Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Obama wants China to play role in Indo-Pak relationship

Obama wants China to play role in Indo-Pak relationship

BEIJING: The United States appears to have accepted the idea that China could play an important role in the task of improving relationship between India and Pakistan. This is what emerges from a remark made by US President Barack Obama and the joint statement issued by the two governments in Beijing on Tuesday.

The US and China have agreed to work together to bring about “stable and peaceful relations in all of South Asia,” Obama said during his joint briefing with Chinese president Hu Jintao in Beijing. Hu, who spoke first in the briefing, did not mention Pakistan or South Asia.

“They (US and China) support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan,” the joint statement said.

This is a rare occasion when a US president has acknowledged that Beijing has a role to play in the India-Pakistan relationship. The move, if serious, runs counter to predictions of US foreign policy experts that the US would not acquiesce in a future Chinese hegemony in the region.

The question is whether the US was pressurized to give China a bigger role in the region in return for other favors in areas like the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues. The India government, which has always opposed third-party intervention in India-Pakistan dialogue, is likely to be worried about the new development.

The joint statement also shows Washington is agreeable to the idea of China playing a bigger role in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is another issue that can rattle New Delhi.

“The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region,” the joint statement further said explaining the parameters of US-China cooperation in the region.

The statement is bound to be examined closely at the Indian foreign ministry, which is also careful not to read too much into it. It is too early to judge the purpose behind the mention of India-Pakistan relations in the statement, an Indian official said.

A Chinese foreign ministry official later said the two leaders did not discuss specifics of the situation in South Asia because there was not much time available for that. There were a lot of other issues for them to discuss, he said.

But the joint statement is the product of weeks of discussions between two sides and the US administration officials did approve the phrases concerning China’s role in South Asia. source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Obama-wants-China-to-play-role-in-Indo-Pak-relationship/articleshow/5239771.cms

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Obama troubled by Iran post-election violence

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday he was deeply troubled by post-election violence in Iran and urged the Islamic republic to investigate voting irregularities in a way that would not result in bloodshed.

Obama said he would continue pursuing tough, direct dialogue with Tehran despite deep differences with incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was officially declared the winner of last Friday's vote.

"I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television," Obama told reporters after talks with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi at the White House.

"The democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected," he said.

Obama stressed that the United States respected Iran's sovereignty and could not judge how the election was run because neither U.S. nor international observers were present.

"The Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place," Obama said.

"It's important that moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views."

Obama said the world was inspired by Iranian demonstrators who marched against what they say was a rigged election.

"To those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was," Obama said.

Obama, a Democrat who has taken criticism from his Republican opponents for trying to engage with U.S. foes, said the election results did not alter his desire for direct diplomacy with Tehran.

"We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries and we'll see where it takes us," Obama said.

"The use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests."

http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20090616/760/twl-obama-troubled-by-iran-post-election.html

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Obama takes health care agenda on road

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, facing challenges to his ambitious health care overhaul from Congress, is visiting supporters outside the capital and turning to them to muster up momentum for one of his top legislative priorities.

Obama on Thursday readied to fly to Green Bay, Wis., to talk directly with voters about his proposals to spend $1.5 trillion over the next decade to cover uninsured Americans. Administration aides said the visit was designed for Obama to build support for a health care overhaul that has eluded Democrats for decades, as well to inject a personal angle into a debate that affects some 50 million Americans without insurance.

Obama's trip comes as a possible compromise emerged in the Senate to one of the most vexing obstacles in the health care reform debate. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., offered a plan to create health care cooperatives owned by groups of residents and small businesses. They would operate as nonprofits and without the government involvement that troubles Republicans and others about other public plan options. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, said Wednesday the idea could be key to a bipartisan health bill.

Administration officials said the president's speech in Green Bay would contain no new policies, but would instead put Obama — and the traveling White House press corps — in position to hear directly from people who are affected in the existing system. Those stories, Obama's political aides said, would be key to selling the final product.

"When the debate heats up — which it is already is beginning to — the most powerful thing that we have at the grass roots level are people's stories," said Dan Grandone, a political aide who runs Obama's re-election campaign-in-waiting in Wisconsin.

Ahead of Obama's trip, aides at the Democratic National Committee organized a conference call for a Muskego, Wis., woman to share her story with reporters. Kristine Reger's husband owns a small business and struggles to pay health care premiums for his employees; her sister racked up a $17,000 medical bill despite insurance.

"The time really is now," Reger said, urging Congress to take action.

Green Bay resident Laura Klitzka, a 35-year-old, married mother of two, was set to introduce Obama at a town hall-style meeting. Klitzka has metastatic breast cancer and carries about $12,000 in unpaid medical bills.

Before leaving Washington, the White House released a biography on Klitzka, saying "she doesn't want to lose their house over her illness and while she knows she won't be able to see her children grow up, she wants to be sure the time she has left with them is quality and not spent worrying about health care bills."

Such emotional pleas will be part of the hard sell Obama's supporters will employ in coming weeks. Although Obama publicly maintains all options are on the table — a posture he repeated when he met with senators at the White House on Wednesday — he has approved his political arm to push ahead with a strong political campaign in support of his favored positions.

Obama's grass-roots machine, known as Organizing for America, has collected hundreds of thousands of similar stories that eventually could shame lawmakers who don't sign onto Obama's broad plan.

"What we're doing right now is we're really priming the pump. I mean, we will ramp this activity up, we'll make more explicit calls for people to call members of Congress — every member of Congress that we can get a call into — as we approach key votes," Grandone said.

Obama has set a deadline of this year to pass health care legislation. He heads to Chicago on Monday to address the American Medical Association. He recently told political supporters during a private conference call that if reform doesn't happen this year, the opportunity would pass.

___

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.


Egypt's Mubarak says Obama has new approach to Islam

CAIRO (Reuters) – Barack Obama has presented a fresh understanding of Islam not shown by predecessors, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in his first interview since the U.S. president addressed the Muslim world from Cairo.

Obama called for a "new beginning" in ties between the United States and Muslims, many of whom felt targeted by the "war against terror" launched by former President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Under the past administration, there was a feeling that the Islamic world was a group of terrorists, Islam was hated and Muslims should be watched, and that the previous administration was scared of any Muslim," Mubarak said.

"But Obama came and said we will not fight Muslims and Islam. He is a sympathetic man, and says the United States will not fight Islam because Islam is a heavenly religion," he told state television in an interview broadcast late Wednesday.

Obama told Muslims in his June 4 speech that violent extremists had exploited tensions between Muslims and the West and that Islam was not part of the problem.

His speech was welcomed by many Muslims, though some said they wanted him to spell out specific actions to resolve long-running problems like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Mubarak said he discussed the Palestinian issue with the U.S. president after telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on a visit to Egypt prior to Obama's, that Israel needed to stop building settlements.

"Obama understands this issue well," Mubarak said.

"Obama wants to solve the issue (of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) and wants to do something, but we must help him on how to solve it ... and the Israelis must help him."

In his speech, Obama told both sides they had to declare publicly the realities he said they accept in private, a blunt message for a new U.S. president; his predecessors waited longer in office before tackling the thorny issue of Middle East peace.

Obama also said he would "personally pursue" a drive to set up a Palestinian state alongside Israel, a solution backed by Mubarak and other Arab states but not by Netanyahu.

(Writing by Edmund Blair, Editing by Lin Noueihed)


Monday, June 8, 2009

India is very important to us: US

Washington, June 9 (IANS) The Obama administration has said it would to 'work really hard' to strengthen ties with New Delhi as part of a strategic set of priorities, saying India is very important to the United States as the world's largest democracy.

