over all the aspects of security policy and make it more fluid,” said Maureen Meyer, a Mexico specialist with the Washington Office on Latin America, a US non-governmental organisation.

The change has raised concern about Mexico’s commitment to combating drug trafficking and drug-related violence.

I agreed to continue our close cooperation on security, even as the nature of that cooperation will evolve.

- Barack Obama
US President

While the Mexican government has said that killings linked to organised crime fell 14 percent in the first four months of Pena Nieto’s presidency, more than 70,000 people are estimated to have been killed in drug violence in Mexico since 2007.

Economic boost

Al Jazeera’s Adam Raney, reporting from Mexico City, said Obama and Pena Nieto also discussed how to strengthen economic, trade and educational cooperation between the two countries.

Already the economic relationship between the two countries is robust, with Mexico accounting for $ 500bn in US trade in 2011 and ranking as the second-largest export market for US goods.

A stronger Mexican economy would result in even more trade and job growth on both sides of the border, Obama said.

Both Obama and Pena Nieto have said they want the visit to focus on economic issues rather than security.

Pena Nieto is eager to underscore Mexico’s recent run of solid economic growth, fuelled in part by its increasing attractiveness as a manufacturing hub.

Human Rights Watch, the US-based watchdog, sent a letter to Obama ahead of his visit urging him to review his public security approach with Mexico, criticising his administration for offering “uncritical support” for Calderon’s policies and citing a “dramatic increase” in rights abuses.

“The new [Mexican] government wants to change the narrative,” said former US ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow. “It doesn’t want the headlines to be about murders and decapitations.”

The Mexican president has launched an ambitious reform agenda, aiming to overhaul the tax system and energy sector, among other areas, in a bid to boost economic growth.

616

Obama Renews Vow To Close Guantanamo

U.S. President Barack Obama has renewed an old promise to close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

His comments on April 30 come with about 100 inmates at Guantanamo on hunger strike and the U.S. military force-feeding some of them.

Obama defended this action, saying he didn’t want to see any of the detainees die.

Reacting to Obama’s pledge, Amnesty International called for action not words.

Obama renews push for closing Guantanamo

President Barack Obama has vowed a renewed push to close the military jail at Guantanamo Bay because he says it is damaging US interests.

Obama’s announcement on Tuesday came as extra medical staff were sent to the centre to help address a hunger strike that spread to nearly two-thirds of the detainees.

He told a news conference that he had asked a team of officials to review the issue and would make another appeal to Congress to shut down the prison holding “terror” suspects in Cuba.

Obama, who ordered the detention centre closed upon taking office but was thwarted repeatedly by Congress, said he was unsurprised that there were problems at the centre, where 100 of 166 inmates were now on hunger strike.

“It is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe,” he said.

“It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing. It lessens co-operation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruiting tool for extremists.”

Medical reinforcements

About 40 US Navy medical personnel arrived over the weekend, Lieutenant Colonel Samuel House, a military spokesman at Guantanamo, said on Monday.

“The influx of personnel was planned several weeks ago as increasing numbers of detainees chose to protest their detention,” he said.

With the strike now entering its 12th week, Obama has faced fresh calls to honour his promise to close the prison at the US base in Cuba, which holds 166 people captured as part of the “War on Terror.”

House said 21 of the inmates on strike were receiving feeding through nasal tubes and five were in hospital. He did not specify in the written statement whether any were in a life-threatening condition.

Lawyers for the detainees said that about 130 inmates were observing the hunger strike, more than officially acknowledged.

The rapidly growing protest movement began on February 6, when inmates claimed prison officials searched Qurans in a way they considered blasphemous, their lawyers said.

Officials denied any mishandling of Islam’s holy book, but the strike has now turned into a larger protest by prisoners against their indefinite incarceration without charge or trial over the past 11 years.

Calls for closure

Former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, Air Force colonel Morris Davis, is among an increasing number of critics who have called for the centre’s closure.

“Unless President Obama acts soon, I believe it is likely one or more of the detainees will die,” Davis said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, wrote a letter to Obama asking the administration to renew its efforts to transfer out the 86 detainees who were cleared for such a move by US military authorities.

She called for the reassessment of the “security situation on the ground in Yemen, because it is my understanding that 56 of the 86 detainees cleared for transfer are Yemeni.”

Obama imposed a moratorium on repatriating Yemenis held at Guantanamo in 2009 after a plot to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day was traced back to al-Qaeda’s Yemeni franchise.

Rights groups, which have long branded the prison as a legal “black hole,” welcomed Obama’s remarks but said he could do more.

A large group of politicians, led by Republicans, have said that the jail should stay open and that the detainees were too dangerous to be held on the US mainland.

‘No alternative plan’

“He has offered no alternative plan regarding the detainees there, nor a plan for future terrorist captures,” said Buck McKeon, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, of the president in a written statement.

White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said early on Wednesday that Obama was examining options aimed at reducing the number of inmates and moving towards the ultimate closure of the jail.

She said Obama could name a new senior State Department officer to refocus on repatriating detainees or transferring them to third countries. That post has been vacant since January.

“We will also work to fully implement the Periodic Review Board process, which we acknowledge has not moved forward
quickly enough,” she said.

