But against all expectations, I recently found myself gathered around a cage of bunny rabbits with a group of combat-hardened US soldiers, cooing as they petted the cuddly balls of fur. It was all part of a friendship building visit to a local agricultural initiative organised by their Thai counterparts. Could this be the new face of the US military under the Obama administration? The message of "change" coming from the White House, certainly seems to be filtering down to the US military, as it is elsewhere in the new administration.
Their presence, they say, is not to expand their areas of active duty, or because they see a potent military threat in the region, but rather to increase the capabilities of their partners. "We have learnt many lessons and we're continuing to learn lessons," says General Mixon, the senior commanding US officer in Asia, referring to the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. "And we know the importance of partnership," he says, pointing to increased interaction with senior military figures from Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and Japan. Sharing the burden Under exercise on the training grounds in central Thailand, Indonesian troops guarding a convoy of supplies for the World Food Program come under ‘attack’ by insurgents in a scenario designed to teach them not only the best methods of defence, but how to work with civilian agencies who have strict rules about engagement and neutrality. After the exercise is completed, an overseeing US officer rebukes them mildly for loading their 'dead' and wounded comrades into the back of the WFP truck without asking permission of the UN agency, thus invalidating the neutrality of the vehicle. The Indonesians appear to be slightly confused about what they've done wrong, but their commanding officer Lieutenant Pratomo admits, "this is very useful for us, in similar situations to ones we expect to find ourselves in".
He points to the fact that the previous administration under George Bush tried to do the same thing when it found itself over extended in the Middle East. "Hopefully, and by all indications, the change that comes with the Obama administration, is a Washington that is more sensitive to its friends and allies, and perhaps even its adversaries," he says. Some of those friendships have, however, become strained in recent years, and many of the US’s traditional allies in Asia felt abandoned by a Bush administration focused so intently on the Middle East. That perception has intensified with the escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula and a military government in Myanmar that seems ever more determinedly set on holding onto power, regardless of the costs to its people. Perhaps with those adversaries in mind, the US soldiers are still keen to show the full extent of their military capabilities. In one carefully managed exercise, a tranquil Thai beach was invaded by amphibious armoured troop carriers as attack helicopters and Harrier jets sweep over the sand. Veterans Nonetheless, North Korea and Myanmar - Asia's rogue nations according to the former Bush administration - have little to fear. Many of these American soldiers are veterans of the Middle Eastern campaigns, some with more than one active tour of duty under their belts. And while they remain verbally committed to 'doing what needs to be done', there appears to be a fatigue left by the possibility of going back to war. It's a sentiment which appears to be backed by the current US diplomatic strategies of collusion rather than confrontation. "Whenever my unit calls, I'll be there", says Sergeant Stout, with grim determination, as he leads a group of Thai infantrymen out for a live fire exercise. But one suspects he'd rather spend some time at home. | ||||||
| |
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Changing face of the US in Asia
Labels:
Asia,
military,
US
0
comments
U.S. straddles fractured line between India, Pakistan
Labels:
India,
pakistan,
US
0
comments
Six decades, three wars and multiple nuclear weapons tests after partition, India-Pakistan relations are once more under stress. As long as India and Pakistan remain at loggerheads, our interests in the region will suffer.
An escalation of existing tensions could jeopardize U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan, especially if Islamabad were to withdraw even more forces from its western frontier.
November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 163 people, squelched recent progress toward a healing process, including: a push for more economic exchanges, a potential no-first-use nuclear-weapons agreement, and increased cross-border travel.
India has stated publicly that the 10 terrorists were Pakistanis trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani extremist organization -- with historic ties to Islamabad's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency -- that has waged an insurgency in India-controlled Kashmir since the early 1990s.
This accusation has riled Pakistan's leadership. Prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani fired his national security adviser after he confirmed media reports that the operation's lone surviving attacker was Pakistani.
Feeling threatened in the attack's aftermath, Pakistan has reportedly moved one of six regular army divisions from the northwest, where they were helping the U.S. and NATO combat the Taliban and al-Qaida, to its border with India.
It is beyond the power of the United States to transform Indian-Pakistani relations. Both societies are rightfully proud, and perceptions of U.S. meddling in internal affairs will undermine our interests. Still, President Barack Obama will have to convince Pakistan's leadership that the single most dangerous threat to the country is not India, but radicals on both sides of its border with Afghanistan who seek to destabilize, or overthrow, the government. Sustainable peace and security in the region will remain elusive as long as India and Pakistan view national security issues through the prism of their rivalry and fail to resolve their dispute over Kashmir.
