The woman charged with the protection of global human rights for the White House for the last four years was promoted Tuesday to represent the United States at the United Nations.
Despite leading an embarrassing policy of inaction — during which 80,000 plus Syrians were killed by violence created by their own government, thousands of Sudanese were ethnically-cleansed in Darfur, and hundreds of thousands were murdered and displaced in the Congo — President Obama announced Tuesday that he has selected Samantha Power, an academic and 2008 Obama presidential campaign aide, as his next nominee to represent the United States as ambassador to the United Nations. Continue reading
Tag Archives: white house
A Senate Filibuster is not new and Neither is the Outrage
The White House has called the filibuster of Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary “unconscionable”. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mocked Senate Republicans with a “this isn’t high school” rant then threatened that a filibuster would leave the country without a Defense Secretary. Continue reading
Cutting the Ribbon in Burma, Ignoring Iran & Syria
Today, President Obama will be the first U.S. President to visit Burma. The unprecedented trip is a celebration for the second largest country in Southeast Asia. It’s also a remarkable achievement since Burma only recently held national elections in 2010 after holding the leader of the democratic opposition party, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest for 21 years. Continue reading
Susan Rice’s UN record Speaks for Itself
Most reporters haven’t been following Ambassador Susan Rice’s performance at the United Nations since her appointment in January 2009. To many journalists, Rice’s misleading interviews on the five Sunday Shows the weekend after the 9/11/12 terrorist attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were one of the first times they had heard from her. To veteran foreign policy observers, Rice’s shameful performance that Sunday was one of many blunders over the last four years. Continue reading
dan savage at white house pride reception: obama won’t support marriage before ’12 election, im not furious
Below is the official White House Press Pool Report from President Obama’s Pride reception at the White House.
In it you will see that Dan Savage thinks supporting gay marriage is being “out on the furthest limb” for Obama so he isn’t furious with him for his position. Savage also predicts that Obama won’t ”evolve” on gay marriage until February, 2013 – after the next presidential election. You will also see that union spokesman Gregory King thinks gays aren’t prioritizing marriage so Obama doesn’t need to either. With supporters like these it’s no wonder Obama doesn’t feel pressure from the gay community.
From: Julie Mason
To: Finkenbinder, Benjamin N.
Cc: Hughes, Caroline E.
Sent: Wed Jun 29 18:43:29 2011
Subject: Pool Report #1 pride reception
No, he didn’t endorse gay marriage.
The East Room contained: a few hundred attendees, a full bar, a couple of small, round tables covered in shimmery purple cloth piled high with canapes and desserts: puff pastries, baby lamb chops, mini cupcakes, slices of cake and more. The centerpieces were oversized bouquets of roses in pink, orange, red and purple. A band played light jazz and R&B.
The crowd was mostly white and the men significantly outnumbered the women. Dan Savage was there — quotes from him after Obama.
Obama entered the room at 6 p.m. to huge cheers. Facing north, he assured the crowd that “Nothing ruins a party like a long speech from a politician” and promised to go short. He talked about his accomplishments so far — hospital visits, DADT, DOMA, etc.
He said he understands the frustration many in the gay community feel about the pace of accomplishments — “I know I can count on you to let me know,” he said. “This is not a shy group.”
The crowd interrupted him a few times with spontaneous cheers and applause — when he mentioned “spouses” (without endorsing the concept) and more. Check the transcript. He spoke for about nine minutes.
Dan Savage, a columnist, author and gay activist was there with his husband (they married in Canada), Terry Miller. Dan was wearing a black and white plaid shirt with a small button that said, “evolve already.” Terry wore a white shirt with a hot pink bow tie.
“I believe the president should evolve,” Savage said. “He says he’s evolving, I believe him.” He added, “I want to hurry him along.”
Savage, a strong proponent for gay marriage, said his presence at the White House should not be construed as a surrender on the issue. “We can scream and yell and be dicks and wear buttons” and still eat Obama’s cupcakes and drink his champagne, Savage said.