'This region of the world is very important to us. India is very important to us, as the world's largest democracy,' State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters Monday ahead of a visit by America's top diplomat.

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns is due in New Delhi Wednesday for the first high-level bilateral consultations with the Manmohan Singh government after its return to power in last month's parliamentary elections.

'They did just have elections... but there was no specific triggering action for this trip as far as I know,' Kelly said when asked if the administration was waiting for the elections to be over before initiating a high level contact with New Delhi.

'I think it's going to be the broad bilateral agenda that we have with India,' he said noting that as the top State Department official, Burns regularly travels and carries out consultations. 'I think it's just one of his normal visits where he consults with his counterparts.'

Asked if he was expecting any visit from India, Kelly said: 'I'm not aware of it, and I just don't have anything right now for - on that.'

The spokesman's comments about India's importance came a day after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the ABC news channel that the US was going to work really hard on its relationships with India as its creates a strategic set of priorities for foreign relations.

'I spend a lot of my time on the problems that you would imagine:

Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Middle East, Iran. But I'm also working to create a strategic set of priorities that will guide our efforts,' she said Sunday.

'So, for example, there are specific regional and country-based endeavours that we are teeing up. We are going to work really hard on our relationships with, for example, Indonesia, and Turkey, and India,' said Clinton.

In New Delhi Burns is expected to prepare the ground for the former First Lady's own first visit to India since taking the helm of US foreign policy establishment. Although no date has been officially announced yet, the visit is likely in July.


http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090609/890/twl-india-is-very-important-to-us-us.html

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Barack Obama's marriage was on brink of collapse: Book

LONDON: Barack and Michelle Obama are said to be the most romantic ever First Couple to lead America. But now a new book has claimed that it was not always wedded bliss for them -- their marriage was once on the brink of collapse.

The book, 'Renegade', about Barack's unlikely run for the presidency, recounts a tense period in 2000 when the Obamas' marriage was on the verge of collapse because of his restless political hunger and the family's shattered finances.

"There was little conversation and even less romance. She was angry at his selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful," the Birmingham-born Richard Wolffe wrote in his book.

At the time, Barack was stuck on the lowest step of the political ladder. As a mere state senator in Illinois, he had challenged a popular incumbent in a Democratic primary by running against Bobby Rush from Chicago. He was trounced by a dismal 2-1 margin.

Michelle was new to motherhood, at home with their first daughter Malia, just two years old at the time.

"She (Michelle) hated the failed race for Congress in 2000 and their marriage was strained by the time their younger daughter Sasha was born. Politics seemed like a waste of time to Michelle," according to the book.

And, Barack's troubles were compounded when he found that he was not on the guest list for 2000 Democratic National Convention that year as he had annoyed party officials.

The book has also described the moment Michelle first realised she was in love with her future husband -- it was 18 years ago and he was being paid to train some 120 black church leaders how to be community organisers in the church basement, 'The Daily Telegraph' reported.

"There was really something powerful there. And I was like, 'This guy is different. He is really different in addition to being nice and funny and cute and all that'," the US first lady has recounted in the book.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US/Barack-Obamas-marriage-was-on-brink-of-collapse-Book-/articleshow/4627387.cms

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Obama to send Holbrooke to Pakistan's refugee camps

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama is sending a team of officials led by Richard Holbrooke, his special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, to visit refugee camps housing lakhs of people displaced as a result of the military offensive in Swat and adjoining areas of NWFP.

Leading a team of officials from various wings of the Obama administration, including the State Department and the Pentagon, Holbrooke is expected to have a first hand assessment of the situation and then recommend how best the US can accelerate relief measures, informed sources said.

As of now there is no plan for Holbrooke to either visit Kabul or New Delhi, but things could change as the tour progresses, diplomatic sources said.

Given that the military action has been carried out at the US' instance despite initial resistance by Pakistan, the Obama administration considers itself duty bound to mobilise international support to speed up relief process for the nearly three million displaced, officials said.

The UN has appealed for $543 million to help those uprooted by the fighting between government forces and militants in the North West Frontier Province since May 2.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) about ten per cent of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) are living in camps and the rest are staying with friends or in communal buildings, such as schools.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Obama-to-send-Holbrooke-to-Pakistans-refugee-camps/articleshow/4602350.cms

Friday, May 22, 2009

Obama preparing benchmarks for Pakistan

WASHINGTON: Under pressure from lawmakers to put accountability clauses for US aid to Pakistan, the Obama Administration on Friday said it is preparing a set of benchmarks for Islamabad to gauge its commitment and success in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Being prepared by the different wings of the US Government including Pentagon and the Department of State, some of these benchmarks would soon be made public, a State Department official said.

"We hope to make some of the benchmarks public. But there would be things, which we can't release to the public," the official said.

The process has not been completed yet, but is likely to be over soon, he said, adding: "We know it is important, so we are working hard on it. We hope to make the general benchmarks public."

The move to establish the benchmarks comes after a number of lawmakers both from the House of Representatives and the US Senate in the past few weeks have alleged that there is no accountability measure for Pakistan in the Obama Administration's proposal to give USD 7.5 billion civilian aid in next five years and another couple of billion of military assistance to the country.

At a Congressional hearing last week, some Senators had threatened to oppose the proposal in this regard in the absence of benchmarks or accountability measures, as they alleged that given the past history of Pakistan it is most likely that the aid money would not be used for the purpose it is meant.

"You're asking us to vote for a whole new set of money without knowing whether there are going to be benchmarks, without knowing whether we have a better system of accountability. I personally can't continue down that road, as much as I think this is critical," Robert Menendez, the Democrat Senator from New Jersey, said last week.

At the same hearing Republican Senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker asked special US envoy for Af-Pak Richard Holbrooke: "We are asking you to tell us what you're going to do with this money after we pass the bill... For us to pass a large amount of funding and yet then ask later for you to tell us what you're going to do with it to me seems backwards."

"I think we are potentially embarking on a monumental mistake, whether we end up doing the right things or not, by this body not discussing this in the way that it should and being fully bought into something that I think is going to be a part of our country's efforts for years to come, especially since we are, in fact, doubling down, if you will, in Afghanistan," Croker said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Obama-preparing-benchmarks-for-Pakistan/articleshow/4563693.cms

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

US rushing $5m emergency aid to Pakistan

WASHINGTON: The US is rushing an initial $5 million in emergency aid to Pakistan to help people uprooted by the fighting against extremists, according to the state department.

The US had urged the Pakistanis to launch the military action that in recent days has driven hundreds of thousands of people from their villages.

The US embassy in Pakistan and officials of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) were evaluating the needs of civilians fleeing the Swat valley and surrounding regions in northwest Pakistan, state department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday.

"We are of course very concerned about the well-being of civilians who are fleeing the fighting in the area," he said. "And we have personnel, USAID personnel, on the ground in Pakistan, not in the Swat valley, but in Pakistan, who are directing assistance to help them."

"We've provided a substantial amount of money through the International Organisation for Migration," Kelly said. "This is primarily to provide tents, provide shelter and emergency relief supplies, food and medicine to the affected populations."

Kelly said the $5 million was just an initial amount.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US-rushing-5m-emergency-aid-to-Pakistan/articleshow/4523566.cms

US elected to Human Rights Council

US elected to Human Rights Council

United Nations, May 13 (PTI) The United States was elected for the first time to the Geneva based 47-member Human Rights Council, after the Obama administration decided to reverse the policy of previous Bush regime to boycott the body.

The Bush administration had worked hard to replace the Human Rights Commission when it was established in 2006.

American Ambassador Susan Rice said after the 192-member General Assembly elected the United States, Washington still considers the body to be flawed but is looking forward to work from within to strengthen and reform the body.