The U.S. relationship with both countries has changed dramatically since Sept. 11.
In 2001, then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, but high levels of distrust permeate bilateral relations. Unsatisfied with Pakistani counter-terrorism measures, the U.S. has increased pilotless drone missile strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the last year, drawing Islamabad's protestations and ire. U.S. and Pakistani troops even have exchanged fire.
A key question for the U.S. is whether Pakistan wants to -- or even can -- control these areas.
Meanwhile, ties between Washington and New Delhi have improved greatly. In 2005, the countries agreed to a 10-year defense cooperation program. Last October, both countries approved a civilian-nuclear-technology sharing agreement that de facto legitimizes India's nuclear-weapons status, despite it not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The U.S. should aim to shift Indian and Pakistani perceptions from a view of the U.S.-India-Pakistan triangle as a zero-sum game.
Pragmatically, the U.S. can strengthen both countries' commitments to a peaceful solution in Kashmir, support Pakistan's crackdown on extremist groups undermining Kashmir's stability, support greater freedom of movement and goods across the border, and promote tangible civil and economic gains for Kashmiris in India-controlled Jammu and Kashmir.
The Obama administration should increase non-military aid to Pakistan, especially in education and health services, to build trust, demonstrate America's commitment and provide young Pakistanis alternatives to extremism.
Such measures would benefit both Islamabad and New Delhi, allowing each to devote greater resources to the serious challenges they face in the 21st century.
An escalation of existing tensions could jeopardize U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan, especially if Islamabad were to withdraw even more forces from its western frontier.
November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 163 people, squelched recent progress toward a healing process, including: a push for more economic exchanges, a potential no-first-use nuclear-weapons agreement, and increased cross-border travel.
India has stated publicly that the 10 terrorists were Pakistanis trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani extremist organization -- with historic ties to Islamabad's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency -- that has waged an insurgency in India-controlled Kashmir since the early 1990s.
This accusation has riled Pakistan's leadership. Prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani fired his national security adviser after he confirmed media reports that the operation's lone surviving attacker was Pakistani.
Feeling threatened in the attack's aftermath, Pakistan has reportedly moved one of six regular army divisions from the northwest, where they were helping the U.S. and NATO combat the Taliban and al-Qaida, to its border with India.
It is beyond the power of the United States to transform Indian-Pakistani relations. Both societies are rightfully proud, and perceptions of U.S. meddling in internal affairs will undermine our interests. Still, President Barack Obama will have to convince Pakistan's leadership that the single most dangerous threat to the country is not India, but radicals on both sides of its border with Afghanistan who seek to destabilize, or overthrow, the government. Sustainable peace and security in the region will remain elusive as long as India and Pakistan view national security issues through the prism of their rivalry and fail to resolve their dispute over Kashmir.
The U.S. relationship with both countries has changed dramatically since Sept. 11.
In 2001, then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, but high levels of distrust permeate bilateral relations. Unsatisfied with Pakistani counter-terrorism measures, the U.S. has increased pilotless drone missile strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the last year, drawing Islamabad's protestations and ire. U.S. and Pakistani troops even have exchanged fire.
A key question for the U.S. is whether Pakistan wants to -- or even can -- control these areas.
Meanwhile, ties between Washington and New Delhi have improved greatly. In 2005, the countries agreed to a 10-year defense cooperation program. Last October, both countries approved a civilian-nuclear-technology sharing agreement that de facto legitimizes India's nuclear-weapons status, despite it not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The U.S. should aim to shift Indian and Pakistani perceptions from a view of the U.S.-India-Pakistan triangle as a zero-sum game.
Pragmatically, the U.S. can strengthen both countries' commitments to a peaceful solution in Kashmir, support Pakistan's crackdown on extremist groups undermining Kashmir's stability, support greater freedom of movement and goods across the border, and promote tangible civil and economic gains for Kashmiris in India-controlled Jammu and Kashmir.
The Obama administration should increase non-military aid to Pakistan, especially in education and health services, to build trust, demonstrate America's commitment and provide young Pakistanis alternatives to extremism.
Such measures would benefit both Islamabad and New Delhi, allowing each to devote greater resources to the serious challenges they face in the 21st century.
Gone-tanamo Bay: the Right Decision
Labels:
army,
Guantanamo,
US
0
comments
Rep. John MurthaI applaud his judgment and I wholeheartedly support this decision.
The Bush administration never understood what the Guantanamo detention facility symbolized to the rest of the world. They saw it as simply a prison, and just weeks ago, Dick Cheney commented that he thought "Guantanamo has been very well run." The problem with Guantanamo was never about its bricks and mortar. The problem with Guantanamo is that its very existence stains and defies the moral fiber of our great nation.