He predicted Obama’s evolution on gay marriage would be complete in February, 2013. Savage called Obama’s politics “the art of the possible.”
“We need to keep the pressure on and take ‘yes’ for an answer,” Savage said.
“I’m not one of the gay activists furious at the president because he’s not out on the furthest limb” on gay marriage, Savage said.
Also in the room and willing to make eye contact with the pool: Gregory King, a spokesman for AFSCME and a former spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund.
King said, “I think Obama has done more for the LGBT community than any president in history.”
“He’s been effective at bringing change and ending discrimination,” King said.
Regarding gay marriage, “I know many couples who wouldn’t place that at the top of the agenda,” King said.
Julie Mason
POLITICO
cnn and npr fail to question white house spin, repeat errors
When the White House released the erroneous fact that President Obama would be the first President since John F. Kennedy to visit Puerto Rico, CNN, NPR and others accepted it as fact and began reporting it. Without checking the White House’s spin, many media organizations highlighted Obama’s visit and failed to find that the White House was wrong – President Gerald Ford had visited Puerto Rico in 1976 and was the last president to do so. While many outlets reported the error, CNN and NPR repeated it and failed to correct the mistake while highlighting the trip.
National Public Radio used the erroneous statistic to develop a stand-alone story, highlight its significance for Puerto Rican Americans and give President Obama accolades for his commitment to the island. NPR host Melissa Block introduced the piece titled, “Why is Obama Going to Puerto Rico”, by stressing “what Obama’s visit means to a growing Puerto Rican population — and his re-election efforts.” Block interviewed Frances Robles, correspondent with the Miami Herald, from Puerto Rico who also emphasized the historic visit. When Robles confronted the White House and NPR’s error at the top of her interview, Block failed to acknowledge it. Block never corrected
NPR’s error even when challenged. In subsequent news updates, NPR repeated the White House’s factual blunder despite online fact checkers highlighting it.
CNN also failed to investigate the White House’s claim and even ignored a plethora of online corrections from various reporters and fact-checkers who caught the White House spin early on. Shortly after the White House press release highlighting the President’s trip, bloggers found that not only had President Ford visited Puerto Rico in 1976, but President Lyndon B. Johnson visited the island in 1968. The White House had failed to notice.
And so did CNN. For 24 hours after the White House’s false claim, CNN failed to question it. CNN took Obama’s arrival in Puerto Rico live with the headline “Obama in Puerto Rico. First presidential visit since JFK 50 years ago”. Host Suzanne Malveaux hyped the trip with pronouncements like, “(Obama) fulfilled his promise to come back” and “There’s a lot of excitement about the trip” and “more than 4 million Puerto Ricans live on the mainland” and “This is an historic trip for Obama”. All pitches built around an error that CNN failed to check or correct. The mistake could have been chalked up to one big error if “the best political team on television” wasn’t so Johnny on the spot with fact-checking Palin, Boehner, Bush, Romney, Ryan, Gingrich, etc. For example, shortly after her Puerto Rico error, Malveaux interviewed Angie Holan
from The St. Petersburg Times in a segment titled “Checking The Truth-O-Meter” where the two questioned the accuracy of claims made by Republicans at the presidential debate in New Hampshire last night.
While it’s reasonable to conclude that a simple mistake was made by the White House in its initial announcement of Obama’s trip, it’s disturbing to see staffers not correct their error. It’s more troubling to see media outlets like NPR and CNN not only fail to fact-check, but ignore the truth when confronted with it. Both NPR and CNN should correct their mistake and come clean as to how it happened.
pj crowley’s firing shows white house concern over inconsistent messages
It’s ironic that PJ Crowley went to MIT to talk about the power of new media on foreign policy issues only to find that a blog posting of his remarks ended his career as America’s top foreign policy spokesman. It’s also ironic that although Crowley’s comments were immediately reported via twitter, Facebook and several foreign policy blogs, his boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn’t immediately mind. It was only when the new White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley learned about Crowley’s comments that the trouble began.