Also elected for the first time are Belgium, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan and Norway to begin their three-year term from June 19.

Among the nations re-elected, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia are among the countries where human rights record has been questioned by the activist groups.

A major criticism of the Council is that its procedures allow human rights violators to shield one another.

The Council meets three times a year and is expected to review the human rights record of member States.

The United States got 167 votes, Norway 179 and Belgium 177 from the European and others group. PTI

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Barack Obama torpedos Bangalore -- again

WASHINGTON: There he goes again, bashing Bangalore.

Not for the first time, US President Barack Obama invoked India’s much-celebrated economic hotspot, which has become an all-encompassing metaphor to describe everything from job loss to globalization, to rally Americans for a protectionist cause.

At a White House event on Monday to unveil tax reforms aimed at forcing American multinationals to pay corporate taxes -- and keep jobs -- at home, Obama lashed out at the current US system, saying it encouraged paying ''lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York.''

The US President’s beef wasn’t really with Bangalore; the barb was aimed more at US firms and their wily ways. But Bangalore has become a catch-all term to hang US economic woes on. Obama has done it at least three times.

Bangalore has lent its name to many things in history, from a torpedo made during World War II (depicted in the movie Saving Private Ryan) to a stealth destroyer built for the Indian Navy. There was even a race horse named Bangalore that took part in the Grand National Derby in Liverpool in 1842.

But none of them have gained as much currency as the neologism ''Bangalored,'' a term that has galloped into dictionaries to describe loss of jobs due to offshoring.

For a while, the city might have felt good at the international attention. But with repeated -- and accusatory -- use, especially by the US President, it is starting to sound like an abomination -- or should that be an Obamination?

Across the world, long time natives of the city -- present company included -- are frequently thrown words (or looks) tantamount to ''aren’t you the guys taking away our jobs?'' when the place of origin is disclosed.

On Monday, Obama was at it again, banging up Bangalore (when it could well have been Beijing or Bucharest if he was so into alliteration) and buffing Buffalo, a city in upstate New York that thrives on foreign tourists because of its proximity to Niagara Falls.

The crux of the Obama argument is that under current US tax code, American corporations with subsidiaries in foreign countries can defer paying US taxes on the profits of those subsidiaries until the money is transferred back to this country.

As long as those earnings are plowed back into the foreign subsidiaries (which firms do, creating more jobs there), they can avoid paying taxes indefinitely. If the money is brought back to the US, corporations can subtract foreign taxes already paid.

The Obama plan unveiled on Monday would, among other things, prohibit US firms from receiving foreign tax credits on income that is not subject to US taxes. It will also end a provision that lets the firms legally shift income from one foreign subsidiary to another, thus perpetually ducking taxes.

As a result, companies such as General Electric, Google, Intel, and Hewlett-Packard, all of which have operations in Bangalore, will lose tax credits and be forced to pony up more tax dollars to Uncle Sam.

Whether the multinationals, which get more bang -- or Bangalore -- for the buck outside the United States in terms of productivity will take this lying down is another matter. Congress has to approve the plan, and not all lawmakers are in its favor. Past attempts to pass similar laws have failed. The multinationals may yet torpedo it with stealthy lobbying.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4484787.cms?TOI_mostread

US House committee approves $400m for Pakistan counterinsurgency

WASHINGTON: A House of Representatives committee has approved $400 million for a new Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, but not before a key member expressed doubts about US strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The $400 million requested by the Obama administration for the fund to bolster efforts against the Taliban and extremist groups forms part of the 2009 Supplemental Bill funding ongoing US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting economic and other needs in Pakistan.

At just over $94 billion, the measure exceeds President Barack Obama's initial request by more than $9 billion. Of the total, $81.6 billion is for US military and intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than $4 billion goes to help expand and improve capabilities of Afghanistan's security forces, with over $1.5 billion for development, agriculture and rule of law programmes.

The bill has provisions to expand US government oversight of aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It requires a presidential report to Congress on whether Afghanistan and Pakistan are demonstrating the necessary commitment, capability, conduct and unity of purpose to warrant the continuation of Obama's strategy announced last March.

Before approving the budget, the Appropriations Committee's Democratic chairman David Obey dismissed suggestions in media reports of differences with the White House but said he remains skeptical that a favourable outcome can be achieved either in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The measure imposes neither conditions nor timetables, but requires Congress and the administration to assess progress, he said.

"These are not conditions, as I said, these are not timelines. It is simply a requirement for a hard nose (sharply realistic), and I would help fish or cut bait evaluation, but it is up to the administration and it is up to the Congress to evaluate the administration's report at that time," he said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US-House-committee-approves-400m-for-Pakistan-counterinsurgency/articleshow/4497877.cms

Monday, May 4, 2009

Obama to crack down on business taxes

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama plans to propose changes to tax policy certain to be unpopular with corporations with international divisions and Top 20 Global Banks individuals who use tax havens. Obama also plans to ask Congress for 800 new federal tax agents to enforce his broad requests.

Obama's two-piece plan, to be announced at the White House on Monday, would eliminate some tax deductions for companies that earn profits in countries with low tax rates, as well as consider US citizens who use tax havens such as the Bahamas or Cayman Islands guilty of violating US tax laws.

If Obama wins congressional approval for the changes-and he faces a challenge on Capitol Hill-it could deliver $210 billion in tax revenue over the next decade.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was to join Obama for the 11 a.m. (1500 GMT) comments.

Officials described the administration's plan ahead of the announcement on the condition of anonymity so they wouldn't upstage the president's remarks. However, they acknowledged the political challenges facing the plan. The administration won't seek a complete repeal of overseas tax benefits and, although the rule changes are narrower than some anticipated, business leaders still oppose them as a tax hike.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Obama-to-crack-down-on-business-taxes/articleshow/4482503.cms

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Obamanomics: The First 100 Days of Obama Economics

.
.
.
Press reactions to the first 100 Days and Obama's Economic Policies


Washington, 30 April 2009. The changing of the guard from the Republican Presidency of George Bush (remember when he seemed unassailable?) to Democrat and first black President Barak Obama, was epochal. With the Financial Crisis dominating everything else, however, we soon forgot about that and focused on trying to work out just how bad things were and would get.
The first 100 days of a Presidency is both symbolic and indicative in understanding future direction for the United States of America. With the economy being front and center of the agenda, this is a good time to analyze the emerging theories of Obamanomics, and what the press and analysts have to say about the first 100 days of Obama economics.

Fareed Zakaria of Nesweek.com believes that no previous President has faced challenges so big and yet achieved so much. He reminds us that when Obama first started campaigning in 2007 the Dow was at 14,000 and the boom was still going strong, and asks why Obama has been so successful?

Although his calm leadership style, teamwork and organisational tightness and are all credit, Zakaria believes that the key is that Obama has read the moment and mood of the country correctly. The country has become more liberal, with 41 per cent of Americans calling themselves Democrats, 32 per cent independent and only 24 per cent Republican.

Zakaria is particularly impressed with the ‘don’t let a good crisis go to waste’ strategy. Obama’s team have taken their long-term Obamanomic economic policies, centered around health care reform, clean energy and wealth redistribution, and used the Financial Crisis as a reason and momentum to make dramatic shifts in national policy.


Michael Tomasky of the Guardian says that not much can be achieved in the first 100 days; rather that it is key to understand what tone is being set. He says that the tone has changed from one of a ‘daddy state’ built on fear under Bush and Cheney, to one of citizens engaged in grown up debate.