This is a system of parole-style hearings the Obama administration set up but which have left many inmates frustrated over the slow handling of their cases.

781

Obama Says Chemical Weapons Used In Syria But More Facts Needed

U.S. President Barack Obama has said the United States has evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria but not enough facts yet to initiate a response.

“What we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them,” Obama told a White House press conference.

He repeated his previous statement that the use of chemical weapons would be “a game changer” but said any decision to react must be based on “the facts.”

“If we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do,” Obama said. “There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action.”

Obama said he has asked the Pentagon to draw up “a spectrum of options” if it is established that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons on civilians. He said there are options “on the shelf” that have not been used so far but might be if the evidence is incontrovertible.

The U.S. president took questions from reporters for an hour during the press conference, which was only announced this morning.

Boston Bombing

One of the themes that came up was the recent bombing of the Boston Marathon, which killed three people and injured hundreds more.

In response to a question on whether U.S. intelligence agencies were at fault for failing to prevent the April 15 twin bombings, Obama said he believed the FBI and Department of Homeland Security “did what it was supposed to be doing.”

Two Russian immigrants, Tamarlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, are alleged to have carried out the attack. Obama said Russian President Vladimir Putin had assured him of Moscow’s full cooperation with the U.S. investigation into the men’s backgrounds in the United States and Russia.

“The Russians have been very cooperative with us since the Boston bombing,” Obama said. “Obviously, old habits die hard. There are still suspicions sometimes between our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies that date back 10, 20, 30 years, back to the Cold War. But they’re continually improving.”

Guantanamo Closure

Obama also addressed the growing hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror detainees, which the military now says involves 100 of the 166 remaining inmates.

He said he did not want “these individuals to die” and said he would “reengage with Congress” on the future of the detention center, which blocked his attempts to close it in his first term.

“Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe,” Obama said. “It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”

Putin, Obama Discuss Security

U.S. President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin say their two countries will increase security and intelligence cooperation in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings.

The two leaders spoke by phone on April 29. The White House said Obama expressed his “appreciation” of Russia’s close cooperation after the attack.

The suspected bombers had ties to Russia’s volatile and mostly Muslim North Caucasus.

Putin and Obama also vowed that the two countries would work together to ensure security at the 2014 Winter Olympics, which Russia is hosting in Sochi.

While speaking with Putin, Obama also emphasized U.S. concerns about chemical weapons in Syria.

The United States is examining intelligence reports about the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.

President Barack Obama has said that, if the use of such weapons were proven, it would bring “enormous consequences” for the Syrian regime.

Based on reporting by AP and Reuters

Hackers Post Bogus Report On Obama

Hackers have broken into the Twitter account of the Associated Press (AP) news agency, posting a false report about explosions at the White House injuring President Barack Obama.

Within a few minutes, AP announced that its Twitter feed had been hacked, and the U.S. agency immediately suspended the account.

It said it was working to correct the issue.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters in Washington on April 23 that the president was “fine.”

The stock market briefly dropped after the false tweet was posted.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 150 points, before recovering in a few minutes.

A shadowy group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army claimed responsibility for hacking the AP Twitter account.

The cyberattack is the latest in a string of hacking operations targeting international media organizations.

With reporting by AP and dpa

Hackers tweet ‘Obama injured’ from AP account

The Associated Press news agency (AP) has said that Hackers took control of its Twitter account and posted false tweets, including one saying two explosions rocked the White House and injured US President Barack Obama.

Tuesday’s false tweet said there had been two explosions at the White House and that President Barack Obama was injured.

The attack on AP’s Twitter account and the AP Mobile Twitter account was preceded by phishing attempts on AP’s corporate network.

The AP’s Twitter account was suspended shortly after the fake tweet. The news organisation said the tweet came after
hackers made repeated attempts to steal the passwords of AP journalists.

The false report briefly sent both the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average sharply lower before they recovered.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters soon after the tweet went out that Obama was fine.

“I can say that the president is fine,” Carney said shortly after the fake tweet. “I was just with him.”

It was the latest hacking incident involving news organisations. On Saturday, social media accounts maintained by CBS News programs “60 Minutes” and “48 Hours” were compromised.

An FBI representative had no immediate comment on the AP hacking incident. A spokesman for the Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment.

211

Copts Call on Obama to Speak Out on Christian Persecution

In Egypt, thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters gathered in Cairo to demand that President Mohammed Morsi cleanse the judiciary.

The judges say Morsi has worked to weaken their independence and authority. But Morsi’s supporters say the president is just trying to rid the judiciary of corruption.

Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., American Coptics gathered in front of the White House Thursday to demand justice for Egyptian Christians.

“We need justice! Obama, Obama, where are you?” said one demonstrator.

The protestors say the United States should do more to pressure the Egyptian government to protect the Christian minority from attacks.

They also urged Christians around the world need to pray and stand with them.

“We don’t want to see what happened in other countries in the Middle East also happen in Egypt,” one protestor said. “We need to come together as one and push to allow Coptic Christians to remain in Egypt. Again, they are the indigenous people of Egypt and they have a right to remain there.”

