[wanabidii] What Netanyahu's meddling in US election means for Obama, Romney, and diplomacy

Saturday, September 29, 2012


 
People,
 
 
We all need each other.........It cannot be done without Peace................
 
 
With Peace, there is happiness......Without Peace, there is war.............
 
 
We must all choose peace.......It is because, a lot of good things happen
where there is peace........and the world is a better place full of happiness
where there is peace.......
 
 
One person cannot bring Peace, but all of us united in agreement we can
bring Peace we all need........It is in Fairness and in Trust that in unity, we
all can find a pathway leading to Peace .......but not in conspiracies where
pain and sufferings are planned for innocent victims of circumstances......
 
 
Majority People do not want war they want peace instead, and we all must
therefore, choose Peace for goodness sake and for unity of common good.


Judy Miriga
Diaspora Spokesperson
Executive Director
Confederation Council Foundation for Africa Inc.,
USA
http://socioeconomicforum50.blogspot.com
 
 
 
 
The ED Show - Voter fraud by Republicans uncovered in Florida
Published on Sep 28, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

Sept 28, 2012
Dirty tricks are on display in Florida, Ohio and Colorado as Republican operatives pull out all the stops to alter the trajectory of the election. Ed Schultz talks with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and former Republican political consultant Allen Raymond about the impact of voter fraud and voter intimidation in the Presidential election.

 
 
 
The ED Show - Obama hits Romney on China talk
Published on Sep 28, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

Sept 28, 2012
Mitt Romney has flooded the airwaves with misleading ads calling President Obama weak on China. President Obama is fighting back with ads of his own and with his own tough talk on the campaign trail. Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., weighs in on all the latest.

Romney is now in full throttle applying Karl Rove´s dirty campaigning gimmick of taking anything Obama says and through blatant lying reshaping it into something entirely different.

Sept 27, 2012
A document from 1998 shows that Global-Tech, a China-based home appliance company, tried to entice investors with descriptions of its extremely low wages, long hours, and low tax liability. It turns out that Mitt Romney was one of the investors that bought the pitch. Ed gives the details of the report.

Romney describes terrible working conditions he witnessed in China so nonchalantly without a hint of compassion, it shows how distant and out of touch he is with the human condition in the world today, and that these are real people he´s talking about.. It´s scary to countenance this guy as president.
Published on Sep 26, 2012

republicans are an outdated, outmoded religious cult on par with the Taliban and al Qaeda, and they serve no positive purpose in modern society. republicans make dinosaurs look modern, and it's time they become extinct since all they have to offer is anti-human rhetoric and poor, primitive ideas that didn't work when they were first tried, in 26,000 B.C.

When I see Republicans I think of them as Pro Wrestling Fans from the 1960's-70's who thought Pro Wrestling is real.
Their retarded... their stupid.
Chris Matthews: Why Mitt Romney's Tax Returns Still Matter
Published on Sep 24, 2012 by politicalarticles

Lord Romney: Contemptuous, Callous, Condescending and Now in a 47% Hole!: http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2012/09/19/lord-romney-contemptuous-cal...

 
 
 
Real Time with Bill Maher: Overtime - Episode #260
Published on Sep 27, 2012 by RealTime

Bill and his roundtable guests (Eugene Jarecki, Salman Rushdie, Rana Foroohar, Roger Hedgecock and Chris Matthews), answer fan questions after last week's show. For more on Real Time with Bill Maher, log onto http://itsh.bo/HttKcM.
Watch Real Time with Bill Maher online at HBO GO® http://itsh.bo/iioY87.
Watch Real Time with Bill Maher on one screen, connect on another http://connect.hbo.com/real-time-bill-maher

Didn't realize there was any specific advice in my statements just my opinion on these reports regarding Corporate effective tax rates and who actually pays tax bills...fyi as July 11, 2012 (based on SEC Corporate Financial Reporting Manual) SEC filing requirements for US Securities still require reference to financial statements prepared in accordance US GAAP
Stick to selling little old ladies T Bills and shitty insurance products.
The ED Show - Republican Akin divides party, insults women
Published on Sep 28, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

Sept 28, 2012
Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin, who coined the phrase "legitimate rape", had quite a day. Ed Schultz hits the high points and gets reaction from Senior Contributing writer for Newsweek and the Daily Beast, Michelle Goldberg, and Ari Melber, correspondent for The Nation.

