It is becoming increasingly clear that David Gregory is a second rate interviewer. But his interview of Hamid Karzai was downright irresponsible. At several points he implied that Karzai anti-American. His line of questioning is usually riddled with silly oversimplifications. The Afghan President is not anti-American. He is in fact in a very difficult situation because of U.S. Bombing of civilians in Afghanistan. Although accidental, the bombings nonetheless undermine our support in that country. Karzai made that point on the program. As a result Gregory concluded stupidly that it constituted anti-Americanism. This was probably Gregory's attempt at impressing the Limbaugh crowd.
David Gregory is no Tim Russert. ---
To show you how bad things have gotten. According to Reuters, girls are being poisoned in Afghanistan to keep them from going to school. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Wanda Sykes' humor was not humorous. But neither was that Saturday Night Live skit joking about sleeping with your best friend's mother. We've become a nation without a sense of decency. Everything goes. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Now, back -- back in November, some folks were surprised that we showed up in Springfield at the end of our campaign. But, then again, some folks were surprised that we even started our campaign in the first place.
(LAUGHTER)
They didn’t give us much of a chance; they didn’t think we could do things differently; they didn’t know if this country was ready to move in a new direction.
OBAMA: But here’s the thing: My campaign wasn’t born in Washington. My campaign was rooted in neighborhoods just like this one, in towns and cities all across America, rooted in folks who work hard and look after their families and seek a brighter children -- future for their children and for their communities and for their country.
It was driven by workers who were tired of seeing their jobs shipped overseas, their health care costs go up...
(APPLAUSE)
... their dreams slip out of reach. It was grounded in a sense of unity and common purpose with every single American, whether they voted for me on Election Day or voted for somebody else. It was energized by every citizen who believed that the size of our challenges had outgrown the smallness of our politics.
My campaign was possible because the American people wanted change. I ran for president because I wanted to carry those voices, your voices, with me to Washington.
(APPLAUSE)
So I just want everybody to understand you’re who I’m working for every single day in the White House. I’ve heard your stories. I know you sent me to Washington because you believed in the promise of a better day. And I don’t want to let you down.
You believed that after an era of selfishness and greed that we could reclaim a sense of responsibility on Wall Street and in Washington as well as on Main Street. You believed that instead of huge inequalities and an economy that’s built on a bubble we could restore a sense of fairness to our economy and build a new foundation for lasting growth and prosperity.
You believed that a time of war we could stand strong against our enemies and stand firmly for our ideals and show a new face of American leadership to the world. That’s the change you believed in. That’s the trust you placed in me. It’s something I will never forget, the fact that you made this possible.
So, today, on my 100th day in office, I’ve come back to report to you, the American people, that we have begun to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off, and we’ve begun the work of remaking America.
(APPLAUSE)
We’re working to remake America.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, we’ve got a lot of work to do because on our first day in office, we found challenges of unprecedented size and scope. Our economy was in the midst of the most serious downturn since the Great Depression. Banks had stopped lending. The housing market was crippled. The deficit was at $1.3 trillion. And meanwhile, families continued to struggle with health care costs, too many of our kids couldn’t get the education they needed. The nation remains trapped by our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
Now, these challenges could not be met with half measures. They couldn’t be met with the same, old formulas. They couldn’t be confronted in isolation. They demanded action that was bold and sustained. They demand action that is bold and sustained. They call on us to clear away the wreckage of a painful recession but also, at the same time, lay the building blocks for a new prosperity. And that’s the work that we’ve begun over these first 100 days.
To jumpstart job creation, get our economy moving again, we passed the most ambitious economic recovery plan in our nation’s history. And already, we’re beginning to see this change take hold.
In Jefferson City, over 2500 jobs will be created on Missouri’s largest wind farm so that American workers are harnessing clean, American energy.
Read the complete transcript of obama's news conference given on his 100th day as President:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. With the flu outbreak spreading and worsening, can you talk about whether you think it's time to close the border with Mexico and whether -- under what conditions you might consider quarantining, when that might be appropriate?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, as I said, this is a cause for deep concern, but not panic. And I think that we have to make sure that we recognize that how we respond intelligently, systematically, based on science and what public health officials have to say, will determine in large part what happens.
I've consulted with our public health officials extensively on a day-to-day basis, in some cases an hour-to-hour basis. At this point, they have not recommended a border closing. From their perspective, it would be akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out, because we already have cases here in the United States.
We have ramped up screening efforts, as well as made sure that additional supplies are there on the border so that we can prepare in the eventuality that we have to do more than we're doing currently.
But the most important thing right now that public health officials have indicated is that we treat this the same way that we would treat other flu outbreaks, just understanding that, because this is a new strain, we don't yet know how it will respond.
So we have to take additional precautions, essentially, take out some additional insurance. Now, that's why I asked for an additional $1.5 billion, so that we can make sure that everything is in place should a worst-case scenario play out.
I do want to compliment Democrats and Republicans who worked diligently back in 2005 when the bird flu came up. I was part of a group of legislators who worked with the Bush administration to make sure that we had beefed up our infrastructure and our stockpiles of antiviral drugs, like Tamiflu.
OBAMA: And I think the Bush administration did a good job of creating the infrastructure so that we can respond. For example, we've got 50 million courses of anti-viral drugs in the event that they're needed.
So, the government is going to be doing everything that we can. We're coordinating closely with state and local officials. Secretary Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security, newly installed Secretary Sebelius of Health and Human Services, our acting CDC director, they are all on the phone on a daily basis with all public health officials across the states to coordinate and make sure that there's timely reporting, that if -- as new cases come up, that we're able to track them effectively, that we're allocating resources so that they're in place.
The key now I think is to make sure that we're maintaining great vigilance, that everybody responds appropriately when cases do come up, and individual families start taking very sensible precautions that -- can make a huge difference.
So wash your hands when you shake hands. Cover your mouth when you cough. I know it sounds trivial, but it makes a huge difference. If you are sick, stay home. If your child is sick, keep them out of school.
To -- if you are feeling certain flu symptoms, don't get on an airplane, don't get on a -- any system of public transportation where you're confined and you could potentially spread the virus.