Tens of thousands of Coptic Christians have fled Egypt in the past two years.

http://www.cbn.com

Obama Vows To Find Boston Bombing Perpetrators

U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings — the worst act of terror to affect civilians in America since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Obama attended an interfaith service in Boston on April 18 to honor the three people killed and more than 170 injured twin explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 15.

In a highly emotional address, Obama insisted that those responsible for the attack cannot hide.

“We will find you, we will hold you accountable, but more than that — our fidelity to our way of life, to our free and open society will only grow stronger,” he said.

The U.S. president evoked the memory of the three people who died in the blasts — eight-year-old Martin Richard, 29-year-old Krystle Campbel, and Lu Lingzi, a Boston University graduate student from China.

Obama also had words of support for the wounded, some of whom have had limbs amputated as a result of the explosions.

“Our prayers are with the injured,” he said. “So many wounded…some gravely. From their beds some are surely watching us gather here today and if you are, know this — as you begin this long journey of recovery, your city is with you, your commonwealth is with you, your country is with you, we will all be with you as you learn to stand, and walk, and, yes, run again. Of that I have no doubt — you will run again.”

No arrests have been officially announced so far.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the FBI wants to speak with two men seen in at least one video recording from the marathon, but she added she isn’t calling them suspects.

The images have not been publicly released.

Without providing details of the men’s appearance or what the video shows, Napolitano told the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee that “there is some video that raised the question” of two men.

She said the investigation is continuing “apace.”

Investigators say the blasts are suspected of being caused by devices made from metal pressure-cookers.

With reporting by AP, Reuters, and CNN

Man Charged With Threatening Obama, Others In Ricin Case

Federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges against a man arrested in the FBI investigation of letters believed to contain the deadly poison ricin.

The U.S. Department of Justice said on April 18 that Paul Kevin Curtis, 45, is being charged with threatening to harm President Barack Obama and others.

If convicted, he could face up to 15 years in prison.

Authorities said initial tests on letters addressed to the White House, a U.S. senator and a Mississippi justice official indicate the presence of ricin.

Two of the letters were intercepted at offsite mailing facilities; the third one was delivered to a Mississippi state judge.

The FBI is conducting further tests. Curtis was arrested on April 17 at his home in Corinth, in the state of Mississippi and he appeared in court the following day.

His lawyer said Curtis was surprised by his arrest and maintains that he is innocent.

Based on reporting by AP and Reuters

Obama vows to punish Boston blast masterminds

Barack Obama, the US president, has said perpetrators of blasts that killed three people and injured 176 in the city of Boston, Massachusetts, will be held accountable, adding that the US will not “cower in fear”.

Speaking at the interfaith service dedicated to those gravely wounded or killed in Monday’s explosions, Obama also called the attackers “small and stunted individuals” who were out to cause terror.

“Yes, we’ll find you and, yes, you will find justice and we’ll hold you accountable,” he said on Thursday.

“They [attackers] picked the wrong city to do it. Not here in Boston, not here in Boston,” he said as the congregation erupted in rounds of applause.

Obama said Boston would stand up again and that its “resolve is the greatest rebuke to whoever committed” the deadly attack.

‘Iconic city’

Obama said what was meant to be a “celebration became a tragedy”, referring to the blasts.

“Today we come together and pray and mourn and measure our loss,” he said.

“On behalf of the American people, I have a simple message: every one of us has been touched … everyone of us stands with you because it [Boston] is our own city too … it is one of America’s iconic city one and one the world’s greatest city.”

The explosions tore through crowds watching the runners cross the Boston Marathon finish line.

Obama finds himself trying to heal emotional wounds barely four months after he offered solace to the families of 20 school children and six educators killed in a shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

The president was accompanied by first lady Michelle Obama.

Earlier, Thomas M. Menino, the mayor of Boston, said: “I have never loved its people more than I do today. We are one Boston. Nothing can tear down the resilience of this city.”

Obama’s trip to Boston came a day after the Senate failed to muster enough votes to pass expanded background checks for firearms purchases. The president has been pushing for tighter gun controls in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

Authorities in Boston were searching for a suspect seen on video taken before the two blasts struck. No arrests were made, and the suspect in the video had not been identified by name, two US government officials said.

380

Suspect arrested for ‘poison’ letter to Obama

US authorities have arrested a suspect from Mississippi in connection with a letter that tested positive for the poison ricin that was sent to President Barack Obama, a law enforcement source has said.

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said on Wednesday that the letter was intercepted at a facility away from the White House, adding that the letter was received on Tuesday.

“This facility routinely identifies letters or parcels that require secondary screening or scientific testing before delivery,” Donovan said.

“The Secret Service is working closely with the US Capitol Police and the FBI in this investigation.”

The FBI said late on Wednesday it had arrested Paul Kevin Curtis, of Corinth, Mississippi, in connection with the letters.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said preliminary tests on a letter sent to President Barack Obama indicated the presence of ricin.

But the FBI statement added: “There is no indication of a connection to the attack in Boston,” where three people were killed in bombings at the Boston Marathon on Monday.

The letter is undergoing further testing because preliminary field tests can be unreliable, creating false positives.

Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane, reporing from Washington DC, said: “It will take up to 48 hours for them to find out if it is ricin.”