Tomasky further believes that the effort on Health Care will put Obama into the history books. He describes it as the piece of the New Deal puzzle that Roosevelt didn’t complete. The remarkable defection of Arlen Specter from the GOP to the Dems on Tuesday 28 April means that the 60 votes needed to pass the health care plan is in reach – but with the contentious nature of the bill and intensive lobbying from insurance companies and doctors, reform could still fail as it has 6 or 7 times previously. Tomasky therefore pays particular attention to the fact that the reconciliation process might be used to push through health care reform with a simple majority of 51 in the Senate.

David Paul Kuhn at RealClearPolitics.com has looked at Obama by the numbers. Obama’s approval rating at 100 days is in the mid range of the previous 10 presidents. Obama has polled a 63 per cent approval rating, compared to 83 per cent for Kennedy (the highest) and 55 per cent for Clinton (the lowest).

He has the biggest partisan gap (between Reps and Dems) of 60 per cent, but Kuhn points out that is partly because the GOP has become smaller and more right wing. He also tracks the relationship between the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and Obama’s approval rating as can be seen in the graphic at the top of the page. There is a partial correlation between the two, although Obama did not go down all the way with the drop to the DJIA low, and has not benefited from all of the bullishness since then.

It is not all glowing endorsements, of course. The Republican-leaning writers and analysts complain that the supposed bi-Partisan/ post-Partisan approach is gloss rather than reality. They also complain that Obamanomics will ‘bury future generations of Americans beneath a mountain of debt’.

David Frum writing in the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research wrote that President Obama has ‘placed at the core of his economic policy an approach to energy that can only be described as fantasy’. He has the idea that the cheapest form of energy, coal, would be replaced not by the next cheapest, which are hydro and nuclear, but the most expensive, wind and solar, is ‘delusional at best, deceptive at worst’.

But perhaps the strongest criticism, surprisingly, has come from left-wing economists. The moral and spiritual leader of this thinking is 2008 Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman. He believes that Summers and Geithner have the best intentions, but have been mesmerised by Wall St. and the view that big banks need to be at the center of the recovery.

Krugman has long argued that the big banks are insolvent, and are now Zombie Banks kept alive by government finance. He believes they should have been placed into temporary receivership, and restructured into good and bad banks, much as the US did at the end of the Savings & Loan crisis. He and similar thinkers say the Public-Private partnership privatizes potential gains (by big financial institutions) but nationalizes loses (thanks to the guarantees that the Fed and Treasury put in place), what they call ‘American socialism’.

If their worst fears come true, then trillions more in government money will be needed, and the high approval ratings that President Obama now has will melt away with US economic prospects. Let us all hope that does not come to pass.

Vladimir Gonzales, EconomyWatch.com

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Most US banks have adequate capital: Geithner

WASHINGTON: Most US banks have enough capital to keep lending but a pile of bad debts is fostering doubts about their health and slowing a recovery Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Tuesday.

Testifying before the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors the Treasury's efforts to bail out troubled banks, he said toxic assets were "congesting" the US financial system and hindering efforts to get credit flowing normally.

"Uncertainty about the value of legacy assets is constraining the ability of financial institutions to raise private capital," Geithner said, adding that he hoped a public-private investment program will improve the ability to put a price on troubled mortgage and other assets.

Earlier, the special inspector general for the government's bailout effort said the toxic-asset plan offered opportunities for fraud and abuse and warned it should be bolstered by tough conflict-of-interest rules.

Neil Barofsky also said subsidies for the public-private partnerships to buy assets could expose taxpayers to higher losses without matching increases in the potential for profit. He called for tough screening of investors as well as forced disclosure of ownership stakes and any dealings by the funds.

The government has injected hundreds of billions of dollars into banks to help them weather the damage from bad mortgage loans and is running stress tests on 19 of the largest banks to see whether they are prepared to deal with a further downturn.

In a letter to panel chairman Elizabeth Warren, Geithner said the Treasury still has about $134.5 billion available out of an originally approved $700 billion for bolstering banks' capital and said he wouldn't need to ask Congress for more.

STOCKS GET A LIFT

"Currently, the vast majority of banks have more capital than they need to be considered well capitalized by their regulators," Geithner said, a comment that gave stocks a lift in morning trading.

But he conceded there were persistent worries about the health of the banking system and said that was impeding a broader economic recovery.

"Concerns about economic conditions -- combined with the destabilizing impact of distressed 'legacy assets' -- have created an environment under which uncertainty about the health of individual banks has sharply reduced lending across the financial system," he said.


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International_Business/Most_US_banks_have_adequate_capital_Geithner/articleshow/4432484.cms

Slowdown: Obama's cowardice hits India too

NEW DELHI: India cannot return to rapid growth till the world economy recovers. And that cannot happen till the US economy recovers. Alas, the Obama administration is prolonging the recession by avoiding surgery to remove dead wood from its financial sector.

Some call this cowardice. Others, such as former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, writing in The Atlantic, say Wall Street has captured the White House. This is no longer a leftist accusation. Johnson says the US now resembles Russia, where business oligarchs and government officials protect each others’ financial interests, at the expense of the economy.

This is surely an exaggeration. Yet it highlights the priority given by the Obama administration to save the titans of Wall Street rather than end the recession quickly.

It is now clear that the toxic assets-securities and loans with impaired values - of US banks are $2-2.8 trillion, while tangible assets are only $1 trillion. Technically, the financial sector is comprehensively bust.

It needs to recognise the losses, writing off trillions. But for that somebody must first inject trillions of new equity into the banks. Private investors will not do so. The market solution would be to force insolvent banks into bankruptcy, with shareholders and creditors taking a huge hit, and their good assets being auctioned (at bargain prices) to surviving financiers. Many titans of Wall Street will disappear, but others will rise to take their place.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Slowdown-Obamas-cowardice-hits-India-too/articleshow/4432443.cms

Monday, April 20, 2009

Obama proposes $100 billion US loan for IMF

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Monday proposed a $100 billion US loan to the International Monetary Fund to boost the IMF's resources and urged a bigger stake in the IMF for emerging powers.

In a letter to US congressional leaders, Obama said the US funding "does not represent a budgetary expenditure or any increase in the deficit since it effectively represents an exchange of assets."

The $100 billion is part of commitments made by Group of 20 countries at a London summit on April 2, which agreed to triple IMF resources to a total of $750 billion to help the IMF respond to crises in emerging market economies as a result of the global financial crisis and economic downturn.

The US funding will boost the IMF's so-called New Arrangements to Borrow, or NAB, a facility which allows member countries to provide credit to the IMF to deal with crises that may threaten the stability of the global financial system.

Source: TOI

Obama said the NAB was "woefully inadequate" to deal with the severe economic and financial crisis.

"The deteriorating conditions threaten to worsen the recessions in these countries and could cause currencies to collapse," Obama wrote.

"Together, these factors, particularly if they become more acute, will further lower global growth and, as we saw during the Asian financial crisis, they will cause US growth, jobs, and exports to fall even more sharply," he added.

He said an enlargement of the NAB facility of up to $500 billion would allow for increased participation by emerging market economies, in particular China and India. Chinese officials have already indicated that Beijing plans to contribute $40 billion to the IMF through a bond issued to its central bank by the Fund.

Obama said countries were looking to the US to deliver on its G20 commitment, indicating that other governments could follow the US lead and contribute to the IMF.

Brand leaves telephone message to Obama

.
.
.
Brand leaves telephone message to Obama


London, Apr 20 (PTI) British comedian Rusell Brand best known for leaving lewd phone messages to actor Andrew Sachs as a part of a prank, is upto the trick again and it is none other than American President Barack Obama who is at the receiving end.

Brand and 'Oasis' rocker Noel Gallagher teamed up on a radio show 'Talk Sport'and decided to leave a telephonic message to Obama.

The pair were hosting a special programme discussing the latest football news and decided to call up Barack Obama to ask if he really is a fan of the English football club, West Ham, as claimed by him during his recent visit to Britain.

