Friday, November 18, 2011
Bullet-hits leave a hole in White House security
Even as Barack and Michele Obama were attending various events in faraway California last week they had little idea that their home at 1600, Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington had come under fire from a hail of bullets.
While initial reports only indicated that shots had been fired in the vicinity of the White House, the Secret Service, charged with protecting the President of the United States, revealed this week that the gunfire had in fact hit a front window of Mr. Obama’s residence.
Two bullets, believed by officials to have been fired from a semi-automatic rifle, were discovered in the premises of the White House of which one was said to have hit the “special anti-ballistic glass protecting the building’s interior,” and the second one was found outside the building.
Preliminary investigations suggested an exchange of fire between two vehicles on Constitution Avenue, a short distance from the White House, and an AK-47 rifle was found in an abandoned vehicle on Friday night.
The only person named in connection with the incident thus far was Oscar Ortega-Hernandez (21), for whom Park Police spokesman David Schlosser said an arrest warrant had been issued on the charge of carrying a dangerous weapon.
Media reports said that earlier in the day Mr. Ortega was pulled over by police in neighbouring Virginia “after behaving suspiciously”. Police photographs of Mr. Ortega from that time were said to include “an image showing one of his tattoos: the word Israel written on his neck”, according to reports.
The right to carry guns is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment but it has been a source of contention in the District of Columbia. While Washington DC has enacted a number of gun control laws in the past a June 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court held that the city’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. However laws requiring firearm registration, the city’s assault weapon ban and the prohibition on carrying guns openly or concealed are still very much in place
Labels: 1600, Barack Obama, gunshots fired, Pennsylvania Avenue, Secret Service, White House
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
U.S. modulates West Asia involvement
From The Hindu
In a possible indication that the United States is seeking to tamp down its involvement in West Asian politics, the White House has refused to officially recognise the Libyan Transitional National Council rebel formation, even as President Barack Obama accepted the resignation of his top West Asia envoy, George Mitchell.
Despite a high-profile meeting at the White House with National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, TNC President Mahmoud Gibril came away disappointed when he was informed there would as yet be no official recognition of his group as the alternative to Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi. While the White House spun the meeting as a positive development and said the U.S. viewed the TNC as a “legitimate and credible interlocutor of the Libyan people”, a State Department spokesman said the question of recognition was “one of many... policy issues... that are still under review”. He added it was up to the Libyan people, and not the international community, to decide who was to lead Libya.
Mr. Gibril had earlier said in an interview with CNN that his main message to the White House would be to clear up “misperceptions” about extreme elements in the opposition and to ask for formal recognition.
Even as these tensions became evident, the White House announced, following two years of failed efforts to get Israeli and Palestinian leaders to the negotiating table, that Mr. Mitchell would be resigning.
“Over the past two and a half years, George Mitchell has worked as a tireless advocate for peace as the U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East. His deep commitment to resolving conflict and advancing democracy has contributed immeasurably to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security,” said Mr. Obama.
While Mr. Mitchell said he had resigned based on his commitment to leave his role after two years' service under the Obama administration, foreign policy specialist Josh Rogin suggested that “Mitchell's departure is the clearest signal that no new peace initiative from the administration is forthcoming.”
Labels: Libya, Libyan Transitional National Council, Middle East, Middle East envoy George Mitchell, Muammar Qadhafi, U.S. President Barack Obama, White House
White House acknowledges Roemer’s resignation
The resignation letter of Timothy Roemer, United States Ambassador to India, has been submitted, a White House official confirmed to The Hindu.
Concurrently White House Spokesperson Jay Carney emphasised that over the past two years during Ambassador Roemer’s tenure, U.S. President Barack Obama made the expansion of the U.S.-India strategic partnership a “major priority” and declared that it was an “indispensible partnership” for the 21st century.
A day after Mr. Roemer’s resignation Mr. Carney said that Mr. Obama “has great respect for the Indian people, a close partnership with Prime Minister Singh, and views this relationship as an anchor to our approach in Asia.”