 
 
 
The ED Show - Another video of Mitt Romney showing the real Romney
Published on Sep 27, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

Sept 27, 2012
Mother Jones Magazine uncovers another video of Mitt Romney, this time talking about harvesting companies for profit. Secretary Robert Reich joins Ed Schultz to discuss Romney's latest video and more.

What you don´t understnd is that a pension is an asset that belongs to someone and doesn´t exist as part of a corporate entity for the willy nilly taking by someone who has no scruples about stealing it, and converting it to an asset swap for personal gain.
Incidently, Bain more often than not took over companies without their having any say in the matter.

What Netanyahu's meddling in US election means for Obama, Romney, and diplomacy

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at the United Nations General Assembly today, where he is expected to reiterate his demands that President Obama set 'red lines' for Iran. It appears Netanyahu is meddling in US presidential elections, fueling rifts with Obama to favor Mitt Romney.

By David Andrew Weinberg | Christian Science Monitor – Thu, Sep 27, 2012

Some observers claim that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to tip the scales against President Obama in the elections this November. Judging by his recent behavior – and based on my own research about how such efforts have played out in other settings – these accusations are probably correct.

The realization that Mr. Netanyahu may be meddling in the American presidential elections could complicate the foreign policy debate on the campaign trail and have repercussions for future diplomacy between the United States and Israel.

ONE MINUTE DEBATE: 3 views on what the US should do about Iran's nuclear program

At the start of this month, Mr. Netanyahu suddenly began pushing for Washington to lay down new "red lines" on Iran's nuclear program. He also warned on Sept. 11 that nations that fail to do so "don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."

Next, anonymous Israeli sources (and reportedly Netanyahu himself) suggested that Mr. Obama was snubbing Israel's leader by refusing to meet during the UN General Assembly.

Despite an immediate effort by President Obama to soothe tensions through a late-night phone call to Netanyahu, the prime minister then went on Sunday talk shows to tell the American people that their president was not being tough enough on Iran.

Netanyahu's dogged efforts to highlight small gaps between the Obama administration's position and his own have prompted accusations that he seeks to help elect his old friend Mitt Romney. Observers who accuse him of meddling include veteran columnists with the The New York Times, the New Yorker, Time Magazine, and Ha'aretz, as well as Israeli opposition leader Shaul Mofaz.

Meanwhile, other expert commentators believe that Netanyahu's actions are not aimed at electoral interference. Netanyahu himself felt pressed to reassure observers that "I'm not going to be drawn into the American election."

The problem with authoritatively trying to prove or disprove such accusations right now is that practitioners of partisan intervention have strong incentives at the time to deny their true intentions, casting their support for favored politicians in terms of policy issues instead of personal preference.

In my own studies of partisan intervention in the US-Israel relationship, I have found that it can take years before participants feel comfortable admitting their true intentions. Indeed, I was only recently able to get former American officials on record – and declassified archives confirming – that President George H. W. Bush pursued a determined, conscious campaign in 1992 to get pro-peace candidate Yitzhak Rabin elected Israel's prime minister.

Still, the current case is brimming with indicators that one of Netanyahu's private goals may be to shape the US presidential election. For one, he has a fraught relationship with the incumbent and a longstanding connection with the challenger.
What seems to be a manufactured crisis over Obama refusing to meet him at the UN is especially telling. This sort of "snub diplomacy" is a classic feature in many past cases of partisan intervention.
For instance, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Madeleine Albright all floated stories about refusing to meet Netanyahu or his deputies as part of their effort to turn Israeli opinion against the Israeli leader in 1999, hoping to make clear he had lost favor in Washington.