They failed to get through to him but were asked to leave a message, reported Daily Mirror online.

Russell goes onto say, "Dear Barack Obama, we are calling you to find out if you are in fact the world's most-famous West Ham supporter as it is claimed.

"I haven't ever seen you at Upton Park and what formation do you suggest Gian Franco Zola plays?", says the comedian while Gallagher chips in, "This answer phone message better not jeopardize my American visa situation." Brand made his return to radio with the show, after being axed by his radio station earlier for the offensive prank on Andrew Sachs. PTI


Thursday, April 16, 2009

Will reform 'monstrous' tax code: Obama

.
.
.
Will reform 'monstrous' tax code: Obama

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama promised Americans his administration would reform the “monstrous” US tax system as millions faced the dreaded annual deadline on Wednesday for filing income tax returns.

Obama used Tax Day, a national ritual of public frustration due to the confusing tax code, to underscore his drive to cut taxes for many Americans while increasing spending to jolt the US out of its worst recession in decades.

Opposition Republicans seized the chance to rail against what they see as wasteful spending by his new Democratic administration, and some of Obama’s grass-roots critics staged “tea party” protests in several US cities.

Obama is pushing a $3.5 trillion budget plan that Republicans and some Democrats say carries too much deficit spending and too few tax cuts. Seeking to tap into public exasperation, Obama said: “We need to simplify a monstrous tax code that is far too complicated for most Americans to understand.”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US/Will_reform_monstrous_tax_code_Obama/articleshow/4412065.cms

Obamas made $2.65m in 2008

.
.
.
Obamas made $2.65m in 2008

US president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle made $2.65 million in 2008, mostly from royalties of his two best-selling books, the White House said on Wednesday. The Obamas released their tax returns on the April 15 deadline for Americans to file their 2008 income tax documents. The Obamas paid $855,323 in federal income tax.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US/Obamas-made-265m-in-2008/articleshow/4412069.cms

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

S President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh concerned over Pak terror


LONDON, April 1 – Setting the tone for their first meeting, US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today voiced deep concern over the growing hold of terrorist elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan with the Indian leadership getting increasingly worried over the dangerous situation in its neighbourhood, reports PTI. Singh, who will meet the new American leader here tomorrow immediately after the conclusion of the G-20 summit, said that “the epicentre of terrorism” was in Pakistan and “the world community has to come to grips with this harsh reality”.

While he had not studied Obama’s recently-announced strategy to stabilise Afghanistan and Pakistan, now known as “AfPak” plan, Singh expressed the hope that “whatever the world community plans to do they will pay adequate attention that terrorism ceases to be a problem in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan.”

The Prime Minister’s remarks come in the backdrop of the audacious terror strikes in Lahore during the past one month, including Monday’s attack on a police training school, about 15 km from the border with India, which is now deeply concerned at the “really dangerous situation” so close to it.

Recognising that terrorists were making frontal attacks on the security forces, India has stepped up its vigil.

Slamming Pakistan for not taking “effective action” to deal with terrorism, the Prime Minister said that Islamabad is “either not able to control them (LeT and other militant groups) or they are not willing to control them.”

“The world has a responsibility that Pakistan lives up to the promise that it will not allow its territory to be used to promote acts of terror directed against India,” he said. ASSAM TRIBUNE

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Return of outsourced jobs not good enough for US: Obama

WASHINGTON: In the midst of its worst recession in decades, President Barack Obama says it would be better to create new jobs that can't be outsourced instead of bringing back such low paying jobs from other countries.

"Not all of these jobs are going to come back," he told a questioner during an "Online Townhall" from the White House who asked when would jobs outsourced to other countries come back and be made available to the unemployed workers in the US.

"And it probably wouldn't be good for our economy for a bunch of these jobs to come back because, frankly, there's no way that people could be getting paid a living wage on some of these jobs -- at least in order to be competitive in an international setting."

Obama said a lot of the outsourcing has to do with the fact that "our economy -- if it's dependent on low-wage, low-skill labour -- it's very hard to hang on to those jobs because there's always a country out there that pays lower wages than the US.

"And so we've got to go after the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the future," he said. "That's why it's so important to train our folks more effectively and that's why it's so important for us to find new industries -- building solar panels or wind turbines or the new biofuel -- that involve these higher-value, higher-skill, higher-paying jobs.

"So what we've got to do is create new jobs that can't be outsourced," Obama said.

The president also asked Americans "to be patient and persistent about job creation because I don't think that we've lost all the jobs we're going to lose in this recession."

"I don't want people to think that in one or two months suddenly we're going to see net job increases," he said striking a note of caution. "It's going to take some time for the steps that we've taken to filter in."

Other questions -- some of which came from the live audience -- focused primarily on health care, job loss, mortgage payments and energy.

Source: TOI

Monday, March 16, 2009

Obama faces shoot-down dilemma with North Korea launch

WASHINGTON: If the North Korean regime goes ahead next month with a rocket launch, US President Barack Obama will face the dilemma of whether or not to shoot it down.

A decision to knock the rocket out would assume US missile defense weaponry would work as designed, something skeptics question.

Even if military success was assured, Obama would have to weigh the risk of retaliation by the Stalinist regime along with inflaming international opinion.

The window for a decision would be a matter of minutes.

In the early stage after launch during the "boost phase," it would remain unclear if the rocket was bound for space with a satellite as North Korea has announced.

"You don't know from the path it's going on at that point whether it's headed to put something into space or to reach the US or somewhere close," said Bruce Bennett of the Rand Corporation in California.

During those early minutes, the president could order US Aegis destroyers and cruisers in the Sea of Japan to knock out the suspected missile, possibly on grounds that it posed a threat to Japan.

Similar US Navy ships successfully shot down an errant satellite last year over the Pacific.

Further into the launch, the trajectory of the missile would become apparent, either heading towards space or on a lower sub-orbital path like that used by intercontinental ballistic missiles.

"By the time you get over the Pacific depending upon the design of their system, they may or may not have released the satellite, but you have a better idea of whether it's really trying to head toward the United States or put something into orbit," Bennett said.

At that point, Obama could use the second line of defense, interceptors based in Alaska and California, to shoot down the missile. The reliability of that system has been fiercely debated, but the military says it has worked in 37 of 47 tests.

Due to Russia's reluctance, the Security Council has yet to issue a clear warning to North Korea ahead of the April launch. Washington and its allies say any launch would violate UN resolutions.

The absence of Security Council backing would make it diplomatically difficult for Washington to pull the trigger, especially as Obama blasted his predecessor for backing unilateral action.

In its public statements, the US administration has not appeared to be laying the ground for firing on the missile, said Michael O'Hanlon of the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

"I'm dubious that we will or that we should," unless there was a direct threat to Japan or legal backing from the Security Council, he said.

The best case scenario for Obama would be another failed launch by the North Koreans, which was the result in 2006.

If Obama opts for restraint and the North Koreans stage a successful launch, the regime will have demonstrated that is making progress in its missile program.

And analysts say it would provide a boost to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il as it would come before South Korea's first domestic satellite launch in June.

The more hawkish view is that the United States would then be drawn into a Cold War-era type of standoff, potentially blackmailed by a regime wielding the threat of ICBMs.

But some analysts say the regime is still some distance away from being able to manufacture a nuclear warhead that could be fit onto a missile and survive re-entry into the atmosphere.

Perhaps the greatest risk of ordering a "shoot-down" is that it might fail, an embarrassing outcome that would hand a triumph to North Korea.

"That would significantly undermine the credibility of our missile defense program, both within Congress which would likely say then why are we spending all this money, and with our allies who we are trying to encourage to become involved in the program," Bennett said.