M. Carney further reaffirmed that the U.S. and India would continue to pursue top priorities, including balanced economic growth, counter-terrorism, global security and stability, education, agriculture, trade and investment, and the advance of democratic values.
Labels: resignation, Timothy J. Roemer, U.S. Ambassador to India, White House
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Poolers' take on White House guest arrivals for Hu Jintao state dinner
From Official Poolers of Politico
Subject: Pool report--State Dinner arrivals #1
Welcome to the third installment of POLITICO's State Dinner arrivals coming to you from Booksellers at the White House. -- Kendra Marr and Amie Parnes
Here's a rundown of the best arrivals so far.
Asked if he'll run in 2012 ...
"We're loyal to our country and our president," said John Huntsman.
Vera Wang walked into the hall as reporters gasped: "Wow!"
Who's Vera Wang wearing, your poolers asked. "I'll let you guys guess," the A-list designer said.
And (!) Did she design first lady Michelle Obama's dress tonight? "No I did not," she said.
Wang said she enjoyed seeing President Hu again: "That was kind of a big thing. Great to see him again."
Jackie Chan's date goes "Jackie give me your camera" -- a big SLR -- before he walks out to greet the press.
Why he is lugging that thing around? "I just want to take some photo" he shrugs Chan, who is wearing a tux with a mandarin collar.
Going to do some stunts? "No, not today"
Wendy Murdoch: Where's Rupert? "He's traveling."
How do you feel about being here tonight? No response. Kept on walking. Bye bye.
Best mother daughter combo: Madeleine and Alice Albright.
Mona Locke, in an elegant gray satin gown said she bought it from a Seattle designer
Christiane Amanpour walks briskly through only to mouth,"Armani," when asked about her dress.
Another "where's your date" moment for Elaine Chao. She's accompanied by her father.
Subject: Pool report--State Dinner arrivals #1
Welcome to the third installment of POLITICO's State Dinner arrivals coming to you from Booksellers at the White House. -- Kendra Marr and Amie Parnes
Here's a rundown of the best arrivals so far.
Asked if he'll run in 2012 ...
"We're loyal to our country and our president," said John Huntsman.
Vera Wang walked into the hall as reporters gasped: "Wow!"
Who's Vera Wang wearing, your poolers asked. "I'll let you guys guess," the A-list designer said.
And (!) Did she design first lady Michelle Obama's dress tonight? "No I did not," she said.
Wang said she enjoyed seeing President Hu again: "That was kind of a big thing. Great to see him again."
Jackie Chan's date goes "Jackie give me your camera" -- a big SLR -- before he walks out to greet the press.
Why he is lugging that thing around? "I just want to take some photo" he shrugs Chan, who is wearing a tux with a mandarin collar.
Going to do some stunts? "No, not today"
Wendy Murdoch: Where's Rupert? "He's traveling."
How do you feel about being here tonight? No response. Kept on walking. Bye bye.
Best mother daughter combo: Madeleine and Alice Albright.
Mona Locke, in an elegant gray satin gown said she bought it from a Seattle designer
Christiane Amanpour walks briskly through only to mouth,"Armani," when asked about her dress.
Another "where's your date" moment for Elaine Chao. She's accompanied by her father.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, politico, poolers, White House
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Between a rock and a hard place
From The Hindu
With the 112th Congress of the United States beginning its work this week, President Barack Obama can expect that many, if not most, of his policy initiatives for 2011 will literally be “up-Hill” struggles, beleaguered by attacks and blockades from a fresh crop of conservatives in the House of Representatives.
Since the November Congressional election handed Democrats a stinging defeat in many States, reversing their control of the House entirely and thinning out their majority in the Senate, the President was quick to strike an inclusive note in its aftermath, in which he emphasised that Republicans shared the responsibility for governing a nation reeling under the effects of the global economic downturn.