So those are the steps that I think we need to take right now. But understand that because this is a new strain, we have to be cautious. If this was a strain that we were familiar with, then we might have to -- then I think we wouldn't see the kind of alert levels that we're seeing, for example, with the World Health Organization. OK?
What's so special about the first 100 days. This is really a media hype. It just so happens President Obama's Presidency might have reached it's peak in the first 100 days. He faces lots of problems in the days and years ahead.
With the glaring exception of the troubled, potentially disastrous bank bailout plan that could undercut any economic recovery, the Obama administration deserves at least an A- when it comes to taking action on behalf of workers.
Then there is view found in the anti-Obama FOXNews:
Even the European press recognize the Obamas’ first 100 days marker as rife with broken promises, crippling debt and bizarre and dangerous domestic and foreign policy, yet that’s not the message you’ll hear from the fawning orgiastic American Establishment Media for the next several days. — You will also likely not hear a peep about Roxana Saberi, Laura Ling and Euna Lee. They’re too much an an inconvenient truth.
Roxana, Laura and Euna. All three American journalists, all women of color, who languish as hostages in foreign prisons of state-based terrorists.
That same media outlet hates the President so much they won't even cover his news conference. Even if it's marking his first 100 days:
President Obama’s prime time press conference will air on one fewer channel this week.
Fox is “sticking with its regular schedule” on Wednesday night, The Associated Press reports, marking “the first time a broadcast network has refused Obama’s request” for airtime.
The press conference, scheduled for 8 p.m. Wednesday, will be Mr. Obama’s third of the year. It will mark his first 100 days in office. ABC, CBS and NBC, along with a multitude of cable networks, will carry the press conference live.
Counting his not-State of the Union address in February, it will be Mr. Obama’s fourth interruption of the prime-time TV schedule. Broadcasters have grumbled, mostly anonymously, about the repeated interruptions. “His economic stimulus package apparently does not extend to the TV networks,” one of the anonymous network types said to The Washington Post in February.
In a statement, Fox said an on-screen graphic would alert viewers to coverage of the press conference on Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network. The drama “Lie to Me” will air at 8 p.m.
The networks are not required to show presidential press conferences, but they generally take White House requests for airtime very seriously. Millions of viewers who rely on over-the-air TV signals do not have access to cable news networks or C-SPAN.
How has he done with our military. This from Military.com:
Since his inauguration 100 days ago, Obama has made good on his promise for sweeping change in the military, a new tone in the White House's relationship with troops and a personal investment in easing the burden of military service.
But so far his record has been met with controversy, both for its marked consistency with the policies of George W. Bush and for its radical break from the past that some see as reckless.
Obama was quick to apologize for American conduct in the war on terrorism and relations with some of its allies during his trip to Europe in early April. He called for "mutual respect" toward Iran, which commanders in Iraq say supplies deadly roadside bombs to insurgents. And he has agreed to the release of reportedly gruesome photos of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, an action that some insiders claim will worsen morale in a military service only now recovering from the tarnished public perception stemming from that terrible chapter.
Likewise, in his first 100 days Obama has met several times with veterans organizations to assure them of his personal investment in their care. He's taken on the largest defense firms with a sweeping Pentagon budget reform that slashes costly programs at a time of economic turmoil. And he's proven immensely popular with troops in the field; for instance, last month he was given a standing ovation from those serving in Iraq even as he asked them for continued long-term commitments to Afghanistan.
His record on the economy from a foreign point of view. This from the BBC:
His first 100 days contain at least one notable achievement - the $787bn (£539bn) stimulus plan.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to give it its proper title, was signed into law by the President less than a month after he took the oath of office.
It is the single biggest peacetime spending initiative in US history and was passed in record time.
But it failed to gain the bi-partisan support in Congress that President Obama was looking for and has become a rallying point for Republican opposition.
Rising unemployment
The administration claims that the Act is already having an impact, with the go-ahead given to numerous transport projects, such as road and bridge building. Money has also been used to save jobs in public services, like the police.
But evidence that it is making a big difference is lacking.
In the short term, the Act cannot reverse the recession; all it can do is cushion the impact of rising unemployment and lay the groundwork to support future growth.
The Act will also have one very serious negative effect.
It will add to the spiralling US budget deficit - forecast to hit a massive $1.75 trillion this year.
The polls show what the public thinks of the President's start:
The latest New York Times/CBS poll: “Barack Obama’s presidency seems to be altering the public perception of race relations in the United States. Two-thirds of Americans now say race relations are generally good, and the percentage of blacks who say so has doubled since last July… Despite that, half of blacks still say whites have a better chance of getting ahead in American society.”
More: “Mr. Obama’s 68 percent job approval rating is higher than that of any recent president at the 100-day mark. Mr. Bush had the approval of 56 percent of the public at this juncture. But while Americans clearly have faith in Mr. Obama, the poll revealed something of a disconnect between what the public thinks the president has already accomplished and what it expects him to achieve. Fewer than half of those surveyed, 48 percent, said Mr. Obama had begun to make progress on one of his major campaign promises, changing the way business is conducted in Washington. And just 39 percent said he had begun to make progress on another major promise, cutting taxes for middle-class Americans, even though the stimulus bill he signed into law does include a middle class tax cut.”
The new CNN poll: “The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll … indicates that 63 percent of Americans approve of how Obama is handling his duties as president. One in three questioned in the poll disapprove. Democrats overwhelmingly approve of how Obama is handling his job as president; 61 percent of independents agree. Only 28 percent of Republicans say the president is doing a good job in office.”
Even some of his political enemies have to admit President Obama is doing good:
I’ve been impressed by what he has done. He is a young man but he is extremely gifted. He has acted with strength, I think, and purpose in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuilt some of our relations around the world and acted very boldly here at home on the economy where we needed him to particularly with the stimulus package.
But it’s early but I would say he is off to a very good start.
Where is the outrage this time around. Another major tottering financial institution wants to spit in the faces of the American taxpayer and we expected to just stand for it. The question is whether the Wall St. dominated Obama administration cave in, again.
