17 Responses to “100 jours plus tard (II)”

1. Jean-Luc Proulx dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 12 h 23 min

   M’en calice de ce sondage! 2012 est encore très loin. Attendons au moins 2010!

   L’élection de Barack Obama aura eu l’avantage (non recherché par les démocrates) de forcer une transformation de la droite américaine qui semble vouloir délaisser le conservatisme social pour adopter une attitude plus libertarienne.

   Je vais le croire quand je vais voir le type de candidat que les républicains vont se donner en 2012. Si c’est Palin, fuck off!

   Pour le moment, Michael Steele me semble plutôt bien et, en ce qui me concerne, Ron Paul sera trop vieux pour se présenter en 2012.

   http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Steele

   Mais, je répète que l’avenir, ce sont les Tea Parties.
2. Chose dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 12 h 44 min

   la droite américaine qui semble vouloir délaisser le conservatisme social pour adopter une attitude plus libertarienne.

   J’aimerais le croire… Un parti « liberal » (au sens americain du terme, et surtout pas au sens canadien) qui serait en meme temps a droite economiquement.
3. waried dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 14 h 37 min

   Moi aussi j’ai hâte de voir par contre. Faut pas oublier que le monde est en crise présentement. Le monde est réactif et impulsif…

   Attendons avant de se réjouir et sauter au conclusion!
4. Martin dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 15 h 44 min

   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/republican-leaders-launch-outreach-initiative-revive-party-image/
5. ElDukie dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 17 h 58 min

   C’est normal qu’on soit déçu de Obama, les gens croyaient que c’était le messie mais le messie est mort il y a longtemps sur la croix. Quand tu pars de haut, tu ne peux que descendre.
6. John Paul Jones dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 21 h 08 min

   Jean-Luc Proulx a dit…

   M’en calice de ce sondage! 2012 est encore très loin. Attendons au moins 2010!

   Moi je trouve ce sondage rassurant car il démontre que bon nombre d’américains refusent de boire le « cool-aid » d’Obama.
7. bmessier dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 21 h 44 min

   « As he approaches the 100-day mark of his presidency, Barack Obama’s job approval ratings are higher than those of his most recent predecessors »

   http://people-press.org/report/509/obama-at-100-days
8. John Paul Jones dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 22 h 40 min

   Gallup reports that 56% of the public believes that Obama is doing an excellent/good job. Gallup reported 62% approved of George W. Bush’s job performance after the first 100 days. MSM tells us how popular Barack Obama is but the numbers tell a different story especially when used comparatively. Comparing the Gallup poll taken following the first 100 day of George W. Bush and Barack Obama is rather informative especially given the highly contentious nature of the 2000 election.

   Here are the numbers for other presidents:

   April approval ratings in first year in office

   Bush now 62%
   Clinton, 1993 55
   Bush, 1989 58
   Reagan, 1981 67
   Carter, 1977 63
   Nixon, 1969 61
   Sampling error: +/-3% pts

   http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/79295.html
9. bmessier dit :

   30 avril 2009 à 23 h 08 min

   Les chiffres dans mon lien pour le taux d’approbation des 100 premiers jours disent le contraire de ce que tu dis et la source est aussi de Gallup!

   These numbers tell a different story!
   Morale de l’histoire: Les sondages et les titres à l’emporte-pièce basés sur des sondages…
10. Badaboum dit :

    1 mai 2009 à 0 h 54 min

    Oser comparer les 100 premiers jour de Obama vs Bush est de faire preuve de mauvaise foi. Bush avais un surplus budgetaire, pas de guerres, pas de scandale sur la torture et sur l’idee de poursuivre des membres de l’ancienne administration, pas de crise economique..etc..etc..

    Arretez de rever serieux…Ron Paul a ete flushe, Ignore, ridiculise par les republicains et moi je trouvais qu’il avais plus de sens que TOUTE la gang qui etais la McCon Palin Giualiani et etc mais non on a prefere un vieux senile qui a une vie truffe de mensonges et une femme qui a aucune morale mais qui veut en imposer aux autres…winner
11. David dit :

    1 mai 2009 à 1 h 05 min

    Oser comparer les 100 premiers jour de Obama vs Bush est de faire preuve de mauvaise foi. Bush avais un surplus budgetaire, pas de guerres, pas de scandale sur la torture et sur l’idee de poursuivre des membres de l’ancienne administration, pas de crise economique..etc..etc..