Gauging the right US diplomatic response will also present a dilemma, analysts say, as North Korea might see a softer tone as a sign of weakness while a heavier reaction might be exactly what the regime is looking for.

In 1993, the regime tested another new US president, Bill Clinton, in a similar way, announcing it would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

While the regime is portrayed as erratic, North Korea is "totally predictable" when it comes to missile tests, said Andrew Grotto, an analyst at the Center for American Progress.

"They test missiles whenever they want attention, fear that they are losing diplomatic initiative, or to remind countries in the region that they are a force to be reckoned with," he said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Obama_faces_shoot-down_dilemma_with_North_Korea_launch/articleshow/4274619.cms?TOI_latestnews

Friday, March 13, 2009

Need to work with other countries on economic crisis: Obama

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama has said there is need to coordinate with other countries on the economic crisis to ensure a simultaneous match of the efforts being undertaken by America in this regard.

"We've got to do some coordination with other countries in order to assure that what we do here in the United States corresponds with strong efforts overseas," Obama said in his remarks after meeting Paul Volcker, Chairman of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Obama has been talking with the world leaders in the past few weeks in this regard, and this would be his agenda at the upcoming G-20 summit at London next month, which among others would also be attended by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Later the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "The President and the economic team believe that it's important that we monitor what will and has been done by different countries in order to make up for the projected downturn in GDP and how that affects the global economy."

Source: TOI

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Obama to meet with Chinese Foreign Minister


Obama to meet with Chinese Foreign Minister

Washington (PTI): In an effort to defuse the increasing tension between US and China, American President Barack Obama on Thursday invited visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi to the White House.

The latest round of tension between the two countries is on the standoff over an American ship in South China Sea and Beijing's anger over US's recent statements on Tibet. A meeting with Obama was not on the original schedule of Mr. Yang, who is on a three-day official visit to the US.

"The President looks forward to discussing issues of mutual concern with the Chinese Foreign Minister, including our global economic crisis and the incident involving the boats of the two countries will be on that list for discussion," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Mr. Gibbs said the naval confrontation will not overshadow the meeting. "But I think the President will continue to make clear our country's position," he said. "I would probably put that under the global economic crisis and a number of other issues that will be on the agenda that the President looks forward to talking to the Foreign Minister about," he said.

Earlier in the day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after her meeting with Mr. Yang, said she raised US's concerns about the recent incident involving the American Navy ship "Impeccable" and the Chinese vessels in the South China Sea.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Obama’s Pakistan policy


— Chintamani Mahapatra Is Afghanistan going to be the next Vietnam for the Obama Administration? The question has been raised in the United States and elsewhere in the light of the new presidency’s determination to carry on the fight against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda. This is clearly reflected in the open statements made by President Barack Obama and his officials as well as the recent decision to raise the level of US troops in that country. On the other hand, there is a powerful resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan.

In fact, the fast Talibanisation of Pakistan, it’s government’s inability to reverse the process within its, territory, further erosion of Pakistani Army’s failure to extend its control over the North West Frontier Provinces and the Americans desperate efforts to seek alternative sources of civil supplies to the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan all indicate that difficult days are ahead for President Barrack Obama.

Although the Obama Administration has decided to prune down the military operations in Iraq and lay more focus on Afghanistan, it is yet to devise any new credible strategy to win this war. Rather, it has carried oil with its predecessor’s policy of drone attacks against the insurgents in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan. Notwithstanding that it has created a new post of a Special Envoy and appointed veteran diplomat Richard Holbrook to tackle the problem in a more sustained manner. It has also promised more activities on the reconstruction front even while combating the insurgents. However, all these do not signal any bold new initiative to handle Afghanistan.

Absence of any novelty in Obama’s approach towards Pakistan and Afghanistan is reflected in the recent events, where the US Administration appears to have capitulated to Pakistan Government’s tricky steps. The US has not been able to extract fruitful cooperation from Islamabad to bring to Justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai terrorist attacks; where the dead included some US citizens as well.

The US response to the release of AQ Khan, the dreaded alleged smuggler and black marketer in nuclear materials, from House arrest is also uninspiring Soon after Obama’s special envoy left Pakistan, the Zardari Government restored Islamic legal practices in Swat–a beautiful valley that has gone under the control of the ‘Taliban. Musharraf took a similar step in Waziristan and achieved little. Now Zardari has begun his appeasement policy and the Obama Administration appears to have had no effective response.

Several US Administrations, particularly since Regan’s have pampered Pakistan, tolerated its counter-productive policies and unhealthy practices only to serve their own interest in the region. For example, President Ronald Reagan and senior Bush looked the other way when Pakistan was pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapon programme on the ground that Islamabad’s support to their Mahan strategy was crucial. President Bill Clinton ignored China’s continuing supply of nuclear programme-related equipment, such as ring-magnets, to Pakistan and backed the passage of the Brown Amendment. President George Bush bolstered Pakistan’s military arsenals in exchange of Musharraf’s support to America’s war on terrorists.

Will Obama adopt a new method to tackle the issue? His Administration certainly has come up with fiery statements on Pakistan. During his presidential election campaign Barrack Obama vowed to take action against Al Qaeda agents with or without Pakistan government’s cooperation, if actionable intelligence was available He criticized Bush for supplying weapons and equipment to the Pakistani military-, most of which were not suitable to fight terrorists. He advised Islamabad to stop considering India as an enemy and focus on the bigger threat, which is terrorism.

Tragically such strong statements have not been accompanied by ground action. There is already growing criticism in the US that instead of combating terrorism and returning home, good money of the taxpayers has been wasted oil reconstruction activities. Tile goal should have been well-defined and confined to tackling terrorism alone. In fact, during the early years of post-Taliban era, a large number of Afghans were positive about the United States. Today, majority of them are not upbeat of the US role in that country.

Besides, there are others who point out that the muscular approach to fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda hasn’t borne fruit either. Last year alone, the US aircraft carrier, off the coast of Pakistan had launched about 1900 sorties to provide protection to both the US and British forces. It had even dropped bombs. This resulted in all increase in the number of civilian casualties, which further contributed to the growing anti-American sentiment in the country. Well, it’s over seven years since the Lis military intervened in Afghanistan but the net result is that there has been persistent drugs production and all expansion of Taliban’s influence in the country.

Significantly, Afghan President Karzai has increasingly been critical of the US and NATO role in his country. Sooner than later the Obama Administration is likely to distance itself from Karzai. It so happens that elections are due in August and in all likelihood the US would be looking for a new leader in Kabul. But, is it going to solve the problem” Musharraf America’s pet ally in the war on terror recently fell from grace and a new civilian government came to power in Islamabad. What has been happening since is an open secret.

The Obama Administration needs to realise that a surge in the number of military men call be no answer. Where the British failed to control in 50 years and the Soviets in 10, the Americans have come to try the same. More than seven years have passed and victory is no where in sight. Does Holbrook have a magic wand and can lie replicate a Bosnia-type solution? In all probability he will try to do just that. But Afghanistan is no Bosnia and Pakistan is not Serbia. However, there is similarity in one crucial aspect: Pakistan must be tamed to stabilise Afghanistan. What Obama requires is a novel approach to Pakistan and the Afghan problem will most likely be resolved.

The Taliban in Afghanistan has only one strong source of support and i.e. powerful elements in Pakistan. Al Qaeda has only one robust geographical presence and that is in the border regions of Pakistan. Unless the core issue is addressed, the periphery will keep burning.