The Bush administration created the prison following the attacks of September 11th as a way to circumvent the rule-of-law, to legitimize the use of torture, and to justify the permanent detention of those denied the right to petition their imprisonment.
Guantanamo has cast a dark shadow over two centuries of America's moral leadership in the world.
I said over two years ago that in order to restore our international credibility, we must shut down the Guantanamo detention facility. Even President Bush and Secretary Gates agreed. But Guantanamo remained open because the Bush administration refused to provide a legitimate plan and a legal means to charge and try its detainees, and to relocate them to their respective home countries or to maximum security prisons in the United States.
Similarly, there is no circumstance, whatsoever, that justifies the use of torture. Congress passed legislation in December 2005 that banned the use of torture and limited the interrogation tactics of U.S. military personnel. The Subcommittee that I chair has also included provisions in military spending bills forcing the Defense Department to adhere to the strict interrogation guidelines set forth in the Army Field Manual. While these are the requirements for U.S. military personnel, the Bush Administration refused to hold our intelligence community to the same standards.
No longer must we wait for a U.S. President to act.
President Obama has taken the first step in correcting the mistakes of our past. He has made the right choice, and today's decision renews hope in American values and leadership around the world.
Total 2008 job loss: 2.6 million
Labels:
2008,
jobs,
loss,
US
0
comments
"Another sobering government labor report released Friday showed the economy lost 524,000 jobs in December, bringing 2008's total job loss to just below 2.6 million.
Last year's steep drop in employment marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended.
Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of 525,000 jobs in the month."
Sad.
Good luck to you all that are unemployed.
Last year's steep drop in employment marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended.
Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a loss of 525,000 jobs in the month."
Sad.
Good luck to you all that are unemployed.
US equates Hamas militants with Mumbai attackers
Labels:
hamas,
US
0
comments
Washington, Jan 7 : Equating Hamas militants with the terrorists who struck Mumbai, the White House on Monday said they were despicable human beings taking recourse to violence in order to achieve political ends. In a media briefing, dominated by the issue of Israel's incursion into the Gaza Strip, the White House spokesperson Dana Perino was asked if there were differences "between Hamas terrorists and the terrorists, who are attacking out from Pakistan against India".
"Obviously, they're two different groups," Dana Perino told reporters.
"But I think at their base level they are despicable, evil human beings who use violence and murder in order to achieve political objectives," Perino said.
"So, in that regard, they are the same," she said.
The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right
Labels:
amendment,
US
0
comments
By Adam Winkler
In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.
So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.
As many legal scholars predicted, the Supreme Court's decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court's decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.
To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.
Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.
Before the Supreme Court's decision, none of the numerous challenges to gun control laws raised in recent months would have had any hope of winning. Now, with a revolutionary ruling recognizing a renewed individual right to keep and bear arms, they still have no hope of winning.
About the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out they lose.
The basis for most of these lower court rulings upholding gun control is a paragraph near the end of the Supreme Court's decision that, at the time, seemed like a throwaway. The Supreme Court wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."
What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories.
"I would have preferred that that not have been there," says Robert Levy about this laundry list of Second Amendment exceptions. Levy, executive director of the CATO Institute, which funded the Heller litigation, believes that paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."
But to a die-hard gun rights advocate, the problem is exactly the opposite: the paragraph shed too much light. It revealed that the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly lawful -- a message that hasn't been lost on the lower courts.
Hardliners in the gun rights community cannot help but be disappointed with their long-awaited triumph.
In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.
So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.
As many legal scholars predicted, the Supreme Court's decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court's decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.
To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.
Since Heller, its Gun Control: 60, Individual Right: 0.
Before the Supreme Court's decision, none of the numerous challenges to gun control laws raised in recent months would have had any hope of winning. Now, with a revolutionary ruling recognizing a renewed individual right to keep and bear arms, they still have no hope of winning.
About the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out they lose.
The basis for most of these lower court rulings upholding gun control is a paragraph near the end of the Supreme Court's decision that, at the time, seemed like a throwaway. The Supreme Court wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."
What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories.
"I would have preferred that that not have been there," says Robert Levy about this laundry list of Second Amendment exceptions. Levy, executive director of the CATO Institute, which funded the Heller litigation, believes that paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."
But to a die-hard gun rights advocate, the problem is exactly the opposite: the paragraph shed too much light. It revealed that the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly lawful -- a message that hasn't been lost on the lower courts.
Hardliners in the gun rights community cannot help but be disappointed with their long-awaited triumph.