    Si la job était trop dur, Obama n’avait qu’a ne pas se présenté.

    Il ne sert à rien de devenir président si c’est pour chialer contre son prédécesseur. Tout le monde est capable de faire ça.

    De plus, si on fait abstraction des annonces cosmétiques, la présidence a décider de poursuivre les politique de Bush qui ont mis les USA dans la rue.

    mais non on a prefere un vieux senile

    Les 100 jours d’une administration McCain aurait été identique à ceux de l,Administration Obama. Sauf que le sénile n’aurait pas au autant de besoin d’un télésouffleur.
12. David dit :

    1 mai 2009 à 1 h 08 min

    Les chiffres dans mon lien pour le taux d’approbation des 100 premiers jours disent le contraire de ce que tu dis et la source est aussi de Gallup!

    These numbers tell a different story!
    Morale de l’histoire: Les sondages et les titres à l’emporte-pièce basés sur des sondages…

    La différence c’est la date des sondages.

    Ton lien a été publié le 23 avril, 1 semaine avant la parution des derniers sondages qui correspondent à la date des 100 jours.
13. David dit :

    1 mai 2009 à 1 h 10 min

    bmessier,

    j’oubliais.

    Obama a débuté très haut dans les sondages et les médias ont été ses propagandiste depuis 100 jours. C’est pourquoi la tendance très à la baisse de son taux d’approbation est très révélatrice.

    D’ailleurs sa conférence de presse de mercredi à perdu 29% de sa côte d’écoute par rapport à celle du mois de mars.

    Et ce malgré la « crise » de la grippe.
14. Garvey dit :

    1 mai 2009 à 11 h 00 min

    Telepromter Obama and his Churchill Lies what a pitty.

    Telepromter Barack Obama’s grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, must be turning over in his grave.
    Winston Churchill — the man who ordered his torture during the Kenyan war of independence — was being praised by his grandson for not using torture. What a laugh.
    Obama cited Britain as a country that never resorted to torture during war during his prime-time press conference on Tuesday night.
    “London was being bombed to smithereens [and] had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, ‘We don’t torture,’” Obama said. “Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people.”
    Excuse me, Mr. Telepromter: Churchill did condone torture and he did use torture — and advocated using poison gas and concentration camps. And he was quite proud to do so, writing about it frequently as a means to an end.
    I don’t know whose Kool-Aid Obama was drinking.
15. Chose dit :

    1 mai 2009 à 11 h 18 min

    Les 100 jours d’une administration McCain aurait été identique à ceux de l,Administration Obama. Sauf que le sénile n’aurait pas au autant de besoin d’un télésouffleur.

    Et je ne suis pas sur que le(s) bailout aurait ete aussi « genereux »

    Pas de doute que Obama aime l’Amerique, mais pour ma part j’aime mieux celle de McCain.
16. Garvey dit :

    2 mai 2009 à 11 h 59 min

    U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

    Todd Heisler/The New York Times
    The four-month suspension of military commission proceedings ordered for Guantánamo detainees is to end on May 20.

    Published: May 1, 2009
    The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.

    Skip to next paragraph

    It is not clear how many detainees are likely to be prosecuted, but officials said Friday that some would be in federal courts.
    Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.

    Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama’s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system.

    Bush might not had been wrong after all.I wonder what excuses the teleprompter will come up with next week?
17. Garvey dit :

    2 mai 2009 à 12 h 05 min

    MUST READ

    Put that in your pipe Obama.

    Andrew C. McCarthy

    May 1, 2009

    By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

    The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
    Attorney General of the United States
    United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

    Dear Attorney General Holder:

    This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

    The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

    Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

    Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

    Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
    For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

    There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
    The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

    Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

    I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

    Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

    Very truly yours,

    /S/

    Andrew C. McCarthy

    cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
    National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section