Citigroup Inc., soon to be one-third owned by the U.S. government, is asking the Treasury for permission to pay special bonuses to many key employees, according to people familiar with the matter.
The request comes as Citigroup is grappling with broad government pay restrictions that could break apart its legendary energy-trading unit. People at that unit, Phibro, are threatening to leave because of pay caps tied to the U.S. bailout of Citigroup. Phibro has been the source of hundreds of millions of dollars in profits for the bank, and has paid out hefty compensation, including a roughly $100 million windfall last year for the unit's leader, Andrew Hall.
Citigroup is trying to get U.S. approval for special bonuses for many of its employees. In a meeting earlier this month with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit made the case for the stock-based bonuses. Executives are describing the bonuses as "retention" awards to perk up demoralized employees who the company worries are vulnerable to poaching by rival firms, people familiar with the matter said.
A person familiar with Geithner's thinking said the Treasury hadn't made a decision on whether to allow the bonuses. It is unclear how much Citigroup would pay out in bonuses if the government approved the move. A Citigroup spokesman declined to comment on details of the proposed compensation plans.
Citigroup's request comes after Congress, the public and the president blasted pay practices on Wall Street. Bonuses at American International Group Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. ignited political infernos in Washington.
AIG isn't the only bailed-out financial firm paying big bucks to managers who helped steer their company to near collapse. Citigroup has pledged millions of dollars in bonuses to senior executives for the next few years, despite lawmakers efforts to eliminate such payments.
It's not clear whether the bonuses, which Citigroup says are for 2008 but won't start paying out until 2010, will be allowed. Under compensation rules passed by Congress in mid-February, cash bonuses are barred for top executives at bailed-out banks.
But Citi finalized its bonus program shortly before the new rules were introduced. That might make the payments permissible, though they could be made almost worthless by new tax rules just passed by the House of Representatives and headed for consideration in the Senate. Even so, Citigroup's move in January to set in place bonus payments for years to come raises questions about whether it was trying to evade compensation rules it knew were coming.
Then there is Morgan Stanley which is trying to con Uncle Sucker:
Anticipating restrictions on bonuses, officials at Citigroup Inc and Morgan Stanley are exploring ways to sidestep tough new federal caps on compensation, the Wall Street Journal said.
Executives at these banks and other financial institutions that received government aid are discussing increasing base salaries for some executives and other top-producing employees, the paper said, citing people familiar with the situation.
The discussions are at an early stage, partly because the government has not yet issued specific rules on the bonus payments that will be allowed at companies that received aid under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, the paper said.
You can send a message that America is a nation of laws. Those who seek to subvert those laws should and will be punished. Today Jay Bybee, tomorrow Bush.
Liberal activists are pressing for the impeachment of federal Judge Jay Bybee over the Bush administration’s “torture memos” in part because there is virtually nothing that President Barack Obama, congressional Republicans or conservative Senate Democrats can do to stop the process from getting under way.
Obama and key members of Congress have weighed in against a “truth commission,” an independent prosecutor and other attempts at war-on-terror accountability. But impeachment is not so easily stymied, especially in its early stages, analysts said.
“If the House votes for it, there’s no way the Senate can avoid it,” a former Senate parliamentarian, Robert Dove, said Monday. “I can’t think of any way of just not acting on it. I assure you, if the Senate could have not acted on the Clinton impeachment, they would not have acted on it…..If the House impeaches, we will have a trial.”
One of the earliest proponents of Bybee’s impeachment, Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman [read his Slate article], noted in an interview that Obama — or any president — has no official say in the process. “Constitutionally, it is entirely independent of, and should be independent of, the executive branch,” Ackerman said.
Bybee is in the firing line because, while the top lawyer at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in August 2002, he approved and signed a legal opinion concluding that so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, including water-boarding, did not meet the definition of torture under federal law.
Some members of Congress are already on board. This from Think Progress:
Over 5,000 of you have taken action in calling for Congress to commence impeachment hearings against Jay Bybee. This afternoon, ThinkProgress spoke with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) about the campaign. She told us:
jan.gifI would support impeachment hearings for Judge Bybee. ... We’ve already seen that he’s willing to interpret the laws in ways that are counter to the fundamental values of our country. I think that is a proper response.
Jerry Nadler is a powerful member of Congress calling for impeachment:
A top House Democrat said Monday U.S. Judge Jay Bybee "should be impeached" for his role in Justice Department authorization of harsh interrogation methods.
Bybee, who sits on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was a principal author of Justice Department memos released last week by the Obama administration, which provided legal justification for using such methods as waterboarding and slamming suspects into walls during questioning. Former President George W. Bush appointed Bybee to the bench and the Senate confirmed the appointment long before his participation in the development of the interrogation policy was publicly known.
"(Bybee) ought to be impeached," Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., told the Huffington Post Monday. "It was not an honest legal memo. It was an instruction manual on how to break the law."
Nadler -- a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee -- is to meet Tuesday with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. He said he would urge the appointment of a special prosecutor.
"Any special prosecutor on torture would have to look at the authors of those torture memos," said Nadler. [John Conyers also is pushing the issue]
Their language is the precise bureaucratese favored by dungeon masters throughout history. They detail how to fashion a collar for slamming a prisoner against a wall, exactly how many days he can be kept without sleep (11), and what, specifically, he should be told before being locked in a box with an insect — all to stop just short of having a jury decide that these acts violate the laws against torture and abusive treatment of prisoners.
In one of the more nauseating passages, Jay Bybee, then an assistant attorney general and now a federal judge, wrote admiringly about a contraption for waterboarding that would lurch a prisoner upright if he stopped breathing while water was poured over his face. He praised the Central Intelligence Agency for having doctors ready to perform an emergency tracheotomy if necessary.
These memos are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the authors’ statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values.
[...]These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.
This is someone who is considering running for President. A college professor and historian.
When Van Susteren asked if waterboarding is torture, Gingrich hemmed and hawed. "I think it's something we shouldn't do," he said, but he qualified his statement, adding, "Lawyers I respect a great deal say it is absolutely within the law. Other lawyers say it absolutely is not. I mean, this is a debatable area." When asked if waterboarding violates international law, Gingrich played dumb:
VAN SUSTEREN: But you said a minute ago that it was torture, waterboarding...