Bouquets, Boots and Bush
During the press conference in Iraq a Iraqi journalist, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, in an act of protest, hurled his shoes at George Bush. (December 2008) One does not know how the American President took it but one knows that the Iraqi people, were very elated at this insult hurled on their aggressor. Since the second Gulf War, 2003 the condition in Iraq has been worsening rapidly to disastrous proportions. By the way, one must introspect and correct the terminology, war. It was not a war; it was an invasion by the US on Iraq.
Just to recapitulate US, in its dreaded role as the global imperial power has been attacking country after country in a reckless manner. After the collapse of USSR, the other super power, the US has pursued its ambition of controlling and exploiting oil of the gulf region nakedly, apart from its overall hegemonic behavior all around. The US governments irrespective of their being Republican or Democrat, have been keeping the US war machinery on the boil. Many a countries in the gulf region have been the victims of US designs. Iraq in particular has come under the chopping block since the Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Iraq as such had been supported strongly by US during its war against Iran. During that time Saddam Hussein not only waged the war with Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime but also committed atrocities on the helpless Kurds in Iraq. These deeds of Iraq were staunchly and materially supported by US, as at that time for US, Iran was supposed to be the major problem in the region. This more so after the Ayatollah overthrew the US puppet regime of Raza Shah Pehlvi.
After the Iran-Iraq war ended in1988, US felt that the large army it had helped build in Iraq will be a threat to its domination in the gulf region and should be demolished. Iraq foolishly walked into the trap laid by the US. Through its allies in the region Saudi Arab and Kuwait, it put severe economic pressure on Iraq, which made Iraq think of invading Kuwait. When Saddam Hussein talked about his plans to US ambassador April Glaspie, she categorically stated that ‘we have no opinion on your border dispute’, meaning there by, you are free to go ahead, we won’t interfere.
As soon as Iraq invaded Kuwait and declared that Kuwait is the 24th state of Iraq, US jumped to shout that Kuwait Sheikh’s sovereignty has been violated and that Iraq will be taught a lesson. Iraq pledged to withdraw its troops. Ignoring that, US went for a decisive strike, blockading Iraqi soldieries, who were willing to withdraw, and stopping supplies to Iraq. Betraying the worst of imperialist greed Iraq was bombed by US, its electrical systems and sewerage plants were destroyed, with the result that millions of Iraqis perished due to war, the accompanying sanctions and spread of diseases. Blinded by its greed the US secretary of state Madeleine Albright affirmed that all this destruction was worth to save the Sovereignty of Sheikh of Kuwait.
After the 9/11 2001 and the consequent attack on Afghanistan, US came back to old goal of expanding its hold on oil zone by occupying Iraq. It decided to build up its case of attacking Iraq by declaring that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. UN, though not a political force any more, deputed its inspectors to find if Iraq had such weapons. None could be found. That was not to deter the tyrannical empire. It went ahead with its preparations of the war. It went on to add the excuse that Iraq is supporting Al Qaeda. It was a common knowledge that Saddam had no link with this organization, which any way was the creation of US itself. As a prelude to war US leaders started saying that Iraqi people are fed up of the tyrannies of Saddam and they need to be liberated. Dick Cheney, the US Vice President went on to say that US troops will be welcomed as the liberating forces by Iraqis and will be greeted with bouquets. A good pretext was laid; a sense of mission was put on as the mask.
The invading US armies were resisted but the resistance fell through against the might of the formidable army. Still resistance was on through various forms till the total occupation took place. The occupying army unleashed a reign of terror for which the US leaders need to face the court of human conscience. The tip of iceberg of atrocities was displayed to the horrified world when it saw the US army torturing Iraqi soldiers. In Abu Ghraib prison they were stripped naked and made to form a human pyramid! Arrogance of the occupying army of the most democratic and civilized state of US! An international jury, disturbed by the goings on in Iraq, put together a tribunal, International tribunal on War crimes in Iraq (2005). This Jury of Conscience from 10 different countries heard the testimonies of 54 members of the panel of Advocates who came from across the world, including Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom. This global civil initiative came to an end with a press conference at the Hotel Armada where the Chair of the Jury of Conscience, Arundathi Roy, announced the Jury’s conclusions, “The attack on Iraq is an attack on justice, on liberty, on our safety, on our future, on us all.”(http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=93)
Why is the world witnessing such a massive erosion of human values, the trampling of international norms, conventions? US after its humiliation in Vietnam had decided not to send its armies to outside countries for some time and during that time, to counter the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, it propped up Al Qaeda type terrorists. From last three decades its aggressive designs are rampaging not only the countries of the world but also the spirit of humanism as a whole. The undermining of United Nations by US arrogance has been a major reason contributing to miseries of the World today. US actions to couch its politics in the language of religion, to prop up the theory of Clash of Civilizations, to demonize Islam and Muslims can be regarded as one of the worst sins against humanity in contemporary times.