Indeed, unless Obama takes bold step is Pakistan, Afghanistan may very well be his Vietnam. To get out of Vietnam, President Richard Nixon had to make peace with China. To get out of Afghanistan with respect, President Obama may have to wage a sophisticated battle against elements within Pakistan.–1NFA ASSAM TRIBUNE

Friday, February 27, 2009

US combat in Iraq to end by August 2010: Obama


CAMP LEJEUNE (AP): President Barack Obama on Friday moved to fulfill the defining promise of his campaign, saying all U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of August 2010.

``I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end,'' Obama declared in his remarks to Marines and military leadership at the North Carolina base.

But in the same speech, Obama announced that the vast majority of those involved in the pullout will not leave this year. Obama also said that tens of thousands of U.S. personnel will remain behind afterward.

``The most important decisions that have to be made about Iraq's future must now be made by Iraqis,'' the president said at the sprawling Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, base, which is about to deploy thousands of troops to the U.S.'s other war front, in Afghanistan.

Senior Obama administration officials had said earlier that of the roughly 100,000 U.S. combat troops to be pulled out of Iraq over the next 18 months, most will remain in the war zone through at least the end of this year to ensure national elections there go smoothly. The pace of withdrawal means that although Obama's promised pullout will start soon, it will be backloaded, with most troops leaving in the last few months of the time frame.

And even after the drawdown, a sizable residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq under a new mission of training and advising Iraqi security forces, providing protection and support for U.S. and other civilians working on missions in Iraq, and targeted counterterrorism.

The Iraq war helped fuel Obama's presidential bid. Polls show that most Americans think the war was a mistake. More than 4,250 U.S. military members have died in the nearly six years since the United States invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein. Total Iraqi deaths are unknown but number in the tens of thousands and are perhaps above 100,000.

The Aug. 31, 2010, end date for Iraq war combat operations is slower than Obama had promised voters as a candidate. The timetable he pledged then would have seen combat end in May 2010.

Regardless, it is a hastened exit, something Obama called a necessity, both for the future of Iraq and to allow the U.S. to refocus its attention more firmly on Afghanistan.

``America can no longer afford to see Iraq in isolation from other priorities: we face the challenge of refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan; of relieving the burden on our military; and of rebuilding our struggling economy and these are challenges that we will meet,'' he said.

Obama applauded the military for its role in creating an improved situation in Iraq, where violence is down significantly in Baghdad and most of Iraq and U.S. military deaths have plunged.

He also acknowledged that many problems remain in the country and said ``there will be difficult days ahead.'' Those include violence that will remain ``a part of life,'' political instability and fundamental unresolved questions, a large displaced and destitute citizenry, tepid support for Iraq's fragile government in the neighborhoods and the stress of declining oil revenues.

But, the president said the U.S. cannot continue to try to solve all Iraq's problems.

``We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries,'' he said. ``We cannot police Iraq's streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq's union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars.''

He emphasized that an end to the war does not mean the U.S. plans to withdraw from its interests in the region. He promised intensified diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.

``The end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East,'' Obama said.

War critics were ready to hear Obama's public words, which came just three weeks shy of the war's 6-year anniversary.

But the size of the force to be left behind after the combat-troop drawdown did not please leaders of Obama's own Democratic Party, who had envisioned a fuller withdrawal. Obama personally briefed House and Senate members of both parties about his intentions behind closed doors Thursday.

Obama had said all along he would keep a residual force in Iraq.

``When they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated,'' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, echoing many others.

Republican Sen. John McCain, who lost the presidential election to Obama, offered his support for the president's plan while saying that the residual force would still go on combat patrols alongside Iraqis. ``They'll still be in harm's way,'' he said in an interview. ``There's no doubt about it.''

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers in the White House briefing that ground commanders in Iraq believe the plan poses only a moderate risk to security, McCain said.

Obama also on Friday notified two key figures of his pending announcement: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and, minutes before taking the podium, former President George W. Bush.

From the Jan. 20 start of his presidency to his deadline for ending the combat mission, Obama has settled on a 19-month withdrawal. He had promised the faster pace of 16 months during his campaign but also said he would confer with military commanders on a responsible exit strategy.

Officials said Thursday that the timetable Obama ultimately selected was the recommendation of all the key principals _ including Gates and Mullen. The timeline was settled on as the one that would best manage security risks without jeopardizing the gains of recent months.

In any case, the last of any kind of U.S. troops must be out of Iraq no later than Dec. 31, 2011. That is the deadline set under an agreement the two countries sealed near the end of Bush's presidency. Obama has no plans to extend that date or pursue any permanent troop presence in Iraq.

With 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, Obama plans to withdraw most of them; the total comes to roughly 92,000 to 107,000, based on administration projections.

Administration officials spoke about Obama's Iraq decision under condition of anonymity to discuss details of the strategy ahead of the announcement.

They said Obama would not set a more specific schedule, such as how many troops will exit per month because he wants to give his commanders in Iraq flexibility. ``They'll either speed it up or slow it down, depending on what they need,'' said one official.

Yet the officials made clear Obama wants to keep a strong security presence in Iraq through a series of elections in 2009, capped by national elections tentatively set for December. That important, final election date could slip into 2010, which is perhaps why Obama's timetable for withdrawing combat troops has slipped by a few months, too.

The officials said that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commander in Baghdad, wanted flexibility around the elections. ``The president found that very compelling,'' one said.

The senior administration officials sought to describe Obama's decision-making process as one that was not driven by his political promise to end the war. They said he consulted extensively with his military team while interagency government teams reviewed the options.

Violence is down significantly in Baghdad and most of Iraq, although many areas remain unstable. In the meantime, Obama has ordered the dispatch of 17,000 more American troops to Afghanistan, to fight resurgent Taliban insurgents.

Obama flip-flops on Pak, proposes more military aid

.
.
Washington In a bid to address the rise of Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, US President Barack Obama's maiden budget presented in the Congress have proposed more military aid to the two countries.

US military aid to Pakistan has remained a matter of intense discussion, however, the Congressmen this time are pitching to increase non-military aid by linking it with Islamabad's success in fight against terrorism. The budget also seeks to increase the non-military aid.

When asked about the move at the Pentagon briefing, Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said: "I think it's very important that we help resource them and develop this comprehensive strategy with Pakistan over a number of years. I'm delighted to see that kind of support in the '10 budget."

The budget also proposes increasing non-military aid to Afghanistan. "External challenges include undertaking a responsible drawdown of troops from Iraq and focusing the appropriate resources on achieving US objectives in Afghanistan," said the section of the budget related to the Defence Department.

State Department budget also calls to increase non- military aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan to revitalise economic development and confront the resurgence of the Taliban.

Source: the indian express

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

‘We Will Rebuild’ and ‘Recover’

.
WASHINGTON — President Obama urged the nation on Tuesday to see the economic crisis as reason to raise its ambitions, calling for expensive new efforts to address energy, health care and education even as he warned that government bailouts have not come to an end.

In his first address to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama mixed an acknowledgment of the depth of the economic problems with a Reaganesque exhortation to American resilience. He offered an expansive agenda followed by a pledge to begin paring an ever-climbing budget deficit.
“While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this,” Mr. Obama said. “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”
After eight years under President George W. Bush, Americans tuned in on Tuesday night to a scene that put the new Democratic cast front and center. Mr. Obama was preceded into the House chamber by his cabinet, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he kissed as he made his way to the speaker’s dais. Even several Republicans leaned in close to Mr. Obama as he walked down the aisle.

He set up his push for a wide-ranging overhaul of domestic policy by lamenting what he said were decades of unwillingness on the part of society and government to make tough decisions or put long-term gain ahead of short-term benefit. In the process, he took a thinly veiled swipe at his predecessor for his tax cuts and philosophy of deregulation.
“That day of reckoning has arrived,” Mr. Obama said, “and the time to take charge of our future is here.” source: http://www.nytimes.com

Obama leaning toward 19 months on Iraq withdrawal

President Barack Obama is likely to decide to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq over a period of about 19 months with a formal announcement expected by the end of the week, officials said on Tuesday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the subject, said Obama has not yet made a formal decision on withdrawal options.