State Department insiders say Crowley’s MIT comments and his tweets comparing the “Middle East tsunami” over the last several weeks with Japan’s earthquake and tsunami were emailed around Foggy Bottom and the subject of many water-cooler conversations. “Nobody thought he would be fired over this,” one State Department official told me. But when ABC News’ Jake Tapper asked President Obama about Crowley’s comments during the President’s press availability on Friday, Obama said, “(I) asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards…(they) assure me that they are. I can’t go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well.” President Obama was being asked about inconsistent messages coming from his team and Daley was not happy about it. Daley was upset that while the Pentagon was saying that Manning was being treated fairly in response to claims from the liberal left, State’s chief spokesman was questioning DoD’s truthfulness.
The conflicting and ambiguous messaging from the White House and its’ agency heads has up until now been part of the Obama Administration’s playbook. The President has time after time used contradictory statements to at once please his democratic base and the far-left progressives that are growing increasingly disenchanted with Obama’s rhetoric. Just last week, Hollywood actor Matt Damon spoke out about his frustration with Obama’s hope and change message saying, “I’m disappointed in the health care plan and in the troop build-up in Afghanistan.” And Damon is certainly not alone in his irritation with the President’s action-deficit. The left is filled with frustration for the President because he has turned out to be nothing like they hoped. Barbara Streisand, Jane Lynch, Jon Stewart and MoveOn.org are all let down. Obama has consistently been inconsistent on healthcare reform, taxes, the budget and most recently on the military’s Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell policy, the Egyptian President’s future, support for the opposition in Libya, a Libyan no fly zone, off-shore oil drilling, Israel, jobs, the UN and even on being President of the United States (see “it would be easier to be President of China”).
But now comes new White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley who is in-charge of making progress. And getting anything done in Washington means getting comfortable with disappointing someone. Daley wants to stop the Obama Administrations’ conflicting messages, empty rhetoric and personal opinion giving from staff members. Crowley, a career foreign service officer who served President Bill Clinton at the NSC, has been allowed to give his own opinions without repercussions from his boss, Secretary Hillary Clinton, since he started as State Department spokesman at the beginning of the Obama Administration. He was shocked to learn that there were new rules this week. Crowley serves as an example of the new kind of White House we are getting with Daley in charge.
At the same MIT discussion where Crowley’s “stupid” comment got him fired, he also said, “But the most important thing I do every day is read the New York Times – it’s the national paper of record.” It’s no wonder Crowley thinks punishing the Wikileaker was “stupid”. The most important part of his day has been spent reading New York Times stories on leaked cables and where Julian Assange is considered a hero. But thanks to Bill Daley, Crowley will now have lots of important things to do.
the white house continues in campaign mode
http://www.politico.com/%20grenell%20on%20shirley%20sherrod
Obama’s White House is still in campaign mode. And the political appointees they hired to lead federal agencies are in campaign mode. This team isn’t governing America thoughtfully. They make quick and short term decisions based on political calculation and media coverage designed to quickly move public opinion. The Shirley Sherrod incident only highlights the partisan calculation this White House and its allies do on a daily basis.
For example, Robert Gibbs’ has been biting and condescending toward Republicans and all non-Democrats from the moment he stepped on the podium. Rahm Emanuel has been caught pounding the White House’s political opponents in Congress rather than seeking common ground on policy decisions, budget decisions have been designed to maximize the impact to political groups rather than creating jobs or building the economy and multiple weekly parties and celebrations for supporters have supplanted the hard work expected by the American people. This White House is quick to react and quick to throw a party but slow to leave the presidential campaigning behind.