As per US claims that wherever it intervenes it brings in democracy, lesser said the better. Earlier when the Colonial powers came to plunder the colonies they wore the mask of ‘civilizing mission’, of carrying the burden of civilizing the colonies. Now US while pursuing its role of plundering the oil resources of the world is putting on the mask of ‘exporting democracy’. Let’s remember democracy or for that matter no social system can be exported. USSR in it’s hey days was claiming to export socialism. Social systems can nurture themselves if they develop from within. What British colonial powers did in India was to plant the poisonous seeds of communalism and what US is doing in countries it invades is to bring in sectarianism. It has, during its occupation, promoted ethnic and tribal cliques. It has heightened the divides on the lines of Shia-Sunni, and other narrow identities. The economic condition of Iraq has worsened and the number of lives lost due to US misdeeds runs over millions.
It’s a shame that in the name of civilizing missions, exporting democracy etc., few powerful nations have brought in misery to these victim states in particular and human society in general. It is high time the world wakes up to the threat of this barbarism, the brute force trampling and causing miseries all over the World. The need for democracy amongst the nations, the concept of non alignment at global level and strengthening of United Nations through World Peace movement is the need for the hour. Bush rightly deserved the humiliation for what his/US policies have brought in to Iraq. Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who threw his boots, is rightly being hailed as a hero by Iraqis and many others. What US administration wanted to believe that it will get bouquets, was a make believe to invade. The boot it is getting now is what these invasions deserve. The crime against Iraq and humanity as a whole, is one of the serious tragedies of our times.
Obama team report says there was no dealing with Blagojevich over Senate seat
Labels:
Blagojevich,
obama,
senate,
US
0
comments
Stephen J. Carrera / Associated Press
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, at left, and President-elect Obama's incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, have worked together previously in Illinois politics as this 2003 file photo shows. A report released today by the Obama team found no evidence of improper contact between Emanuel and Blagojevich.
It says the president-elect had no contact with the Illinois governor and that Rahm Emanuel spoke with him, but not about a quid pro quo. Obama, Emanuel and Jarrett were interviewed in the inquiry.
Reporting from Washington and Kailua, Hawaii -- Barack Obama's White House transition team released a report Tuesday that concluded the president-elect had no contact with Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich or his office and that no one acting on Obama's behalf was involved in any quid pro quo allegedly sought by the governor to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat.
Incoming White House counsel Gregory Craig said that Obama; his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel; and advisor Valerie Jarrett all submitted to interviews with U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald last week as part of an ongoing criminal investigation of Blagojevich.
Incoming White House counsel Gregory Craig said that Obama; his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel; and advisor Valerie Jarrett all submitted to interviews with U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald last week as part of an ongoing criminal investigation of Blagojevich.
Emanuel was the only member of the transition team who had direct conversations with the governor about possible candidates for the Illinois Senate seat, said Craig, adding that there was no deal-making. The attorney also said that neither Jarrett nor David Axelrod, another senior Obama advisor, had any contact with Blagojevich or his office.
Craig put the report together after Blagojevich's Dec. 9 arrest on allegations of engaging in a scheme to sell the vacant U.S. Senate seat, as well as other state appointments and services. It is the first major controversy confronting the incoming administration -- and one that caused the transition team to respond tentatively until Tuesday.
The report said that Illinois Deputy Gov. Louanner Peters approached Eric Whitaker, a close friend of Obama's, in search of information about "who, if anyone, had the authority to speak for the president-elect," and that Emanuel had "one or two" telephone conversations with Blagojevich.
Craig put the report together after Blagojevich's Dec. 9 arrest on allegations of engaging in a scheme to sell the vacant U.S. Senate seat, as well as other state appointments and services. It is the first major controversy confronting the incoming administration -- and one that caused the transition team to respond tentatively until Tuesday.
The report said that Illinois Deputy Gov. Louanner Peters approached Eric Whitaker, a close friend of Obama's, in search of information about "who, if anyone, had the authority to speak for the president-elect," and that Emanuel had "one or two" telephone conversations with Blagojevich.
"They spoke about Mr. Emanuel's House seat, when he would be resigning and potential candidates to replace him. He also had a brief discussion with the governor about the Senate seat and the merits of various people whom the governor might consider," the report said. "Mr. Emanuel and the governor did not discuss a Cabinet position . . . a private-sector position for the governor or any other personal benefit for the governor."