Senator targeted

It came after legislators said a different letter was mailed to Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker that tested positive for ricin.

A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the letter to Obama was very similar to the one mailed to Wicker.

Michigan Senator Carl Levin has also said his regional office in his state received a suspicious letter and that authorities have been alerted.

Levin said in a statement that an aide received the letter on Wednesday, but did not open it. Authorities are now investigating.

The Democratic legislator said he and his staff do not know if the mail presented a threat.

The episode also recalled the mysterious series of letters laced with anthrax that were sent to lawmakers and some journalists following the September 11 attacks in 2001 which killed five people and sickened 17 others.

Tensions have been high in Washington and across the country since the deadly bombings on Monday at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured more than 170.

367

FBI: Preliminary Tests Indicate Ricin In Letter Sent To Obama

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) says first preliminary tests on a letter addressed to President Barrack Obama indicate the presence of ricin, a potentially fatal poison.

The FBI is conducting further tests.

The letter was discovered at the remote facility, which is used to screen White House mail, on April 16, the same day authorities said a letter was sent to Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi that preliminary tests showed contained ricin.

Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan said the agency was working closely with U.S. Capitol Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to trace the origins of the letter.

Shortly after word of the suspicious letter to Obama broke on April 17, Capitol Police cleared parts of two Senate office buildings after suspicious packages were found.

In a statement, the FBI said there was “no indication of a connection” between the suspicious letters and the Boston Marathon bombings that killed three people and injured more than 170 on April 15.

With reporting by CNN, AFP, and AP

Obama: Boston Explosions Investigated As ‘Act Of Terrorism’

U.S. President Barack Obama says the explosions at the Boston Marathon are being investigated as an act of terror.

In a brief statement at the White House on April 16, Obama called the April 15 bombings “a heinous and cowardly act,” but said it was still unclear who carried out the attacks or why.

“What we don’t yet know, however, is who carried out this attack or why, whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or it was an act of a malevolent individual. That’s what we don’t yet know,” Obama said.

“And clearly we are at the beginning of our investigation. It will take time to follow every lead and determine what happened. But we will find out.”

It was Obama’s second public statement since the explosions at the annual Boston Marathon.

As he had done on April 15, Obama again vowed to bring whoever was behind the explosions to justice.

Three people, including an 8-year-old boy, were killed in the explosions. Officials said more than 170 were injured, and 17 of them were in critical condition.

ALSO READ: World Leaders Condemn Boston Bomb Attack

FBI agent Rick DesLauriers, who is heading the investigation, said the probe would extend beyond Boston and pursue leads “worldwide.”

“We will go where the evidence and the leads take us. We will go to the ends of the Earth to identify the subject or subjects who are responsible for this despicable crime and we’ll do everything we can to bring them to justice,” DesLauriers said.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said that contrary to earlier reports, no unexploded bombs were found. He said the only bombs were those that went off.

The Boston Marathon bombings have been denounced by leaders across the globe.

With reporting by Reuters and AFP

Romney on the Middle East: Obama, but Worse

mitt-romney-foreign-policy-speech Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute, while trotted out as a major rejection of the current administration’s approach to the Middle East, mostly just rehashed President Obama’s policies, albeit with more hawkish bravado. But Romney’s speech also included a host of faulty assumptions about Arabs and Muslims, indicating a potentially reckless misunderstanding of America’s relationship with the Muslim world.

Romney purported to be shocked that some Muslims reacted violently against the United States after the release of a video insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Romney and his key foreign policy advisers apparently do not recognize that anti-American sentiment was already sky-high among Middle Eastern countries, with nearly all the polls indicating single-digit approval ratings of U.S. policy in the region. The small group of genuinely extremist organizations like al-Qaeda takes advantage of this deeper reservoir of anti-Americanism in the broader society, a phenomenon that Romney and his advisers don’t seem to comprehend. Certainly, there’s a reason we do not see comparably violent demonstrations from Muslims in Europe or the United States.

I am glad that Mr. Romney recognizes that most Arabs are not violently anti-American and mourn the loss of the U.S. ambassador in Libya. Romney correctly states that there’s a regional “struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.” But Romney, like many conservatives and liberal interventionists, fails to recognize that U.S. foreign policy in the region has been a primary driver of this despair. We continue to support oppressive dictators in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain, in addition to our invasion of Iraq and our naked support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Against all reason, Romney wants to send U.S. troops back to Iraq, where the unjustifiable U.S. invasion and occupation have already caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and caused untold destruction. Never mind that the Iraqis did not want our troops then and certainly do not want them now. If Romney is worried about al-Qaeda in Iraq, maybe he should tell our friends in Saudi Arabia to stop bankrolling them.

On Afghanistan, whatever else he says, Romney’s policy is ostensibly synonymous with Obama’s: bring most of the troops home in 2014 as planned. In North Africa, Romney says he will put strings on U.S. aid to Egypt. This is not so different from the Obama administration’s policy, since U.S. aid to the civilian government of Egypt is so small ($ 0.25 billion) compared to U.S. aid to the Egyptian military ($ 1.25 billion).

Mr. Romney and his advisers would like us to send arms to the opposition in Syria, which he hopes will go to the right group. The Obama administration is already sending supplies and facilitating arms distribution from our allies. However, we should not forget that the arms the United States sent to the Taliban in the 1980s are being used against us today.