media matters attacks cbs and fox over report of unsolicited white house emails sent to federal employees
Media Matters Jumps to Defend Unsolicited White House Emails to Federal Employees
Media Matters, the defender of liberal media, today jumped into the developing controversy and debate over White House Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle’s unsolicited White House emails to federal employees. Media Matters scolds and makes fun of CBS News and Fox News for highlighting the issue, calling the claims “pure speculation”. Ironically, Media Matters doesn’t deny that the unsolicited emails have been sent but rather they defend the emails by saying, “it appears they are sent out to everyone on the whitehouse.gov mailing list.” Well, duh. That’s the problem. Why are federal employees on the whitehouse.gov email list? And why are federal employees being hounded to do the White House’s political bidding for a trillion dollar entitlement program?
Building support for President Barack Obama’s health reform package by sending consecutive emails to federal employees’ official government email inboxes and instructing them to forward the emails to their “friends, family and online networks” is not only unethical but possibly illegal.
Media Matters also complains that the story has no anonymous quotes from frustrated federal employees in order to prove the story. Which is a fair point. I’ll give them that. So here are two anonymous quotes from State Department employees that didn’t sign up for the White House emails but are still receiving political musings from Nancy-Ann DeParle and the White House:
Anonymous Quote #1:
“ I didn’t sign up for this. Why do I have to bother with political fights from work. This is inappropriate and distracting to REAL issues.”
Anonymous Quote #2:
“I have been receiving these emails at my state.gov address, unsolicited e-mails such as the one below on a near weekly basis. Kinda threatening dontcha think? Budget problems if it doesn’t pass?”
Department of State employees receive hundreds of official government emails every day on pressing issues like the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the Iranian nuclear weapons issue. Should they have to worry about partisan political emails threatening budget complications if Obama’s bill isn’t passed?
DeParle’s language in one email flatly states that there will be budget problems for federal agencies if the Obama bill isn’t passed. DeParle uses scare tactics that are clearly meant as threats:
“No ifs, ands or buts about it — if we do nothing to reform our broken health care system, costs will continue to skyrocket and break the budgets of American families, small businesses and the Federal Government,” read the March 12th email from DeParle.
Since Media Matters is trying to dismiss the issue as “pure speculation”, here are 2 examples of the emails. Decide for yourself:
Email #1:
From: Nancy-Ann DeParle, The White House [mailto:info@messages.whitehouse.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:10 PM
To: (Name Withheld)
Subject: 625
Good morning,
625 — that’s the number of people who lost their health insurance every hour in 2009.1
A statistic like that tells a frightening story — losing insurance can happen to anyone. How many more Americans have to lose their health insurance and how many more businesses have to drop coverage before we fix our broken health care system?
We’ve been debating what to do about our broken health care system for decades — not just this past year. Every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health reform has been said. It’s time to decide how to reform our health care system to give American families and businesses the security and stability they deserve.
As the President has said, “In the United States of America, no one should have to worry that they’ll go without insurance — not for one year, not for one month, not for one day.”
The millions of Americans who lost their insurance last year can’t wait any longer. The time is now for health insurance reform.
625 is the latest digit in ‘Health Reform by the Numbers,’ an online campaign to spread the word about the need for health insurance reform. You can help raise awareness by sharing this email with your friends, family and online networks.
Let’s get it done.
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform
1The Wonk Room, ThinkProgress.org, UPDATE: 15,000 People Lost Health Insurance Per Day In 2009
This email was sent to (name withheld)@state.gov
Unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111
Email #2:
To: (Name Withheld)
Subject: “There but for the grace of God go any one of us”
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:05:48 -0400
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov
Good afternoon,
If you’re an American under the age of 65, there’s roughly a 50/50 chance that you will find yourself without coverage at some point in the next decade.1
Simply put, losing insurance can happen to anyone.