OPINION: Will Netanyahu stay obsessed with Iran or use his new coalition to help Israel?

Another consonant sign of partisan interference is Netanyahu's renewed interest in reaching out to the American people directly through their televisions. It is especially striking that Netanyahu still chose to take his grievances to the public after President Obama's telephone call aimed at reconciliation.
Bill Clinton reached out to the Israeli public in much the same way in July of 2000, immediately after the failure of negotiations at Camp David. At Ehud Barak's request, he used an interview with Israeli TV to help stave off the collapse of Mr. Barak's pro-peace government in Israel, pledging new concessions for its conduct at the summit and effusively praising Barak's leadership role.
Netanyahu's recent sound bites on Iran are already being featured in a million-dollar ad buy attacking Obama in Florida. The group distributing this ad, Secure America Now, is founded by a Republican strategist notorious for having a direct line to the prime minister, so Netanyahu was probably aware of how such remarks would be utilized by American conservatives.
It has also been widely reported that Netanyahu and Mr. Romney share some key benefactors, most notably Republican super-donor Sheldon Adelson. The casino magnate has announced he may spend as much as $100 million this year to bring down Obama. He spent nearly twice that much launching a free, right-leaning newspaper in Israel that many see as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu.

Netanyahu's confrontational, exasperated tone toward the Obama administration over Iran makes little sense from a diplomatic standpoint. The Israeli prime minister has already received an unprecedented commitment that Obama will never let Iran weaponize its nuclear fuel and will use force if necessary to ensure this promise. Unless Netanyahu is calling into question America's ability or the president's word, existing US promises should really be sufficient (if not completely satisfying from an Israeli perspective).

All of these factors suggest that Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to influence the upcoming American presidential election. This is a realization that poses both opportunities and challenges for the presidential campaigns on foreign policy.

Democrats could try to strike back against this controversial behavior by rallying nationalist sentiment against foreign intervention in the US election and accusing Romney of encouraging such meddling. (Netanyahu himself has appealed to his base by accusing Washington of meddling in some past Israeli elections.) However, this could be a risky tactic, since many Jewish American voters tend to view the Israeli premier quite favorably.
Similarly, Republicans could point to Netanyahu's intentional vote of confidence for their candidate as a sign that Romney is ready for the world stage. However, such a gambit could also backfire by suggesting that Romney's domestic standing alone is insufficient for getting him across the finish line.
Regardless of who wins in November, the American president is likely to remember Netanyahu's conduct during this critical period. In the short term, the prime minister may or may not receive additional concessions from Washington on Iran. But once Netanyahu faces his own elections in 2013, he will probably find himself on the receiving end of American intervention, either as retribution or reward.

OPINION: 5 reasons US must avoid war with Iran

At the very least, this episode should serve as a potent reminder that international alliances are often messier in practice than most politicians would like to admit.

David Andrew Weinberg holds a Ph.D. in political science from MIT and serves as a non-resident fellow with the UCLA Center for Middle East Development. He formerly served as a staff member at the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Sign up for our free weekly Commentary newsletter (every Thursday). You can also add Opinion and Commentary to your free daily Monitor newsletter.

Related stories

 
 
 
 
GOP candidates show more loyalty to a foreign country (Israel) than their own

Republican presidential candidates do the United States a disservice in trying to bind an American president to the policies of Israel and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. Whatever happened to GOP foreign-policy realists, like Bush I?

By Walter Rodgers / October 4, 2011

It is disconcerting to see the foreign-policy traps that Republican presidential candidates set for themselves, especially when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.
They do a disservice to the United States by trying to bind a sitting American president to the policies of a foreign government, specifically to the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu....
 
 
 

U.S. intelligence takes blame for mixed Libya attack messages

White House Correspondent

The Ticket – 18 hrs ago

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's office on Friday tried to explain the shifting public explanations for who was behind the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. DNI public affairs director Shawn Turner said U.S. intelligence concluded "in the immediate aftermath" of the assault that it had begun "spontaneously" in the wake of violent protests in Egypt.