Romney says the United States must “prevent [Iran] from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.” The only nuance he added to the Obama administration’s current policy is the word “capability.” Since the word is amorphous and can be interpreted many different ways, Romney’s policy is ambiguous at best, but also could be risky. If Romney’s bar for capability is so low as to oppose Iran’s production of radioactive isotopes for medical use, it could well be that President Romney plans to go to war with Iran post-haste.

Finally, Romney endorsed the two-state solution in Israel-Palestine. This is exactly Obama’s policy but contrary to Romney’s own cynicism about the issue captured in the infamous “47-percent” video in May.

Most of Romney’s pronouncements on the Middle East are old and tired policies merely dressed up in hawkish new garb. The most disturbing element is the campaign’s utter misunderstanding of Arab history and the roots of anti-American sentiment in the region. Without understanding the present, how can Romney expect to shepherd in the future?

FPIF Latest Content

Review: Obama and China’s Rise

obama-chinas-rise-review-jeffrey-bader The main geostrategic challenge facing Asia—as well as the U.S. presence there—has been the extraordinary rise of China in the past decade. In Obama and China’s Rise, Jeffrey Bader, a veteran diplomat of over 30 years, recounts his experiences working for Obama’s presidential campaign and serving as the senior director for East Asian affairs on Obama’s National Security Council from January 2009 to April 2011.

Bader starts off outlining the Obama administration’s seven major goals in Asia: 1) rebalance U.S. global priorities with greater attention paid to Asia, 2) promote a stable relationship and closer cooperation with China on international issues, 3) work towards complete denuclearization in North Korea through bilateral or multilateral negotiations, 4) strengthen and participate in Asian regional institutions, 5) strengthen alliances and partnerships—especially with Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Australia, 6) maintain forward deployment of U.S. armed forces in the region, and 7) negotiate agreements to expand trade and exports to the region.

The Obama team was fully aware of the importance of maintaining a stable and functional relationship with China. From the 2008 campaign on, the administration was careful not to label China as the bogeyman of all America’s ailments.

The book is organized around three phases of major U.S.-China interactions that occurred during Bader’s tenure at the National Security Council. The first stage was to lay the groundwork for a stable and healthy bilateral relationship. On April 1, 2009, President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao announced the establishment of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), which would provide a platform for a dozen officials from each side to meet annually. This mechanism is unprecedented in U.S. relations with any other country in the world, which indicates the paramount importance the Obama administration attached to China. The first phase also involved Obama’s first trip to China, close cooperation on North Korea and Iran, parallel implementation of economic stimulus packages, and some limited cooperation at the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

Despite this progress, the Obama administration has faced a China more assertive than at any other time in recent memory. This was especially true in 2010, a year defined by Chinese assertiveness and the second phase of Obama’s dealings with China. In 2010, Chinese policy tilted toward sheltering North Korea from international sanctions. The Chinese also excluded the United States from military activities in the Yellow Sea and engaged in an overt confrontation with Japan after the collision of a Chinese fishing boat with two Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats in disputed waters near the Senkaku Islands—with the latter leading to a temporary freeze on Chinese rare earth exports to Japan. China also threatened to halt imports from companies that engaged in arms sales to Taiwan, a pointed jab at U.S. weapons sales to the country. Perhaps most significantly, China aggressively expanded its claims on the South China Sea.

The Obama administration reacted by signaling to China that assertiveness would only make China lose critical economic partners. Yet even as the United States acknowledged the inevitability of China’s rise, Bader summarizes that the Obama administration pragmatically “sought to ensure that China’s rise served to stabilize, not destabilize, the Asia-Pacific region, which included five U.S. allies and other partners in whose security Americans had an interest.”

In light of this, the Obama administration reasserted U.S. interests in the South China Sea and reiterated America’s commitment to Japan’s security, even while remaining ostensibly neutral on the question of the Senkaku Islands. Bader believes that China clumsily alienated its partners in the region, yet its foreign policy analysts confused cause and effect and blamed the United States for the deterioration in China’s relations with its neighbors. Bader writes that by the end of 2010, China had begun to rethink its assertive posturing.

Bader suggests that it was not until early 2011, when Hu Jintao visited the United States, that U.S.-China bilateral relations began to get back on track, opening up what Bader considers the third stage, which has been marked by continued progress on security issues and greater emphasis on bilateral and global economic issues as China approaches its once-a-decade leadership transition.

According to Bader’s assessment, the Obama administration managed the key issues in the bilateral relationship quite well, making important progress on Iran, climate change, North Korea, and the world economy. Although Bader supports the administration’s “strategic pivot” to East Asia, he believes the term is a misnomer that over-militarizes the actual implications of the policy. The net U.S. military presence is not going to increase except with the deployment of 2,500 U.S. Marines to Darwin, Australia. What better characterizes the dynamic, Bader argues, quoting National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, is a “rebalancing of U.S. priorities toward the Asia-Pacific.”