At yesterday’s health reform event, President Obama told the story of Natoma, a self-employed woman in Ohio who found herself in the position of losing her health insurance after yet another rate hike from her insurance company:
“She realized that if she paid those health insurance premiums that had been jacked up by 40 percent … she couldn’t make ends meet. So January was her last month of being insured. Like so many responsible Americans — folks who work hard every day, who try to do the right thing — she was forced to hang her fortunes on chance… And on Saturday, Natoma was diagnosed with leukemia…
“Part of what makes this issue difficult is most of us do have health insurance, we still do…. But what we have to understand is that what’s happened to Natoma, there but for the grace of God go any one of us.”
For Natoma and the millions of other Americans forced to face the burden of medical bills they can’t pay while at their most vulnerable — the time is now for health insurance reform. Watch the video of Natoma’s story and learn what more you can do to help spread the word about the need for reform.
50/50 is the latest number in ‘Health Reform by the Numbers,’ our online campaign to raise awareness about why we just can’t wait any longer for health insurance reform. Help spread the word by sharing this message with your family, friends and online networks.
Let’s get it done.
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform
1 Department of the Treasury, The Risk of Losing Health Insurance Over a Decade
This email was sent to (name withheld)@state.gov
Unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111
is the white house scaring federal workers into campaigning for healthcare reform?
Is The White House Scaring Federal Workers Into Campaigning for Healthcare Reform?
The White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle has been feverishly sending out unsolicited email messages to federal employees in an effort to build support for President Barack Obama’s health reform package over the last several weeks. DeParle’s unsolicited emails have been regularly coming to some federal employees’ official government email inboxes for weeks without permission or request, causing some federal employees to feel threatened by the overt political language.
The Department of State employees, who receive hundreds of official government emails every day, have complained about the annoying and partisan emails but are nervous to go public for fear of retribution. The emails are addressed to the federal employees by name and use the official .gov address.
The unsolicited emails also request that the federal employees take action in order to ensure that Obama’s health reform package is passed and the federal budget isn’t at risk for bankruptcy. One federal employee was so concerned about DeParle’s language in one email that he questioned whether his department’s budget would be cut or eliminated without passage of Obama’s bill. DeParle uses scare tactics that some assume are meant as threats:
“No ifs, ands or buts about it — if we do nothing to reform our broken health care system, costs will continue to skyrocket and break the budgets of American families, small businesses and the Federal Government,” read the March 12th email from DeParle.
But should federal employees be subjected to partisan propaganda? What precedent does it send for the White House to use the federal work force for their partisan agenda? And shouldn’t we let State Department federal workers concentrate on pressing issues like the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the Iranian nuclear weapons issue? Why would Department of Transportation employees have to worry about forwarding The White House’s partisan emails to their address books? Federal employees are public servants not partisan foot soldiers for President Obama and shouldn’t have to decide whether a partisan White House request can be ignored without consequences.
DeParle’s solicitation requests federal employees act on behalf of the President’s agenda by making this directive:
“You can help raise awareness by sharing this email with your friends, family and online networks,” read the March 11th email from DeParle.
But what would happen if the federal employee doesn’t act in the way The White House is suggesting? Would there be retribution? Has The White House requested that another federal agency monitor who is acting on behalf of Obama’s health reform bill and who is not?
Turning the President’s partisan agenda into White House directives to the federal workforce has crossed the line and should be stopped immediately.
Sample email:
From: Nancy-Ann DeParle, The White House [mailto:info@messages.whitehouse.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:10 PM
To: (Name Withheld)
Subject: 625
Good morning,
625 — that’s the number of people who lost their health insurance every hour in 2009.1
A statistic like that tells a frightening story — losing insurance can happen to anyone. How many more Americans have to lose their health insurance and how many more businesses have to drop coverage before we fix our broken health care system?
We’ve been debating what to do about our broken health care system for decades — not just this past year. Every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health reform has been said. It’s time to decide how to reform our health care system to give American families and businesses the security and stability they deserve.
As the President has said, “In the United States of America, no one should have to worry that they’ll go without insurance — not for one year, not for one month, not for one day.”