"We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available," Turner said. "As we learned more ... we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists."
The statement could take some of the heat off the White House over some of its early explanations for what happened in Benghazi, which claimed the lives of American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three colleagues. White House press secretary Jay Carney, noting that an FBI investigation was ongoing, repeatedly tied the attack to public anger at an Internet video that insults Islam.
The White House drew fire from Republicans who rejected that early explanation and said the attack was clearly terrorism. Carney accused the president's political foes of trying to score partisan points with the attack. But by late last week, Carney was saying it was "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack. White House officials say his explanation changed as new evidence came to light.
Still, a knowledgeable source told Yahoo News last week that the U.S. intelligence community had reached the conclusion that the attack was the work of terrorists on "Day One." The source repeated that assessment on Thursday. Top Libyan officials came out shortly after the assault to describe it as a terrorist attack. President Barack Obama, in September 12 remarks about the tragedy, vowed that "no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
Turner also said in his statement that "it remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaeda.

"We continue to make progress, but there remain many unanswered questions," he said. "As more information becomes available our analysis will continue to evolve and we will obtain a more complete understanding of the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack."

It was unclear how long the "immediate aftermath" scenario remained in force, and when the intelligence community revised its assessment. An email to Clapper's press office seeking more details on that front went unanswered.

 
 

EU falls short on Africa water projects: auditor

By Ethan Bilby | Reuters – 6 hrs ago

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - More than half of the European Union's projects to provide safe drinking water in sub-Saharan Africa failed to deliver, the EU's audit watchdog said in a report on Friday.

The report by the European Court of Auditors examined 23 projects co-funded by the EU in six African countries between 2001 and 2010. The audit found that the projects, at a total cost of 400 million euros, often lacked sufficient supervision and that checks were not always carried out to ensure that water was fit for human consumption.

The authors said that while equipment was usually installed properly, local communities did not receive enough support to manage the projects long term.

"Fewer than half of the projects examined delivered results meeting the beneficiaries' needs," the auditors said in a 43-page report.

In one case in Nigeria, boreholes and pumps relied on an unreliable electricity grid, with diesel generators installed as back-ups. But the high cost of diesel meant that the back-ups were largely unused and towns returned to using unsafe sources of water.

A British member of the European Parliament, Nirj Deva, said: "In these tough economic times it is vital that every pound we spend on foreign aid goes to the right place and achieves the right result. We can't go on spraying around taxpayers' cash willy-nilly with no proper regard for the eventual outcome and for value for money."

In a statement, the European Commission, the EU's executive, disputed some of the auditor's findings but acknowledged that the projects could have been run better in some cases.

"There is no room for complacency and there is always a need for improvement," Development Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said.

"I want to reconfirm the EU's strong commitment to making sure that everyone, no matter where they live, has access to clean, safe water and sanitation."

A spokeswoman said that the Commission had improved monitoring of the projects since 2005 and that most of the projects examined in the report were started before reforms were introduced.

"This type of regular checking really proves that EU aid is under control and we are in constant communication with the authorities," said Catherine Ray, the Commission's spokeswoman on development issues.

Improving access to drinking water and sanitation are important steps in achieving the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals - a series of eight challenges to increase health and reduce poverty in the developing world by 2015.

One of the aims is for the number of people without safe drinking water and sanitation to be reduced by half from 1990 levels.

The EU spent 1.01 billion euros on water and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa from 2001 to 2010, but the World Bank and the United Nations say that between $8 billion and $11.8 billion would be required each year until 2015 to reach the millennium goal on water and sanitation.

 
 
 

--
Karibu Jukwaa la www.mwanabidii.com
Pata nafasi mpya za Kazi www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
Blogu ya Habari na Picha www.patahabari.blogspot.com
 
Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
 
Disclaimer:
Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
 
 

Share this :

Previous
Next Post »
0 Comments