Obama and China’s Rise is the first account of Asia policy-making in the Obama administration written by someone who was part of the effort. Bader’s account captures the details while contextualizing them in the larger picture. However, Bader’s account does not reveal much about the disagreements among various policymakers about how best to deal with China and Asia at large, nor about how the administration decided on which strategy to pursue. Obama and China’s Rise is a fine account of what the administration did, but is less suitable for those curious about why.

FPIF Latest Content

Obama fires back at Romney after debate loss

Barack Obama has gone on the offensive as he attempts to claw back following a televised presidential debate that his Republican rival Mitt Romney was widely perceived to have won.

The US president demanded truth from the “real Mitt Romney” on Thursday at a campaign rally in Denver, Colorado, as his aides promised a “hard look” at strategy after his listless performance in the previous night’s face-off.

The candidates went head to head in a 90-minute jousting over jobs, taxes and health care.

“I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,” Obama said, accusing his Republican challenger of ditching unpopular positions on tax and education, adding: “if you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth”.

All fired up

At the Denver rally, Obama was fired up, passionate and engaged as he cheered up 12,000 supporters.

“It couldn’t have been Mitt Romney because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year, promising five trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy,” Obama said.

“So Governor Romney may dance around his positions. But if you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth.

“The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that. The real Mitt Romney said we don’t need any more teachers in our schools.

“The fellow on stage last night - he loves teachers, can’t get enough of them.”

Romney, meanwhile, basked in the plaudits for his performance as he addressed a fund-raising event, saying Americans had seen two contrasting visions for the future on stage in Denver.

He made a surprise appearance on Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Colorado, thrilling hundreds of attendees as he stepped on stage to join his sons who were scheduled guests.

“I know this is going to be a close-fought battle,” he said.

“We need to win Colorado. You know what, if we do, we are going to win back the White House.”

Tax-code jibe

Obama seized on Romney’s comment that he did not know anything about a break in the tax code for companies that outsource jobs overseas, adding that if it was true he needed a new accountant.

“He seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant,” Obama said, in a jibe at the multi-millionaire former venture capitalist.

Obama also mocked Romney over his plan to to cut government subsidies for the PBS television channel that produces famed early learning show Sesame Street.

Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane, reporting from Denver, said: “Historically, presidential debates do not determine outcomes of elections, but in close races they do matter.”

Obama’s campaign team says he will make “adjustments,” in the second presidential debate scheduled for October 16.

David Axelrod, Obama campaign strategist, said that the president will need to determine by the next debate how to counter what the campaign considers Romney’s evasion on a series of issues.

He said Obama is “eager” for the next debate, adding that they will evaluate his performance and “make adjustments”

Boost for Romney

Romney has gained ground on the Obama after his strong debate performance, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Romney is now viewed positively by 51 per cent of voters, the first time he has enjoyed a net positive in the presidential race, according to the poll released on Thursday.

Obama’s favourability rating remained unchanged at 56 per cent.

Romney moved ahead of Obama on several core issues. Voters now see him as a better bet to boost the economy, spur job creation and manage the budget deficit, the poll found.

He narrowed Obama’s advantage on taxes, Social Security and the Medicare health plan for retirees.

However, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey says 49 per cent of the people polled would vote for Obama, while 46 per cent said they would choose Romney.

The three-point difference is within the poll’s margin of error, according to the pollsters.

The final two presidential debates are on October 16 and 22. Vice-President Joe Biden will debate Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan on October 11.

The US goes to the polls on November 6.

730

Romney ‘wins’ first debate with Obama

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has been declared the clear winner of Wednesday’s first campaign debate as President Barack Obama stopped short of offensive attacks against his challenger.

Some 67 per cent of those surveyed by CNN in a “flash poll” after the debate declared Romney the winner. Obama’s re-election prospects on Intrade, an online prediction market, also fell from 74 per cent to 66 per cent.

The 90-minute debate in Denver, Colorado saw Romney able to keep the focus on jobs and the sorry state of the US economy and Obama forced to defend his record.

Romney himself had earlier portrayed the debates as a possible key turning point in the election and analysts had described it in recent days as a make-or-break moment for Romney, who trails Obama not only in national opinion surveys, but in the handful of key states that will determine the election’s outcome.

Commentators from both sides of the political spectrum pointed to Romney as the winner immediately following the event, and a flash poll of television viewers by broadcaster CNN showed a whopping 67 per cent thought Romney had won.

Romney, his wife Ann and their family lingered on the stage afterwards, waving to the crowd and savouring the moment. The Obamas, who are celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary, on the other hand made a quick exit.

Even Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter acknowledged, “I think that Mitt Romney, yes, he absolutely wins the preparation. And he wins the style points.”

Others were harsher in their assessment, with one liberal observer on broadcaster MSNBC even exclaiming, “Where was the president tonight?”

Conservative commentators were ecstatic. Jonah Goldberg of the National Review wrote that he had not expected Romney to perform as well as he did, adding: “Romney simply dominated and deflated Obama.”

Obama fails to shine

The evening was full of dry statistical exchanges and Obama failed to even raise recent campaign controversies, like a video of a Romney fundraiser that showed him disparaging 47 per cent of Americans as addicted to the government dole.

Other familiar Obama campaign jabs against Romney were also absent from the discussion, including allegations he outsourced jobs during his time at Bain Capital and questions about why Romney does not release more tax returns.