The millions of Americans who lost their insurance last year can’t wait any longer. The time is now for health insurance reform.
625 is the latest digit in ‘Health Reform by the Numbers,’ an online campaign to spread the word about the need for health insurance reform. You can help raise awareness by sharing this email with your friends, family and online networks.
Let’s get it done.
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform
1The Wonk Room, ThinkProgress.org, UPDATE: 15,000 People Lost Health Insurance Per Day In 2009
This email was sent to (name withheld)@state.gov
Unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111
home healthcare on the chopping block
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/07/opinion/main5927600.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Home Healthcare On The Chopping Block
In confronting healthcare reform, President Obama and his team have intellectualized a change that may seem to make sense on paper but doesn’t conform with the reality of our current system. President Obama continues to focus on cutting waste and fraud from Medicare while insisting that his budget cuts will not cut services to the millions of older Americans that rely on Medicare for their healthcare. “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits,” Obama recently said.
But the simple fact is that the President and The White House have no control over how Medicare service providers prioritize their spending or service delivery. The President can insist that he doesn’t want Medicare services to be cut but when he greatly reduces the amount of money the federal government will pay for Medicare; service providers alone get to decide how to deal with that revenue loss. It is the private sector service providers, not the President, that decide what to cut and how to cut. For example, Medicare providers will decide if they continue to pay their workers the same amount of money but cut services – or – if they cut the number of workers delivering the services – or – if they just take less profit. Obama has envisioned a free-market system that will just take less profit. The President is either intellectually naïve because of his lack of experience outside the classroom or strategically trying to manipulate our way of life.
But this is America and we have a free-market system that is more about supply and demand than it is about altruism. As much as the President has intellectualized a healthcare change that will act collectively, his plan is impractical in a capitalistic society. Obama’s healthcare reform efforts are, in fact, a dangerous assault on America’s current system. My Harvard Economics Professor taught me that whenever government mandates a price or manipulates the market the entire model gets flipped upside down. Professor Obama should know that any kind of government intervention in the free-market system causes the system to act irrationally, not collectively.
Home healthcare is the perfect example of Obama’s academic thinking. Over the last 10 years, home healthcare services have dramatically increased in an effort to decrease expensive hospitalization costs. Home healthcare has become a relatively inexpensive way to care for patients who do not need round the clock care from a hospital or nursing home. If we are trying to save money within the healthcare system we should be advocating for more homecare not less. However, the Congressional Budget Office says that the Democratic plan currently being debated drastically cuts homecare spending. Home healthcare services would absorb more than 13 percent of the proposed Medicare cuts to the tune of $43 billion.
If Obama and company want to keep healthcare costs down then home healthcare should be expanded not cut. If older Americans or active people want to recover in the comfort of their home rather than in a hospital or nursing home then we should encourage their decision.
But yesterday, the Democratically-controlled Senate followed President Obama’s plan and put home care on the chopping block. President Obama, however, continues to insist that Medicare services and patient options will not be diminished even though providers will have a $43 billion hole to fill.
obama in china, looking to be popular
sheryl gay stolberg is such a liberal democrat….
The New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg covers the White House. Anyone want to guess what her political persuasion is? i bet she voted for Obama. She has been letting her partisanship show for years but lately she is giddy with Obama-mania….is she really someone that is objective enough to cover President Bush and have an unbiased perspective on his 2 terms as he leaves the White House? here are just the 2 stories she did after Obama was elected.
November 9th’s story was titled: “White House Memo – Obama Will Visit Bush, Watching Out for Tacks …”. Does Sheryl really think President Bush is that bitter and class-less? i think he has been gracious and honorable. Wasn’t it Obama that spent more than $100 million to bash Bush during the Campaign? Why didn’t Sheryl point that out? Obama has been the one leaving “tacks” on the chairs…or maybe it’s been Sheryl??