In a conference call with reporters, Craig characterized Emanuel's conversations with Blagojevich as innocent and appropriate. Emanuel, who is on a family vacation in Africa, was unavailable for comment Tuesday. Fitzgerald previously has said that neither Obama nor his aides were targets of the federal investigation.
Still, Craig's report did not include transcripts of any of the conversations Emanuel had with Blagojevich or with the governor's chief of staff at the time, John Harris. Those conversations were recorded as part of the federal inquiry. Craig did not respond when asked whether he had tried to obtain the transcripts.
During Emanuel's meeting with Fitzgerald last week, he listened to the recordings of his conversations, said Robert Gibbs, incoming White House press secretary. Craig said the Emanuel calls to Harris included a discussion of the "merits and the strategic benefit" that each candidate would bring to the Senate seat.
Obama has portrayed himself as taking a hands-off approach to the governor's decision about whom to appoint to his former Senate seat. But the report noted that he was very much interested in who would succeed him.
Once Jarrett said she was not interested in becoming a senator, Obama asked Emanuel to tell the governor that he would like him to consider Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes and Tammy Duckworth, director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs -- all of them Democrats.
Later calls between Emanuel and Harris included the addition of two names to Obama's list of suggestions: Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan and Cheryle Jackson, president and chief executive of the Chicago Urban League and a former Blagojevich spokeswoman.
The report took pains to point out in several places that none of Obama's senior advisors ever believed that the governor was seeking some sort of benefit for the Senate appointment. It said that Tom Balanoff, head of the Illinois chapter of the Service Employees International Union, told Jarrett that the governor had said he hoped to become secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration.
Balanoff told Jarrett that he told Blagojevich "it would never happen," and the report said Jarrett agreed with that assessment.
"Mr. Balanoff did not suggest that the governor, in talking about HHS, was linking a position for himself in the Obama Cabinet to the selection of the president-elect's successor in the Senate, and Ms. Jarrett did not understand the conversation to suggest that the governor wanted the Cabinet seat as a quid pro quo for selecting any specific candidate to be the president-elect's replacement," the report said.
Craig told reporters that Jarrett thought Blagojevich's hopes of joining the Cabinet were "ridiculous," especially because he was widely known to be under investigation long before his arrest.
Obama, who is vacationing in Hawaii, instructed his staff this month to review all internal contacts with Blagojevich and his office. He said he was eager to release the report, but was asked to delay doing so by federal prosecutors.
"It's a little bit frustrating," Obama said last week. "There's been a lot of speculation in the press that I would love to correct immediately. . . . By next week, you guys will have the answers to all your questions."
Still, because the report did not include actual transcripts of what was said, questions may linger.
Obama ordered the report after Blagojevich and Harris were arrested on charges that they had tried to barter the Senate seat for the governor's professional benefit or financial gain. Illinois law grants the governor sole power to fill a Senate vacancy.
On Dec. 15, Obama said the report was complete and that no "inappropriate" contact between his aides and the Blagojevich camp had been found. He said then that its release was being delayed until this week at U.S. Atty. Fitzgerald's request.
When asked about the Senate seat shortly after the election, Obama said: "There's going to be a lot of good choices out there, but it is the governor's decision to make, not mine."
Since then, the president-elect has declined to comment on whether there is any inconsistency with that statement and a recent Chicago Tribune report that suggested Emanuel had presented a list of acceptable candidates to the Blagojevich administration.
jzuckman@tribune.com
mccormickj@tribune.com
In a conference call with reporters, Craig characterized Emanuel's conversations with Blagojevich as innocent and appropriate. Emanuel, who is on a family vacation in Africa, was unavailable for comment Tuesday. Fitzgerald previously has said that neither Obama nor his aides were targets of the federal investigation.
Still, Craig's report did not include transcripts of any of the conversations Emanuel had with Blagojevich or with the governor's chief of staff at the time, John Harris. Those conversations were recorded as part of the federal inquiry. Craig did not respond when asked whether he had tried to obtain the transcripts.
During Emanuel's meeting with Fitzgerald last week, he listened to the recordings of his conversations, said Robert Gibbs, incoming White House press secretary. Craig said the Emanuel calls to Harris included a discussion of the "merits and the strategic benefit" that each candidate would bring to the Senate seat.
Obama has portrayed himself as taking a hands-off approach to the governor's decision about whom to appoint to his former Senate seat. But the report noted that he was very much interested in who would succeed him.