GINGRICH: No, I said it's not something we should do.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. Is it torture or not?
GINGRICH: I -- I -- I think it's -- I can't tell you.
VAN SUSTEREN: Does it violate the Geneva Convention?
GINGRICH: I honestly don't know.
How is that fellow "Conservative," John McCain, knows that waterboarding is torture and not Gingrich.
But McCain, a former prisoner of war, has repeatedly said that waterboarding is a "horrible torture technique." "One is too much. Waterboarding is torture, period," McCain said last week. Indeed, it is a fact -- and not a matter of "debate" -- that waterboarding is illegal torture. The interrogation tactic violates both U.S. statute and international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory.
As I said in China this spring, there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions. There is no place for intolerance of dissent. While we walked through the Rotunda. I explained to President Jiang how the roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend.
If waterboarding is not torture why is Hannity chickening-out in his promise to be interrogated with enhanced methods. Former Communist and noted columnist, Christopher Hitchens, was allowed himself to be waterboarded. What a wuss:
GRODIN: You're for torture. HANNITY: I am for enhanced interrogation. GRODIN: You don't believe it's torture. Have you ever been waterboarded? HANNITY: No, but Ollie North has and talked to me about it. GRODIN: Would you consent to be waterboarded so we can get the truth out of you? We can waterboard you? HANNITY: Sure. ... I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. ... I'll do it for the troops' families.
Keith Olbermann offered him $1,000 for every second he resisted the 'torture technique:'
There is website that offers Hannity charity donations if he keeps his promise to be waterboarded. Don't hold your breath (pun intended).
This is the same Joseph Lieberman who betrayed his party and supported John McCain for President. Even a neocon, like Lieberman, has to admit that President Obama is doing a good job when it comes to Iraq. Read the complete transcript of CNN's State of the Union (4-26-09):
KING: We’ve been discussing a number of tough issues and there are many more, senator, has he proven you wrong, Barack Obama , in his first 100 days.
LIEBERMAN: First, John, let me thank you for running that tape.
KING: Tape is a dangerous thing.
LIEBERMAN: I have no regrets about supporting John McCain and really what I said then, I meant. Barack Obama is extremely gifted. Coming in at a very difficult time. I was thinking particularly about Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror. And McCain, of course, great experience, bipartisan record. Once the election was over, I said I would do everything to support Barack Obama as president. He is our president. I have, but I’ll say this. I’ve been impressed by what he has done. He is a young man but he is extremely gifted. He has acted with strength, I think, and purpose in Iraq and Afghanistan, rebuilt some of our relations around the world and acted very boldly here at home on the economy where we needed him to particularly with the stimulus package.
But it’s early but I would say he is off to a very good start. Maybe the most important thing he’s done overall is that he has restored the confidence of the American people in the American presidency and he has raised their hopes about the future of our country. That is critically important.
Obama spokesperson defeats the President on the torture matter:
KING: Why did the president change his mind? He seems open now to possible prosecution.
JARRETT: No. Let me be clear where the president stands on this. What he has said is that anyone who followed the advice of the Justice Department and did any kind of acts that were within the confines of that advice, he doesn’t think we should prosecute.
The rest of it, he leaves up to the U.S. Attorney General. That is who is supposed to make decisions about prosecution. So I think the president has been very clear and what he said is, we need to be a nation of laws, we need to be consistent, and he leaves it to the attorney general to figure out who should be prosecuted for what.
KING: Who should be prosecuted for what. If it’s not those who acted on the advice they were given, who were told it was legal, what are we talking about here? Are we talking about the attorney general in the previous administration, the CIA director, Secretary Rumsfeld?
JARRETT: You and I aren’t talking about anything. We are going to leave that all up to the attorney general. As you know, the Senate Intelligence Committee is having hearings as well. That is the appropriate place I think for any further investigation. And then the rest we leave to the attorney general.
Senator Feinstein's warning about Pakistan:
FEINSTEIN: Oh, in my opinion, yes. I also think that these bombings, the size of the bombings in Iraq are a real danger signal. And I think that Mr. Maliki has to step up to the plate on this. And it’s going to be very interesting in the next few weeks to see how he handles this. If these bombings continue and there is an escalation of violence, I think it jeopardizes everything the united states is trying to do.
With respect to the Taliban and particularly in both Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan, I think the takeover of the Swat Valley, the movement up north is a very serious thing. The fact that, despite the fact that we provide money for the Pakistani military, they have done nothing to stop this Taliban advance, I think, causes me great concern that Pakistan may be in very deep trouble. And I would think that -- and most of us, I think, do agree that Pakistan is sort of Ground Zero for terror today and that this thing has to get sorted out and sorted out quickly or you could lose the government of Pakistan and Pakistan is a in nuclear power and that concerns me deeply.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's ' This Week'. Read the complete Transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: During the last administration, no other world leader next to you was as critical of the American administration as Mr. Chavez. Yet, look at this picture right here.
Is this a picture that you would like to see, you and President Obama? And what do you think the Iranian people would think of you and President Obama meeting, shaking hands, engaging in conversation?
AHMADINEJAD: Well, we are calling for peace and security for all. We would like international relations to be based on justice and friendship. Wherever a hostile relationship turns into friendship, that would make us happy.
STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama says that's exactly what he wants right now. He says he wants a new beginning in a relationship with Iran. He sent a message to the Iranian people on the occasion of the Nowruz holiday where he called Iran a great civilization.
He talked about the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he signaled that he wasn't interested in regime change, and he talked about his vision for the United States/Iranian relationship.
OBAMA: It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace".
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you share that vision?
AHMADINEJAD: You need to appreciate that the American administration, 29 years ago, unilaterally cut its relations with Iran. In the past 29 years, different U.S. administrations have opposed the Iranian people. Now they say that we have given up that enmity. That's fine.
We have welcomed such comments. But an administration which, up until yesterday, was saying that I'm going to kill you, and today says that I'm not going to kill you, is that sufficient?
STEPHANOPOULOS: So there is change, though. What will Iran do in response? The United States has said that the United States is ready to talk with Iran and the other great powers -- Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.