But they said he was likely to favor a timetable of around 19 months to get combat troops out of Iraq.

While some U.S. troops would remain for other missions, the withdrawal of combat forces would be a major milestone in a conflict closely associated with the Bush administration. The war became increasingly unpopular among Americans and it also faced deep opposition in many countries abroad. There are currently about 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

During his presidential election campaign, Obama advocated a timetable of 16 months for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq. But he also pledged to listen to advice from military commanders.

General Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, had both favored a 23-month timeline, according to one official.

But military officials also presented Obama with a compromise 19-month option and that now appears the most likely policy, another official said.

"That's the way the wind's blowing," the official said.

But the official said meetings on Iraq policy were still continuing and several officials cautioned that no policy was final until Obama signed off on it.

"The president has not made any final decision on Iraq policy," one administration official said.

An announcement could come on Thursday, officials said.

If Obama says U.S. combat forces should be out of Iraq within 19 months of his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, that would give them a deadline of late August 2010.

However, Obama has also said that a residual force -- expected to consist of at least tens of thousands of troops -- would remain to assist Iraqi troops, conduct counterterrorism missions and protect U.S. diplomatic personnel.

Under a security pact agreed between the United States and Iraq last year, all U.S. forces must leave the country by the end of 2011.


(Additional reporting by Ross Colvin)

http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20090225/760/twl-obama-leaning-toward-19-months-on-ir.html

Sunday, February 22, 2009

US President Barack Obama’s job rating dips


WASHINGTON, Feb 21 – US President Barack Obama, who just completed one month in office, has seen a drop in job approval rating as he struggles to garner support for economic stimulus plan, a national poll said. Poll conducted between February 18-19 with 1,046 people indicates that two out of three Americans approve the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President of the United States.

Obama’s approval rating stands at 67 per cent in the new poll which is 9 percentage points down from the most recent CNN poll conducted in early February.

Fifty per cent of those polled said Obama has so far met their expectations, and another 16 per cent suggested that he has exceeded their expectations. Nearly one in four said that the President has fallen short of what they expected, The CNN/Opinion Research Corp survey said.

Six in 10 support USD 787 billion economic stimulus package that Obama signed into law on Tuesday. “Sixty per cent of those questioned in the poll favored the economic stimulus plan, with 39 per cent opposing the package,”the survey said.

Among Democrats, Obama’s approval also dropped by 4 per cent to 92 per cent. – PTI

Thursday, February 19, 2009

United States voices concerns over Swat truce deal



Washington, Feb 20 (PTI) The United States has conveyed strong concern to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari over the truce deal with a Taliban-linked group for enforcing Shariah law in the restive Swat Valley.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are worried that this deal should not turn into a surrender to the Taliban militants, Special US Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke told Zardari in a telephonic conversation yesterday.

In an interview to Wolf Blitzer of the CNN, Holbrooke said that he expressed the US concern over the peace deal as it gives the Taliban the authority in a critically important part of the country.

"It's hard to understand this deal in Swat, the area you're talking about, less than 100 miles from the capital in Islamabad. President Zardari says it's an interim arrangement while they stabilize the situation," he said.

"He (Zardari) doesn't disagree that the people who are running Swat now are murderous thugs and militants and they pose a danger not only to Pakistan, but to the United States and India," Holbrooke said.

When specifically asked by Blitzer if Zardari gave him any commitment, Holbrooke said: "That I don't know. But the issue isn't whether he signs the deal or not, the issue is the negotiations themselves." PTI

Thursday, February 12, 2009

OBAMA WANTS 'A PLAN THAT WORKS'

WASHINGTON - THE federal government may offer more help to struggling US automakers but only if they show that they can be commercially viable, US President Barack Obama said on Wednesday.

General Motors and Chrysler are under tight deadlines to show progress on meeting cost savings and other targets required under a US$17.4 billion (S$26.2 billion) bailout extended by Bush administration in December.

Whether or not the automakers get additional help rests on the turnaround plans they are to submitted to the government on Feb 17, Obama said in a White House news conference with 16 regional US newspapers.

'My goal, consistently has been to offer serious help once a plan is in place that ensures long-term viability and that we're not just kicking the can down the road,' President Obama said.

'What the nature of what that help ends up looking like, I think is going to depend on the plan.' Mr Obama cautioned that the automakers needed to submit a realistic plan.

'If a plan is presented to us premised on 20 million sales when we just know that's not going to happen, then we're going to have to ask them to go back to the drawing board,' he said.

Asked whether bankruptcy was an option for the automakers, Mr Obama reiterated his belief that a disorganized filing could be disastrous to the economy at large. But he did not rule it out.

'My main message communicated through the Detroit papers would be 'Get me a plan that works,'' Mr Obama said.

The Treasury Department has retained law firms with bankruptcy experience and an investment bank to advise officials on GM's taxpayer-backed restructuring and was expected to name a trustee or 'czar' to oversee the process.

The Treasury Department has said it would make no decisions on industry restructuring until after turnaround plans were submitted. -- REUTERS

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Obama appoints two more Indian-Americans to his legal team

Lalit K Jha Washington, Feb 10 (PTI) US President Barack Obama has appointed two Indian-Americans, Rashad Hussain and Shomik Datta, to his legal team - the White House Counsel. Hussain has been appointed as Deputy Associate Counsel to the US President and Dutta will be special assistant to President's Counsel, Greg Craig, the White House said.

These appointments were made on January 28. Till recently serving as a Trial Attorney at the US Department of Justice, Hussain was as a Law Clerk to Damon J Keith on the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Earlier, he also served as a legislative assistant on the House Judiciary Committee, where he reviewed legislations such as the USA Patriot Act. Hussain earned his bachelor's degree from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his Master's degree in Public Administration and in Arabic and Islamic Studies from Harvard University.

PTI

KNOW OBAMA



He collects Spider-Man and Conan the Barbarian comics

He won a Grammy in 2006 for the audio version of his memoir, Dreams From My Father


He kept a pet ape called Tata while in Indonesia


He enjoys playing Scrabble and poker


He doesn't drink coffee and rarely drinks alcohol


Source: http://sify.com/news/specials/obama/

Obama going to be tough on Pakistan

Washington: Two missile strikes targetting suspected terrorists hideouts inside Pakistan in the first few days of his presidency indicates that new US President Barack Obama is going to be tough on Islamabad, when it comes to the war against terror, media reports said.

This is the first tangible sign of President Obama's commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorists groups there, even though the Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral US actions, The Washington Post reported today.

Throughout his election campaign, Obama maintained that his administration would not hesitate from going ahead with unilateral strikes against high value targets inside Pakistan if it had actionable intelligence, even if this was opposed by Islamabad.

US missile attacks kill 20 in Pakistan

In a page one report, The Washington Post said though President Asif Ali Zardari has expressed hopes of a very warm relationship with the new administration, Obama's national security team has already "telegraphed their intention to make firmer demands of Islamabad than the Bush administration".

This demand would be backed up with a threatened curtailment of the plentiful military aid that has been at the heart of US-Pakistani ties for the past three decades, it said.

'Pakistan has become ground zero for terrorist threat'

"The separate strikes on two compounds, coming three hours apart and involving five missiles fired from Afghanistan-based Predator drones were the first high-profile hostile military actions taken under Obama's four-day-old presidency," The Post said.

In an interview to CNN, the former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf yesterday said that such air strikes have made the US unpopular.

Source: http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14844261