Yet the notion of a post-November shift in power balance may be somewhat exaggerated, for it could be argued that it is the Republicans who are between a rock — the Democratic policy juggernaut that is the Obama White House — and a hard place.
Indulge in a thought experiment for a moment. The year is 2011 and the month is, let us say, April. The U.S. unemployment rate is still hovering at above nine per cent, as it has been for most of the previous year.
President Obama, sensing that a funding boost for unemployment support programmes is necessary to reduce the numbers of desperate, near-bankrupt ordinary Americans, proposes a bill to that effect. The Senate passes it narrowly, and it goes to the House.
If the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, takes a view that supporting such a bill would be true to the mandate that he has been handed by voters — to get the U.S. economy back on track following its dramatic collapse under a Republican administration — he and his colleagues would support it and it would pass.
In that scenario his party would still be able to project an image of capable governance and effective bipartisan deal-making, an asset that might prove to be vital during the 2012 presidential elections. Given that the Democratic campaign is certain to blame the Republicans for engendering the crisis this image might well be the deciding factor.
If Mr. Boehner however bends to the will of newbie Congressmen with Tea-Party roots, who will invariably be baying for deficit reduction measures, even during the worst recession in 80 years, he would endanger the prospects of his party in 2012, and with it his own political future.
The reason for this is that besides the risk that Congressional obstructionism through filibuster could deprive the Republicans of any claim to responsible governance, the Republican Party is still struggling to come up with a suitable candidate to run against President Obama in 2012.
Hence the Republicans need every bit of political ammunition they can find if they are to have any hope at all of recapturing the White House; and in that context, to appear callous to the needs of those who have suffered the most during the recession, or to those who have benefitted from last year's game-changing healthcare reform, could be tantamount to political suicide.
Also, as economists such as Paul Krugman and Christina Romer have pointed out, there is a genuine concern that early rollbacks of stimulus policies, in fear of deficit expansion, could resurrect the nightmarish prospect of a long-festering recession, similar to what actually happened in the 1930s.
Similarly Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius warned in an op-ed this week that if deficit hawks attempted to get the healthcare reform laws repealed, that would ironically add close to a trillion dollars to the deficit.
The flipside of that coin, that the U.S.' gargantuan deficit could cripple its economy through a multitude of macroeconomic effects, is certainly a real danger too but one that might be relatively less immediate in terms of its consequences for middle-class Americans.
It is not as though Republicans are unmindful of these ground realities. The problem is that they are equally aware that their control over the House gives them leverage to bargain with the Democrats and the White House — which taken to an extreme could imply a full-scale government shutdown as demonstrated by former House Speaker and Republican Newt Gingrich.
Yet if Mr. Boehner takes Republicans down the path that his predecessor did, history suggests that it is the House majority party, and perhaps millions of furloughed public sector workers, who would feel the pain of government departments suddenly coming to a grinding halt and the flow of pay cheques drying up.
When Mr. Gingrich brought that fate upon the U.S. in 1995, in the heat of a mounting personal rivalry with erstwhile President Bill Clinton, the fallout was that his poll ratings dropped dramatically while Mr. Clinton's public approval soared and brought him a step closer to getting re-elected to a second term.
If all this appears obvious then for what murkier reasons might Mr. Boehner choose to impose a stranglehold on Congress?
The answer comes back again and again to the Tea Party. With even President Obama admitting that Democrats got a “shellacking” in November, the unmistakable wave of discontented voters picking red over blue was interpreted in some quarters as a victory for the Tea Party, which had finally “arrived” in the mainstream.
Yet as the case of Christine O'Donnell demonstrated, the average American voter often shies away from the Tea Party's relatively extreme views on certain subjects — including race relations and the role of religion in politics.
In the primaries Ms O'Donnell, a self-confessed former practitioner of witchcraft, knocked out incumbent Congressman Michael Castle from the race but then ended up losing the House seat to Democrat Chris Coons in November. Speaking after his victory Mr. Coons said to voters, “You sent a message that the politics of no, the politics of division, the politics of negativity have no place in this great state.”