Are you prepared to sit down at those talks without preconditions?
AHMADINEJAD: Well, previously, first of all, I sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Obama. This was a major decision, although the Iranian people were very much dismayed with the conduct of previous U.S. administrations. And I was criticized here at home, in Iran.
Nevertheless, I did that. I am yet to receive a response.
With the European group and the American group, we will talk. We have announced as much that we are going to negotiate. But...
STEPHANOPOULOS: When will you join those talks?
AHMADINEJAD: ... again, based on justice and mutual respect.
Well, after everything is said and done -- well, planning needs to be made and timetables need to be set.
We believe in talking, in negotiating, based on sincerity and respect and justice. But the U.S. administration severed its relations with us.
This is absolutely hysterical. Imagine going shopping and then suddenly you are being chased down the aisle by a bull. Don't believe it could happen. See for yourself.
This demonstrates again that Wall St. has not learned it's lesson and don't give a damn about public opinion or the state of the economy. It also demonstrates that the U.S. government is nothing but a tool of the big banks and financiers:
The rest of the nation may be getting back to basics, but on Wall Street, paychecks still come with a golden promise.
Workers at the largest financial institutions are on track to earn as much money this year as they did before the financial crisis began, because of the strong start of the year for bank profits.
Even as the industry’s compensation has been put in the spotlight for being so high at a time when many banks have received taxpayer help, six of the biggest banks set aside over $36 billion in the first quarter to pay their employees, according to a review of financial statements.
If that pace continues all year, the money set aside for compensation suggests that workers at many banks will see their pay — much of it in bonuses — recover from the lows of last year.
“I just haven’t seen huge changes in the way people are talking about compensation,” said Sandy Gross, managing partner of Pinetum Partners, a financial recruiting firm. “Wall Street is being realistic. You have to retain your human capital.”
Brad Hintz, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, was more critical. “Like everything on Wall Street, they’re starting to sin again,” he said. “As you see a recovery, you’ll see everybody’s compensation beginning to rise.”
In total, the banks are not necessarily spending more on compensation, because their work forces have shrunk sharply in the last 18 months. Still, the average pay for those who remain — rank-and-file workers whose earnings are not affected by government-imposed limits — appears to be rebounding.
Of the large banks receiving federal help, Goldman Sachs stands out for setting aside the most per person for compensation. The bank, which nearly halved its compensation last year, set aside $4.7 billion for worker pay in the quarter. If that level continues all year, it would add up to average pay of $569,220 per worker — almost as much as the pay in 2007, a record year.
[...]Compensation is among the most cited causes of the financial crisis because bonuses were often tied to short-term gains, even if those gains disappeared later on. Still, as profits return, banks do not appear to be changing the absolute level of worker pay — or the share of revenue dedicated to compensation.
Historically, investment banks have paid workers about 50 cents for every dollar of revenue. The average is lower at commercial banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, because they employ more people in retail branches where pay is lower.
But every dollar paid to workers is a dollar that cannot be used to expand the business or increase lending. Some of that revenue, too, could be used by bailed-out banks to pay back taxpayers.
Wall Street, of course, has a long history of high wages. Not all that long ago, most investment banks were private partnerships, and the workers were also typically the owners. Even when those firms began listing their shares on public stock exchanges, a standard was set in which half of their revenue was paid out to workers.
It had been warned for some time that there is a potential for a pandemic from all the virulent viruses out there. The issue had been ignored over the last year. Now that the issue has reappeared again. If nothing is done to stop or prevent a crisis we could the kind of epidemic we've read about in the history books. It seems every problem now is ignored until something terrible happens (i.e., 9-11, the infrastructure, global warming, oil prices, the financial bubble, virus pandemics, etc., etc.)
The outbreak of a new multi-strain swine flu virus transmitted from human to human that has killed up to 60 people in Mexico is a "serious situation" with a "pandemic potential", the head of the World Health Organisation said Saturday.
As Mexico struggled against the odds Saturday to contain a strange new flu that has killed 68 and perhaps sickened more than 1,000, it was becoming clearer that the government hasn't moved quickly enough to head off what the World Health Organization said has the potential to become a global epidemic.
The World Health Organization said the outbreak has become a "public health emergency of international concern" and asked countries around the world to step up reporting and surveillance of the disease and implement a coordinated response to contain it.
But Mexicans were dying for weeks at least before U.S. scientists identified the strain — a combination of swine, bird and human influenza that people may have no natural immunity to. Now, even controlling passengers at airports and bus stations may not keep it from spreading, epidemiologists say.
The disease has already reached Texas, California and Kansas, and 24 new suspected cases were reported Saturday in Mexico City alone, where authorities suspended schools and all public events until further notice. More than 500 concerts, sporting events and other gatherings were canceled in the metropolis of 20 million.
The Mexican government issued a decree authorizing President Felipe Calderon to invoke special powers letting the Health Department isolate patients and inspect homes, incoming travelers and baggage.
But officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said they understoodthat the outbreak potential in the United States was serious.
“It’s clear that this is widespread,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat, Interim Deputy Director for Science and Public Health Program for the C.D.C. said in a teleconference on Saturday afternoon. “We do not think we can contain the spread of this virus.”
Dr. Schchat said that there were no new confirmed human cases of swine influenza in the United States. On Friday, two were announced in Texas and six in California.
Of the eight cases that have been confirmed, Dr. Schuchat said, all “have been mild.” She added: “Only one has been hospitalized. That can change, but so far, we have been quite fortunate.”
Several reports of clusters of respiratory illnesses had been reported to the centers, including one at St. Francis Preparatory High School in Queens, N.Y., where about 75 students went to the school’s medical office on Thursday complaining of flu-like symptoms. There was no confirmation that the students had swine flu, but health officials said it would take several days to get back test results.
This video from the CDC shows you one important way to protect yourself from the Swine Flu and other infectious disceases--wash your hands.
Despite the administrations reluctance to prosecute the Bush administration for it's encouraging of torture, the calls for justice are growing. It's everywhere. The bloggers and other anti-Bush news outlets are increasing the pressure for action. President Obama might be forced into going along with the prosecution of those involved in the shocking cases of torture under the Bush/Cheney reign of terror.