But with the two more presidential debates and a vice presidential debate scheduled in quick succession in the final weeks before the November 6 election, Obama could yet return to putting a negative twist on his attacks against Romney.

And while Romney may have won the immediate commentary war, it remains to be seen whether he has turned the voters’ tide to his advantage.

A nationwide poll of likely voters released on Tuesday ahead of the debate showed Obama’s lead over Romney slipping to 3 percentage points.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said 49 per cent of the people polled would vote for Obama, while 46 per cent said they would choose Romney. The 3-point difference is within the poll’s margin of error, according to the pollsters.

The final two presidential debates are October 16 and 22. Vice President Joe Biden will debate Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on October 11.

533

Obama and Romney trade barbs in Denver debate

US president Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney met in Denver for a contentious but largely unmemorable debate in which each man accused the other of lying about his plans for taxes, health care and other key domestic issues.

Romney went on the offensive early, hammering Obama on his economic record: “Look at the evidence of the last four years, it’s absolutely extraordinary,” he said.

“We’ve got 23 million people out of work, stopped looking for work in this country.”

Unemployment in the United States is currently 8.1 per cent, down from a peak of 10 per cent in mid-2009, when the country was in the midst of a recession. It has been dropping steadily but slowly since then – too slowly, for many Americans.

The Republican nominee presented a few details of his economic plan, perhaps in response to critics who have described his campaign as too vague. He offered a “five-part plan” for improving the American economy, which would include plans to bolster trade in Latin America, to balance the budget, and “champion small business.”

“Trickle-down government is not the right answer for America,” he said, accusing his opponent of relying too much on the government for economic growth. “I’ll restore the vitality that gets America working again.”

Obama admitted mistakes, acknowledging that he “hadn’t been a perfect president,” but sought to characterise Romney as out-of-touch and concerned chiefly with the wealthiest Americans. ”Do we double down on the top-down economic policies?” he asked. “Or embrace a new economic patriotism that says America does best when the middle class does best?”

‘It hasn’t destroyed jobs’

The debate, the first of three between the presidential candidates, focused entirely on domestic issues – the economy, health care and the role of government.

It will be judged as much for style as substance, and aesthetically the advantage seemed to be Romney’s. The challenger looked energized, and told a few anecdotes to humanize himself to voters – talking about people he’d met on the campaign trail.

Obama’s delivery was more methodical and lower-key, and he seemed thrown off-balance by some of Romney’s attacks; he rarely went on the offensive against his opponent. At times he seemed almost irritated, looking down while Romney answered questions.

Yet there were few memorable moments, and the discussion at times seemed bogged down in details, the specifics of which were perhaps lost on many viewers. The first fifteen minutes, in particular, were dominated by an obscure discussion of deficits and tax loopholes.

Obama seemed most at ease discussing health care, which has been a centerpiece of his presidency. He defended his health care reform bill, the Affordable Care Act, even embracing the nickname – “Obamacare” – which Republicans have used as a slur. “I like that,” he told Jim Lehrer, the moderator.

Romney cited several studies which argue that the legislation – most of which does not take effect until 2014 – would lead to widespread job losses. He called it a government “takeover of health care.”

Obama pointed out that Romney, during his term as governor of Massachusetts, championed a similar bill at the state level.

“We’ve seen this model work really well in Massachusetts, because governor Romney did a good thing… in setting up what is essentially the identical model,” Obama said. “It hasn’t destroyed jobs.”

Entitlement fears

Obama also attacked the Republican nominee on his support for changing Medicare, the social health insurance programme for senior citizens.

Romney and his vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, have proposed a “voucher” programme, which would give seniors the option of purchasing subsidized private insurance instead of the public plan.

Romney insisted that his plan would mean no change for current retirees. “Our seniors depend on these programmes, and I know anytime we talk about entitlements people become concerned,” he conceded.

But most economists have concluded that a voucher programme would eventually bring about the demise of Medicare: private insurers would sign up healthier Americans, leaving the sicker (and more expensive) ones as a burden on the public scheme.

“When you move to a voucher system, you are putting seniors at the mercy of these insurance companies,” Obama said.

The presidential candidates will meet for two more debates this month, one focused on foreign policy, the other a “town hall”-style forum. Their vice presidential nominees will hold one debate.

756

Obama And Romney Spar In Debate

U.S. President Barack Obama and his Republican Party challenger in the upcoming presidential election, Mitt Romney, have squared off in the first presidential debate in the city of Denver in the western state of Colorado.

The ninety-minute debate focused on domestic issues, including the economy, job growth and the government deficit.

Obama said he had a different vision than his challenger Romney.

“And so the question here tonight is not where we’ve been, but where we’re going. Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes, skewed toward the wealthy, and roll back regulations, that we’ll be better off. I’ve got a different view,” the U.S. leader said.

Obama outlined his recipe for turning round the U.S. economy.

“I think we’ve got to invest in education and training. I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America; that we change our tax code to make sure that we’re helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States; that we take some of the money we’re saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America,” Obama explained.

Romney said the policies of President Obama were “not the right answer for America.”

“The president has a view very similar to the one he had when he ran for office four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more, if you will, trickle-down government would work. That’s not the right answer for America,” Romney said.