November 11th’s story finished with this paragraph: “A sense of anticipation extended beyond 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As the Obamas’ limousine made its way to the White House, hundreds of people lined the streets, craning their necks to see. When the door opened and the couple stepped out to greet the Bushes, there was an unfamiliar sound: cheering outside the White House gates.”
How does Sheryl know that to be true? She doesn’t – from her office she can’t hear or see the front gates of the White House. This is her opinion. And since her story didn’t appear on the Editorial and Opinion Page, her views should stay inside the voting booth and not in a newsstory. This is what I emailed Sheryl yesterday:
“why did you write that snotty comment at the end of your story today about how there hasn’t been applause heard outside of the white house in a long time. it seems like a comment from someone with a partisan agenda, as well as just plain mean-spirited. weren’t you the reporter lamenting how politics has gotten nasty lately? i am certain you don’t know if it is actually true that there hasn’t been applause outside of the white house in a long time. have you stood out front of the white house to know? and if you did, how long did you stand out there?”
she hasn’t answered me…..
Grenell on iran
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/photos/story/389712.html
Sanctions may be in store if Iran rebuffs nuclear offer
By WARREN P. STROBEL
WASHINGTON
The United States and Europe are poised to seek harsher U.N. financial sanctions against Iran if it fails to meet this weekend’s deadline to accept an international offer of negotiations in exchange for freezing its nuclear program, diplomats said Friday.
It’s uncertain how, or even whether, Iran will formally respond to the offer. Authorities in Tehran have given no sign that they’re willing to accept the offer of a “freeze for a freeze” – to cap Iran’s uranium enrichment at current levels in exchange for a moratorium on further sanctions against it.
A snub by Iran could open a new chapter in the long-running confrontation as President Bush enters his final months in office. While diplomats plan to push for new sanctions, Israel’s leaders and Bush administration hawks, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, argue that military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities must be considered.
“It’s clear (Iran) has not complied with the international community’s demand to stop enriching uranium. We, the United States, will work with our allies to come up with another resolution in the Security Council,” Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, told McClatchy.
What new sanctions will be sought hasn’t yet been decided, U.S. and European officials said. In the past, it’s sometimes taken months to get agreement on new U.N. action from China and Russia, who are unenthusiastic about sanctions.
But one idea under discussion is to target Iran’s reliance on imported gasoline and other petroleum products. Despite its vast oil reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity and imports much of its gasoline. Sanctions could target shipping directly or dissuade insurers from insuring shipments to Iran.
The idea has the backing of some Israeli and U.S. officials but is controversial, because it could hurt Iran’s citizens as much as it would their leaders.
The international community offered the “freeze for a freeze” to Iran two weeks ago at a Geneva meeting in which a senior U.S. diplomat, Undersecretary of State William Burns, was present for nuclear talks for the first time.
Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States offered to suspend consideration of further sanctions for six weeks in return for Iran not expanding its enrichment of uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said this week that the country wouldn’t be dissuaded from its nuclear program, which Iran says is aimed at generating electricity, not making weapons. Diplomats at Iran’s U.N. mission weren’t available for comment Friday.
“I would say the Iranians sent mixed messages this week, and it’s really hard to tell what the bottom line is,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. “And so we’ll need to wait and see if they do respond formally.”
“You never know what the Iranians are going to do,” said a European diplomat, who requested anonymity to discuss diplomatic options.
While State Department officials say that there’s still time for diplomacy to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel’s leaders – who view an Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to the country’s existence – are increasingly blunt in warning that time is running out.
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz warned Friday that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough.
“The window of influence is becoming smaller and, I believe, is about to close,” said Mofaz, a possible candidate to replace outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
“Even diplomacy has its limits,” he said at an appearance at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The United Nations has imposed three previous rounds of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. They’ve failed to persuade Tehran to change course, but U.S. officials argue that they’ve compounded Iran’s economic problems and prompted a debate among Iran’s fractured leadership over the country’s course.
(McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this report.)