A Senate report revealed that former President George Bush and top-ranking officials in his administration approved harsh interrogation techniques that were later used in prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski claims soldiers convicted in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal were victims of scapegoating and had been merely obeying orders.
"In my judgment, the report represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse - such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan - to low-ranking soldiers," said Senator Carl Levin, the committee chairman.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann stated on Wednesday's edition of Countdown, "When the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison came to light, Rumsfeld blamed it on a few bad apples. He was right. What we know is that the few bad apples were Rumsfeld himself and Mr. Bush, Cheney and more. They were the bad apples. And as happens with bad apples, they corrupted others around them."
Karpinski called out former Vice President Dick Cheney on his defense of torture interrogation techniques when he refused to defend those involved in torture at Abu Ghraib. "Mr. former Vice President, if you're saying that this was necessary today and that it produced good intelligence, where were you five years ago, stepping up to the plate and saying, hold on, we can't discuss this because this is classified information, but these soldiers did not design these techniques," said Karpinski with a raised voice.
And then there are the calls for the impeachment of the person responsible for writing legal language used to justify torture:
But American intelligence officials also learned something from the Soviets about manipulating language to conceal reality. When our enemies use methods like this, they amount to torture. When we do, they don't. A newly released 2002 memo from a Bush administration official authorized keeping prisoners awake because "we are not aware of any evidence that sleep deprivation results in severe physical pain or suffering."
That document, signed by then-Assistant Atty. Gen. Jay Bybee, also deprecates the unpleasantness of waterboarding, which makes the victim feel he is literally drowning. "The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict 'severe pain or suffering,' " he announced. "The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering." Did I mention that it leaves no marks?
The Bush administration and its defenders have long ridiculed anyone protesting the abuse of detainees. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey, writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, lamented that under President Barack Obama, "the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens." The message is simple: It's not really torture, and it works.
The former is obviously untrue as well as dishonest: Solzhenitsyn makes that clear. So do numerous U.S. government reports accusing various regimes of violating human rights through such forms of torture as sleep deprivation. Likewise, the U.S. government used to take a negative view of waterboarding. But apparently we only object when we're not the ones doing it.
That doesn't change the nature of the practice. In a confidential 2007 report that recently was leaked, the International Committee of the Red Cross outlined the harsh methods used on CIA detainees and reached the blunt conclusion that they "amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."
And what's to stop this sort of thing from happening in the future? The Constitution must be upheld.
Washington’s war criminals are finally nervous.
The newly released torture memos, in their brutal detail, have demolished the core argument of the Beltway’s torture defenders.
Everyone from President Barack Obama to former Vice President Dick Cheney has said the torture issue is about “the past.” But that makes no sense. Just read the memos. They clearly raise huge security questions about which rules govern our future counterterrorism efforts.
Can executive branch opinions simply override any federal statute or constitutional precedent? What is the duty of government officials who receive “legal” guidance that flatly contradicts the law? Can presidents use secret memos to run a two-branch government, squashing court oversight by declaring programs are for “national security” or “state secrets”?
And the big one: Are there any measures or consequences to prevent these abuses?
It is now incumbent on all three branches of government to address those questions with investigations, oversight and accountability. That is the only way to deter future crimes and provide future officials with guidance on their duties. So far, however, few in government are providing strong leadership.
The president deserves credit for ending torture and releasing the memos. His repeated suggestions that enforcing the law is less important than “unity” or “looking forward,” however, are unacceptable. And this week, he floated a mixed message by saying he did not want to look “backwards,” while also welcoming an independent “further accounting” of torture by Congress or an independent commission.
Over in the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) says he supports an independent commission to investigate government misconduct. The idea drew endorsements from The Washington Post, former military and diplomatic officials from both parties and bipartisan legal organizations such as the Constitution Project. The group’s policy counsel, Becky Monroe, told me that “in order to truly move forward, we need a commission to fully investigate all of our practices regarding the detention, treatment and transfer of detainees.”
Leahy has given several speeches about the commission idea. He held a hearing on it last month. He issued another statement on it this week. He launched an online petition at BushTruthCommission.com. His reelection committee has even raised money off the proposal, telling supporters that a “meaningful way” to support a commission is to donate to Leahy’s campaign. “It’s safe to say Sen. Leahy will not let the idea of a truth commission slip through the cracks,” reads one fundraising e-mail, promising that Leahy “will not rest until we have fully investigated the Bush-Cheney administration’s eight-year assault on the rule of law.”
Politicians are such whores that they will grovel to whomever gets them elected or re-elected. They would sell their souls to the devil if served their purposes. Such is the case with Congressman Tiahrt.
Just last week, I wrote that Kansas Congressman Todd Tiahrt had been asked at a Kansas City Star Editorial Board meeting whether Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
"No, no, he's just an entertainer," replied Tiahrt, who's running for the U.S. Senate in 2010.
Whoah. Those are fighting words for dittoheads and other supporters of Limbaugh.
The radio talk-show host already has gone after people who have refused to crown him king of the GOP -- or, to be fairer, at least as a powerful spokesman for the ultra-conservative cause.
My post zinged around blog land, and eventually this appeared on the Wichita Eagle blog.
The money quote from Tiahrt spokesman Sam Sackett to the newspaper's editorial board: "The congressman believes Rush is a great leader of the conservative movement in America — not a party leader responsible for election losses. Nothing the congressman said diminished the role Rush has played and continues to play in the conservative movement."
Ah, but the story doesn't end there.
On Tuesday afternoon, the Democratic National Campaign Committee released a statement, which began with this headline and first paragraph:
Tiahrt to Leader Limbaugh: I’m sorry!
Add Congressman Todd Tiahrt to the list of spineless Republicans who can’t stand up to their party’s leader – Rush Limbaugh. Just days after claiming Rush is “just an entertainer,” Congressman Tiahrt is now singing a different tune. Fearful of Leader Limbaugh’s retribution, Congressman Tiahrt’s office quickly issued an apology praising Limbaugh stating 'The Congressman believes Rush is a great leader.'