Doubtless senior Republican strategists somewhere were gnashing their teeth in frustration as Ms O'Donnell's foray sabotaged, even if unwittingly, the prospects of a mainstream Republican candidate.
Nevertheless, given their considerable presence in the 2011 Congress — they hold 40 seats in the House, out of a total of 435 seats — the Tea Party Congressmen's strident messages on everything from social conservatism to cutting government welfare spending may have already weighed on Mr. Boehner's calculations.
However if his insecurities about the Tea Party causing cracks in the Republican machine prompt Mr. Boehner to stall the very functioning of Congress, then that might be a sign that the Grand Old Party is more internally fragile than even Mr. Obama and his Democratic colleagues could imagine in their wildest dreams.
Labels: Democrats, Republicans, U.S. Congressional elections, White House
Thursday, March 11, 2010
White House-Supreme Court row intensifies
From The Hindu
John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday attacked U.S. President Obama’s State of the Union Address in January, in a deepening row over the use of money power to influence politics in Washington.
Speaking at the University of Alabama, Justice Roberts said, “Some people, I think, have an obligation to criticise what we do, given their office, if they think we’ve done something wrong. So I have no problems with that. On the other hand there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.”
Referring to President Obama’s chiding of the Supreme Court for its decision in the Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission case, Chief Justice Roberts said, “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering, while the Court according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
In a five-to-four vote the Supreme Court in January ruled that political spending by corporations in candidate elections would be permitted, free of government bans, on the basis of protecting the First Amendment’s free speech principle.
Critics have since argued that “allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy” and that the ruling “represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences”, particularly in reshaping the way elections were conducted.
During his address Mr. Obama said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”
He added that he didn’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests by foreign entities, rather they should be decided by the American people. “I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a Bill that helps correct some of these problems", he said.
At that point Democrats and Mr. Obama staffers surrounding the six Justices present stood and applauded. The Justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. However one Justice, Samuel Alito, appeared to be mouthing "Not true, not true," and shaking his head in disagreement.
Reacting to that incident Justice Roberts on Wednesday, went on to say, “And it does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be [at the State of the Union address], to the extent that the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally. I’m not sure why we’re there.
However the White House and Democrats reacted sharply with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” The political backlash of the row continues to pervade Washington.
John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday attacked U.S. President Obama’s State of the Union Address in January, in a deepening row over the use of money power to influence politics in Washington.
Speaking at the University of Alabama, Justice Roberts said, “Some people, I think, have an obligation to criticise what we do, given their office, if they think we’ve done something wrong. So I have no problems with that. On the other hand there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.”
Referring to President Obama’s chiding of the Supreme Court for its decision in the Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission case, Chief Justice Roberts said, “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering, while the Court according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
In a five-to-four vote the Supreme Court in January ruled that political spending by corporations in candidate elections would be permitted, free of government bans, on the basis of protecting the First Amendment’s free speech principle.
Critics have since argued that “allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy” and that the ruling “represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences”, particularly in reshaping the way elections were conducted.
During his address Mr. Obama said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”
He added that he didn’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests by foreign entities, rather they should be decided by the American people. “I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a Bill that helps correct some of these problems", he said.
At that point Democrats and Mr. Obama staffers surrounding the six Justices present stood and applauded. The Justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. However one Justice, Samuel Alito, appeared to be mouthing "Not true, not true," and shaking his head in disagreement.
Reacting to that incident Justice Roberts on Wednesday, went on to say, “And it does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be [at the State of the Union address], to the extent that the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally. I’m not sure why we’re there.
However the White House and Democrats reacted sharply with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” The political backlash of the row continues to pervade Washington.
Labels: Barack Obama, corporate funding, elections, Supreme Court, United States, White House
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