Once Jarrett said she was not interested in becoming a senator, Obama asked Emanuel to tell the governor that he would like him to consider Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes and Tammy Duckworth, director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs -- all of them Democrats.
Later calls between Emanuel and Harris included the addition of two names to Obama's list of suggestions: Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan and Cheryle Jackson, president and chief executive of the Chicago Urban League and a former Blagojevich spokeswoman.
The report took pains to point out in several places that none of Obama's senior advisors ever believed that the governor was seeking some sort of benefit for the Senate appointment. It said that Tom Balanoff, head of the Illinois chapter of the Service Employees International Union, told Jarrett that the governor had said he hoped to become secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration.
Balanoff told Jarrett that he told Blagojevich "it would never happen," and the report said Jarrett agreed with that assessment.
"Mr. Balanoff did not suggest that the governor, in talking about HHS, was linking a position for himself in the Obama Cabinet to the selection of the president-elect's successor in the Senate, and Ms. Jarrett did not understand the conversation to suggest that the governor wanted the Cabinet seat as a quid pro quo for selecting any specific candidate to be the president-elect's replacement," the report said.
Craig told reporters that Jarrett thought Blagojevich's hopes of joining the Cabinet were "ridiculous," especially because he was widely known to be under investigation long before his arrest.
Obama, who is vacationing in Hawaii, instructed his staff this month to review all internal contacts with Blagojevich and his office. He said he was eager to release the report, but was asked to delay doing so by federal prosecutors.
"It's a little bit frustrating," Obama said last week. "There's been a lot of speculation in the press that I would love to correct immediately. . . . By next week, you guys will have the answers to all your questions."
Still, because the report did not include actual transcripts of what was said, questions may linger.
Obama ordered the report after Blagojevich and Harris were arrested on charges that they had tried to barter the Senate seat for the governor's professional benefit or financial gain. Illinois law grants the governor sole power to fill a Senate vacancy.
On Dec. 15, Obama said the report was complete and that no "inappropriate" contact between his aides and the Blagojevich camp had been found. He said then that its release was being delayed until this week at U.S. Atty. Fitzgerald's request.
When asked about the Senate seat shortly after the election, Obama said: "There's going to be a lot of good choices out there, but it is the governor's decision to make, not mine."
Since then, the president-elect has declined to comment on whether there is any inconsistency with that statement and a recent Chicago Tribune report that suggested Emanuel had presented a list of acceptable candidates to the Blagojevich administration.
jzuckman@tribune.com
mccormickj@tribune.com
FedEx Super Bowl Ads Latest Victim Of Economy (VIDEO)
Labels:
book recession,
economy,
fedex,
moon-office,
US,
video
0
comments
By Danny Shea
Perennial Super Bowl advertiser Federal Express has pulled out of the upcoming event for the first time in 12 years, citing the economy. In an entry on the company's blog, Director of Advertising Steve Pacheco explained the company's rationale:
Carrier Pigeons, 2008 (Super Bowl XLII):
Moon Office, 2007 (Super Bowl XLI):
Stick/Caveman, 2006 (Super Bowl XL):
Ten Things, 2005 (Super Bowl XXXIX):
Alien, 2004 (Super Bowl XXXVIII):
Marooned, 2003 (Super Bowl XXXVII):
The Wizard of Oz, 2001 (Super Bowl XXXIV):
Perennial Super Bowl advertiser Federal Express has pulled out of the upcoming event for the first time in 12 years, citing the economy. In an entry on the company's blog, Director of Advertising Steve Pacheco explained the company's rationale:
As a country, we are in unprecedented economic waters. And as a responsible employer of more than 290,000 employees and contractors worldwide, there is a time to justify such an ad spend and a time to step back.FedEx, which uses ad agency BBDO New York, has been a Super Bowl advertiser since 1989 with classic spots, which Pacheco runs down in his blog:
As FedEx employees, we, like millions of people at other companies, are being asked to do more with less. Our most vital asset is the thousands of FedEx team members who truly enable the world to work, absolutely, positively, every day. In the ultimate medium when where the message is king, being in the game simply sends the wrong message both to employees and other FedEx constituents. A Super Bowl ad buy is not where we should put dollars at this time although, in the past, the value of doing so for FedEx has been indisputable.