Just like the Republicans that have come before him to grovel for Rush Limbaugh’s forgiveness, Congressman Tiahrt proved once again that Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican Party,” said Gabby Adler, the Midwestern Regional Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Instead of standing up for the people of Kansas to fight for them during this economic crisis, Congressman Tiahrt has made it clear that he would prefer to take his orders from Rush Limbaugh.
There are some in Republican party that will stand up to Limbaugh. At least at first:
Yesterday, Rep. John Shadegg became the sixth prominent Republican official to challenge Rush Limbaugh's control over the party.
Shadegg disagrees with radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who has said he hopes Obama and his liberal policies fail. "I sincerely hope he creates the strongest recovery possible," Shadegg said. "It is petty to worry about who gets the credit when people are losing their jobs and their homes."
As for Limbaugh, Shadegg said, "I think he is an entertainment personality who is an interesting factor in American politics. I agree with much of what he says on some issues, but not on other issues."
Shadegg is known as a staunch conservative. After rising in the leadership earlier in his career, he has been an also-ran in races for majority leader and minority whip in the last two congresses. This year he went so far as to announce and then retract retirement plans. And now he's called out Limbaugh! If you're not keeping track at home -- and why not? -- Chris Orr has been on the case, following five previous officials who have made similar comments about the King of Conservative Talk Radio (Kansas Rep. Todd Tiahrt, Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, and NY House candidate Jim Tedisco) and been forced to apologize after an uproar in the conservative base.
The pro-Israel lobby has such power over members of Congress that they just about get them to commit treason. Congresswoman Harman is the typical corrupt member of Congress that doesn't mind selling out their country for self-interest. They don't think twice about undermining American national security, especially if it's on behalf of AIPAC.
Rep. Jane Harman is asking the Justice Department to release its transcripts of wiretapped telephone conversations she reportedly had with a suspected Israeli agent in 2005 or 2006, according to the Wall Street Journal.
It had been reported several years ago that federal investigators looked into the California Democrat's discussions with the suspected Israeli agent. But yesterday, Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein published significant new details, including the allegation that the conversations secretly captured by NSA wiretaps were "directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington."
Stein's account, and follow-up articles today, raised questions about the conversations' links to at least two ongoing Washington scandals: the espionage case against two officials of the main Israel lobbying group and the NSA's secret domestic surveillance wiretap program.
CQ's sources, and sources cited today in the New York Times, say that Harman was caught on the wiretap telling the suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby Bush administration officials to reduce the charges against the two members of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) accused of spying. In exchange, the sources said, the suspected agent promised to help her get appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
CQ said that, according to its sources, Harman told the caller she would "waddle in" to the espionage case "if you think it would make a difference." She also said, "This conversation doesn't exist."
The more we learn about the Wall St. bailouts the more we learn that it's nothing but a ripoff of the American people. The joke is on us. The politicians are merely puppets doing the bidding of powerful financial interests.
The top 10 recipients of the government's $700 billion financial bailout spent about $9.5 million on federal lobbying during the first three months of the year.
The biggest spender was bailed-out automaker General Motors Corp., which devoted $2.8 million to lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. It has received $13.4 billion in government loans and could get $5 billion more, according to a government report released Tuesday.
Failed insurance giant American International Group Inc. and banks Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. each reported spending more than $1 million to influence the government as they lived off federal money this year. AIG has gotten some $70 billion from the bailout fund _ including a fresh $30 billion infusion the government reported on Tuesday _ while Citigroup has received $45 billion and JPMorgan $25 billion.
The lobbying activity was revealed publicly in reports required to be filed with Congress. This year's first quarterly report was due Monday.
Other major recipients of money from the so-called Troubled Assets Relief Program also had substantial lobbying costs in the first three months of this year, including:
_Bank of America Corp., which reported spending $660,000 lobbying while receiving its $45 billion in help;
_Wells Fargo & Company, with $700,000 in lobbying costs and $25 billion in bailout money;
_Goldman Sachs, which spent $670,000 while receiving its $10 billion;
_Morgan Stanley, which spent $540,000 while also getting $10 billion in assistance;
_PNC Financial Services Group, spent $135,000 _ nearly double what it did at the end of last year _ on lobbying while receiving a $7.8 billion lifeline;
_U.S. Bancorp spent $170,000 on lobbying and got $6.6 billion in government aid.
"They say they're not using public money for these purposes, but in effect these companies are steering taxpayer funds to lobbying and campaign contributions," said Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen. "It's completely unjustifiable."
The reports suggest that most of the bailed-out companies have beefed up their lobbying at least marginally since last year. Seven spent more to influence the government than they did in the last quarter of 2008.
The largest increases apart from PNC were by Goldman, which spent 34 percent more on lobbying than it did at the end of last year; Wells Fargo, which spent about 21 percent more, and JPMorgan, which lobbied 19 percent more. AIG also devoted some 16 percent more money to interacting with the government, despite the "no-lobbying" policy it adopted late last year after receiving repeated bailouts.
The pro-gay marriage movement continually demonstrates the hypocrisy of their thinking. Sunday's Miss USA was a stark example of the intolerance directed against those who do not follow the party line. This blogger personally knew instantly that Carrie Prejean's answer would cost the Miss USA crown. Political correctness permeates the entertainment industry. And anyone deviates from the pro-gay marriage orthodoxy is punished. Never mind that the majority of Americans, including Barack Obama, believe marriage should be between a man and woman. They obviously don't understand what democracy is about. And this intolerance will backfire.
First runner-up Carrie Prejean (Miss California) was asked about legalizing same-sex marriage from judge Perez Hilton, the Internet blogger behind perezhilton.com.
"I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be," Prejean said during Sunday night's live telecast.
Hilton was visibly upset, and there was a mixed reaction from the live audience. Prejean ultimately came up short, losing the title to Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton.
On Monday, Keith Lewis, the executive director for Miss California USA/Teen USA, said he was saddened by Prejean's response.
Prejean, who has been romantically linked to Olympian Michael Phelps, spoke on Monday, too: "I feel like I'm the winner. I really do," she said to pageant host Billy Bush on "The Billy Bush Show," noting that she had 1,000 new messages on Facebook and 2,000 friend requests.