Romney denied he planned to cut taxes for the wealthy, as charged by Obama.

“And the answer is yes, we can help, but it’s going to take a different path, not the one we’ve been on, not the one the president describes as top down, cut taxes for the rich. That’s not what I’m going to do,” Romney added.

Romney accused Obama of racking up huge deficits, and labeled the federal deficit a “moral issue.”

“I think it’s not just an economic issue, I think it is a moral issue. I think it’s frankly not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation, and they are going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives, and the amount of debt we are adding at a trillion a year is simply not moral,” Romney charged.

Obama said he faced a huge deficit coming into office, and that matters were made worse by the economic crisis.

“When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from: two wars that were paid for on a credit card, two tax cuts that were not paid for, and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for and then a massive economic crisis, and despite that, what we’ve said is, ‘Yes we had to take some initial emergency measures to make sure we don’t slip into a great depression,’ but what we’ve also said is, ‘Let’s make sure we’re cutting those things that are not helping us grow,’” Obama said.

Speaking to RFE/RL, Charles Mahtesian, national politics editor for “Politico,” a daily broadsheet in Washington, D.C., gave high marks to Romney.

“This was a critical moment for Mitt Romney and he really met the occasion. I think he came across as knowledgeable, he was substantive on some important issues, and he was also feisty in a way that he needed to be,” Mahtesian explained.

An estimated 50 million Americans were expected to tune in to watch the debate on TV.

It’s the first of three presidential debates ahead of the November 6 election.

Opinion polls put Obama ahead of Romney.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has been damaged by hidden-camera videotape in which he said 47 percent of voters were dependent on government and unlikely to support him.

Analysts say weak economic growth and 8.1 percent unemployment has left Obama vulnerable in his effort to win a second four-year term.

Obama and Romney battle over economy

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney battled over economic issues in a presidential debate that could prove to be pivotal in helping voters decide which candidate to support in the November 6 election.

Romney needed a victory in the 90-minute encounter to help put his campaign back on a positive footing after a rocky few weeks.

Obama, holding a slight edge in national polls and leading Romney in some swing states where the election will be decided, was looking for a performance that would at least avoid harming his position as the apparent front-runner.

The two candidates plunged into economic issues that were the central theme of the University of Denver debate, with Obama arguing his plans would ultimately lead to strong job growth and Romney charging Obama’s policies had failed to turn around the economy and make a significant dent in 8.1 per cent unemployment.

“Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes skewed towards the wealthy and roll back regulations, that we’ll be better off. I’ve got a different view,” Obama said.

Romney laid out a five-point economic plan and accused the Democrat of relying too heavily on big government.

“The president has a view very similar to the one he had when he ran for office four years ago, that spending more,
taxing more, regulating more, if you will, trickle-down government would work. That’s not the right answer for America,” Romney said.

For Obama, Tuesday’s debate, moderated by Jim Lehrer, exeucitve editor of the PBS Newshour, also falls on the same date as the twentieth anniversary of his wedding with Michelle Obama, the first lady.

‘Knock it out of the park’

“Americans who are thinking about voting for Romney need to hear from him about how he would change the country for the better,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean.

“They’re leaning toward the devil they know, which is President Obama. Romney has to knock it out of the park by showing the contrast between himself and Obama.”

Romney has recently been under fire for comments he made at a secretly recorded fundraising event, in which he said 47 per cent of US voters are dependent on government and unlikely to support him. ”My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” he said .

Strong performances in the debates can have big effects on polling numbers: in 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry hammered George Bush on foreign policy, and temporarily erased Bush’s lead in national polls – though ended up losing the election.

Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane, reporting from Denver, said the two candidates “want to rally the people at home, the people who already support them. … More importantly, though, there’s about five per cent of voters who say they still haven’t made up their mind.”

With an expected television audience of between 50 and 60 million people, the debate is “an opportunity these candidates can’t afford to miss”.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, the non-partisan group organising the event, plans to introduce a new format this year. The debate will be divided into six discussion segments.

Peter Eyre, a senior adviser to the commission, said there will be “fewer questions but more extended discussion that dives into certain issues in detail”.

No part in logistics

Eyre stressed that neither party, nor their candidates, had no part in the logistics of the debates.

“The campaigns and the candidates have really no input into how the set looks and feels, the formats, things like that. Those are decisions made by the Commission,” he said.

Though there is a new format, Eyre says for the last two decades, the set for these debates has remained largely untouched.

“We’ve been using this set behind me since really 1988 and obviously we’ve been improving it, enhancing over the years,” Eyre said.

“But the set is designed by the Commission and that’s really what we’ve been using since.”

Despite their heated competition for the presidency, Obama and Romney have little personal relationship, and have rarely met in-person with one another.

Both Romney and Obama spent their time mostly in private on Tuesday, preparing for the debate.

The president was in Henderson, Nevada, near Las Vegas, while Romney was already in Denver.

Neither held public campaign events, but Obama took a break from preparation to visit nearby Hoover Dam, and Romney picked up lunch at a Chipotle Mexican Grill near his hotel.

Joe Biden and Paul Ryan will face one another in the sole vice presidential debate in Kentucky on October 11.

907