To name a few, giant carrier pigeons wreaked havoc and tossed cars in our CGI city, the Stanley Cup wound up in Bolivia, we learned that the cherished Castaway package contained a survival kit, blank color bars surprised all when we learned the network did not use FedEx one year and the EMMY award-winning "Stick," featuring the FedEx cave men, showed us that FedEx rocked the prehistoric age.Pacheco said FedEx looks forward to advertising in the Super Bowl again soon, but until that time comes, check out some of their ads throughout the years below:
Carrier Pigeons, 2008 (Super Bowl XLII):
Moon Office, 2007 (Super Bowl XLI):
Stick/Caveman, 2006 (Super Bowl XL):
Ten Things, 2005 (Super Bowl XXXIX):
Alien, 2004 (Super Bowl XXXVIII):
Marooned, 2003 (Super Bowl XXXVII):
The Wizard of Oz, 2001 (Super Bowl XXXIV):
Obama To Take Oath on Lincoln’s Bible
Labels:
oath,
obama,
president,
US
0
comments
Washington, Dec 24 : US president-elect Barack Obama will be sworn into office with the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used for his oath taking ceremony in 1861. The move further extends the parallels that Obama has drawn with Lincoln since he announced his candidacy for president in February 2007 in Springfield, Illionis, the online edition of The New York Times said Tuesday.This will be the first time an incoming president has used Lincoln’s Bible, which is part of the collection at the Library of Congress. New US presidents are not required to swear in on a Bible, but most have done so, and most use their own family Bible.
Obama has identified with Lincoln throughout his campaign and quotes him often. He also plans to follow Lincoln and take the train to Washington for his inauguration, following Lincoln’s route from Philadelphia to Washington.
The Bible that Lincoln was sworn-in on was not the family Bible, which was packed away with his family’s belongings and still en route from Springfield.
So William Thomas Carroll, Clerk of the Supreme Court, bought this Bible specifically for Lincoln’s swearing-in ceremony March 4, 1861. The 1,280-page Bible was published in 1853 by the Oxford University Press.
The Bible is bound in burgundy velvet with a gold-washed white metal rim around the three outside edges of both covers, according to the official description.
India Should Not Repeat American Mistakes
By Joseph D’Souza
Hyderabad, Dec 20 : After the Mumbai terrorist attacks, India must not commit the same mistakes as the United States in its war on terror. A pursuit of justice must treat people of all faiths with respect and, at the end of the day, encourage diversity.
India’s response to the brazen attacks on Mumbai which began on November 26, 2008, provides a great opportunity for addressing all forms of terrorism the country has experienced in the last few decades.
In the last year alone, bomb blasts were carried out by extremist Islamists, fundamentalist Hindus, and Maoist groups against the general population. In fact, over the last few years India is only second to Iraq in the death toll due to terrorist attacks as recorded by the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington, D.C. This doesn’t account for premeditated mob violence which has increasingly targeted minorities as seen in the ethnic cleansing of Dalit and Tribal Christians in the Orissa state in December 2007 and August 2008.
All these extremist groups threaten what is called “the idea of India,” which refers to a united nation made up of diverse religious and ethnic groups.
Simply put, we cannot afford to let any form of terrorism go unpunished. India cannot let the extremist Hindu groups who have displaced tens of thousands of Dalit Christians in Orissa escape justice.
The public anger after the Mumbai attacks is largely against those who have not governed India well in addition to the terrorists. India clearly needs to revamp its internal security structures. Indian politicians and the Indian government are searching for appropriate ways to respond to terrorists beyond India’s borders. And India is well within its rights to go after the non-state players who carried out the Mumbai attacks. India can hope for a united response with the U.S., Britain, Israel, and others whose citizens were killed in the attacks.
But India needs to work hard to undo the marginalization of Muslims in recent years by political parties who subscribe to fundamentalist Hindu ideology. India must firmly deal with ‘Hindutva’ terrorism (see recent articles in India Today and Tehelka magazine). India must build goodwill with the 150 million strong Muslim population whose leaders have condemned the Mumbai attacks. India must not target innocent Muslims inside or outside its borders for ill-devised political ends.
America’s mistake was to launch an indiscriminate war against Muslims who were not connected to 9/11. America’s decision makers didn’t take enough time to look at the contexts in which vulnerable Muslims are recruited to become terrorists. The American war on terror resulted in human rights abuses. It became associated with racial profiling. And thus, a just cause lost the goodwill of the world given in the aftermath of 9/11.
If the Indian government and political rulers repeat American mistakes, we will end up furthering more terrorism of every kind given the great religious and ethnic diversity of India. This is the time — when Indians feel as one and are united against terrorism — for the Indian government to act fairly and not take foolish actions. We hope citizens passionate about true justice from around the globe will encourage our leaders toward these goals in the days ahead.
* Joseph D’souza is the international president of the Dalit Freedom Network. He lives in Hyderabad, India and works out of Hyderabad, London, and Denver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