•PHOTOS: Metromix's photo gallery from the Miss USA pageant
Prejean added that her answer "did cost me my crown," but said: "I wouldn't have had it any other way. I said what I feel. I stated an opinion that was true to myself, and that's all I can do."
We are headed for a cultural war in this country because of this issue. This event could be the first shot.
It was supposed to be all smiles and tiaras, but Sunday night's Miss USA beauty pageant took an ugly turn after Miss California's comments on same-sex marriage. North Carolina may have won, but she's not the one getting all the attention.
Who knew the question-and-answer portion of the pageant would become the latest touchstone in a debate that's raging across the country. News 3's Gerard Ramalho is the only reporter with that post-pageant confrontation.
Our own Alicia Jacobs was a judge and we had several staffers who witnessed the event. The "Miss California question," as it's now being called, and her response to the legalization of gay marriage sparked an angry debate after the show. People on both sides were fuming.
The beauty of the Miss USA pageant quickly turned ugly with supporters of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, and gay rights opponents pointing fingers and loudly voicing opinions.
"We have a right to give an alternate viewpoint. She had a mic, we had to speak loudly."
Celebrity judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay man, is the one who posed the question about whether all states should legalize gay marriage.
Miss California's response: I think it's great we live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised. Thank you very much.
The reaction from Hilton was obvious; the audience was a mix of boos and cheers.
"You know we're not asking for special rights, we're asking for equal rights," says Hilton.
Candice Nichols, the Director of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada says she was not offended; she just disagrees.
"In my country and in my family, we feel differently and we feel that it's equal rights for all. But she's definitely entitled to her opinion."
In the end, it was Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton, who was crowned the winner; Miss California was runner-up.
But in terms of publicity, the outcome may turn out a little differently. On YouTube at this point, the crowning of the winner has reached nearly 21,000 views, while the Miss California question clip has surpassed 500,000.
There's been a lot of reaction, including from the co-director of the pageant, who says he was saddened by her response. Prejean is also receiving praise and kudos, however, from Christians and others who share her opinion.
[...]Miss California says her phone has been ringing off the hook with people offering her support after she took on a question about gay marriage on Sunday night's Miss USA telecast.
"I have no regrets about answering [judge Perez Hilton] honestly," she said in one of her first interviews following the show, where she answered that she was against gay marriage becoming legal in California. "He asked me for my opinion and I gave it to him. I have nothing against gay people and I didn't mean to offend anyone in my answer."
The President gave a news conference in Trinidad & Tobago while attending the Western Hemisphere Summit. Read the transcript. View an unusually scenic video here. Excerpt below:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. The spotlight on your visit here was on the handshake and smiles with Hugo Chavez, but we didn't see much interaction with some of the other leaders of the region like Daniel Ortega, Rafael Correa, or Evo Morales, who yesterday accused the United States of still interfering in its affairs and, even though it's too soon, he says, of not seeing much of change. Did you have any private meetings with any of these leaders, and if so, can you tell us what was discussed?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I had meetings with all the leaders involved, including Daniel Ortega, who was the chairperson of the Central American meeting. I had very cordial conversations with President Morales and President Correa. And I think it's just that President Chavez is better at positioning the cameras.
And in all these conversations, here's what I emphasized: that we're not going to agree on every issue, but that as long as we are respectful of democratic processes, as long as we're respectful of principles of sovereignty for all nations, that we can find areas where we can work in common. And my sense is, if you talk to any of those leaders, that they would say that they feel encouraged about the possibility of a more constructive relationship.
Now, specifically on the Bolivia issue, I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere. That is not the policy of our government. That is not how the American people expect their government to conduct themselves. And so I want to be as clear as possible on that.
But one of the things that I mentioned in both public remarks as well as private remarks is that the United States obviously has a history in this region that's not always appreciated from the perspective of some, but that what we need to do is try to move forward, and that I am responsible for how this administration acts and we will be respectful to those democratically elected governments, even when we disagree with them.
Scott Wilson, Washington Post.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said during the summit that you were here not to debate the past. You also said we must learn from our history. You just referred to this history. What have you learned over two days of listening to leaders here about how U.S. policy is perceived in the region? And can you name a specific policy that you will change as a result of what you've heard?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that what was reemphasized in all the discussions that I had was a sense, on the one hand, that the United States is critical to the economic growth and opportunities in the region. Even the most vociferous critics of the United States also want to make sure that the United States' economy is working and growing again, because there is extraordinary dependence on the United States for exports, for remittances.
And so in that sense people are rooting for America's success. I do think that there is a strain of thought in the region that, in the past, many of the problems surrounding economic growth and opportunity or the lack thereof resulted because of a too rigid application of a free market doctrine imposed by the IMF -- what is termed the "Washington consensus."
I think in some cases, those issues have been addressed. At the G20 summit, for example, we talked about the need to create a reformed international financial -- set of international financial institutions that provide additional flexibility, provide more voice and vote to developing countries. In some cases, it may be just a carryover of knee-jerk anti-American sentiment, or simply differing -- differences in terms of economic theories and how the economies should grow.
One thing that I thought was interesting -- and I knew this in a more abstract way but it was interesting in very specific terms -- hearing from these leaders who when they spoke about Cuba talked very specifically about the thousands of doctors from Cuba that are dispersed all throughout the region, and upon which many of these countries heavily depend. And it's a reminder for us in the United States that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence and have -- have a beneficial effect when we need to try to move policies that are of concern to us forward in the region.
And I think that's why it's so important that in our interactions not just here in the hemisphere but around the world, that we recognize that our military power is just one arm of our power, and that we have to use our diplomatic and development aid in more intelligent ways so that people can see very practical, concrete improvements in the lives of ordinary persons as a consequence of U.S. foreign policy.
Chuck Todd.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Building a little bit, actually, on the answer that you had there, you've been to three continents now in the last three weeks, 40-odd world leaders that you've been in the same room with --
THE PRESIDENT: Time to get home. (Laughter.)
Q Yes, exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to Iowa next week. (Laughter.)
