Tag Archives: Us

Unthinkable? A Republican apology to John Kerry

Editorial

The Guardian,
Friday 21 December 2012 21.10 GMT

In 2004, Senator John Kerry proved not to be ideal US presidential timber. But the Massachusetts grandee is a political heavyweight nevertheless. And in three other key respects he is an excellent nominee to succeed Hillary Clinton as America’s secretary of state. First, Mr Kerry knows the world’s trouble spots, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. As chairman of the senate foreign relations committee from 2009, he will go to Foggy Bottom with the facts on some of America’s most difficult strategic engagements already at his fingertips. Second, Mr Kerry is that rare bird in US politics: a natural cosmopolitan. A French speaker, married to a colonial Mozambique-born multimillionaire wife, he knows instinctively how to speak softly even while carrying Washington’s big stick. Finally, Mr Kerry knows first-hand about the realities of war. As a young man he fought in Vietnam and won medals for his bravery, returning to the US to become a prominent and intensely credible critic of the war. For this audacity, he was monstered in 2004 by the Republicans of George Bush (a rich draft dodger who talked tough). Few people have had their service so shamefully traduced as Mr Kerry at the hands of Karl Rove’s swift-boat character assassination tactics eight years ago. That episode remains one of the morally darkest acts of modern American election campaigning. This would be a perfect moment for Republican senators to apologi
1f40
se to Mr Kerry at his confirmation hearings. But don’t hold your breath.
‘,
obPaidHtml = ”,
containerHtml = ”+obInternalHtml+obPaidHtml+”;

jQuery(‘.article #box > .share-links’).after(containerHtml);

// Load the widget and setup callbacks
OBR.extern.reloadWidget();

if(typeof(OBR) !== ‘undefined’) { // OBR Object must be found in Dom
OBR.extern.onOdbReturn(“AR_1″,function(){
var totalCountOfRecs = OBR.extern.getCountOfRecs(“AR_1″);
fixOBComponent(“AR_1″);
});
OBR.extern.onOdbReturn(“AR_2″,function(){
var totalCountOfRecs = OBR.extern.getCountOfRecs(“AR_2″);
fixOBComponent(“AR_2″);
});

}

// Do the popup explainers – sorry this is done quite badly
jQuery(document).delegate(‘.outbrain-container .explainer-link’, ‘click’, function(e) {
e.preventDefault();

var sponsoredText = “These are paid-for links provided by Outbrain, and may or may not be relevant to the other content on this page. To find out more information about driving traffic to your content or to place this widget on your site, visit outbrain.com. We welcome your feedback at userhelp@guardian.co.uk or feedback@outbrain.com. You can read Outbrain’s privacy and cookie policy here.”,
internalText = “These are links to Guardian pages suggested by Outbrain, which may or may not be relevant to the other content on this page. We welcome your feedback at userhelp@guardian.co.uk or feedback@outbrain.com. You can read Outbrain’s privacy and cookie policy here.”,
explainerText = jQuery(this).parent().parent().hasClass(‘AR_1′) ? internalText : sponsoredText;

var position = jQ(this).offset(),
overlayNode = jQ(”+explainerText+”);

// Listen for events to close the overlay
overlayNode.find(‘.close’).click(function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
overlayNode.remove();
});

if(jQ(‘.outbrain-explainer’).is(“:visible”)) {
jQ(‘.outbrain-explainer’).remove();
}

// Position the overlay
overlayNode.css({‘top’: position.top+20,
‘left’: position.left-393});

// ….and showtime
jQuery(‘.ob_box_cont’).append(overlayNode);
overlayNode.fadeIn();

// Close the overlay if there’s clicks outside it
jQ(document).click(function(e) {
overlayNode.remove();
});
jQ(‘.outbrain-explainer, .outbrain-explainer *’).click(function(e) {
if (jQ(e.target)[0].tagName.toLowerCase() != ‘a’) {
e.stopPropagation();
return false;
}
});
});

// This re-arranges the OB markup to match ours
function fixOBComponent(id) {
var node = jQuery(‘div[data-widget-id="'+id+'"]‘);

node.find(‘.ob_box_cont’).addClass(‘component’);

1f40
node.find(‘.ob_org_header’).addClass(‘hd b1′);
node.find(‘.ob_org_header div’).wrap(”);
node.find(‘.hd’).prepend(‘What’s this?’);

var titleNode = node.find(‘.hd h2 div’),
title = titleNode.text().replace(‘guardian’, ‘Guardian’);

titleNode.text(title);
}
}

});

Read More

Wayne LaPierre: the NRA chief facing his toughest test after Newtown

A couple of years after his 15-year-old son Daniel was killed in the Columbine high school shooting in April 1999, Tom Mauser bumped into Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, at a charity event.It was a fortuitous meeting for Mauser. In the months after the massacre, in which 12 students and a teacher died, LaPierre had been seminal in lobbying against a Congressional bill that would have closed the gun show loophole that allows firearms to be sold by private sellers without any background check on the purchaser. The loophole was exploited by the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, to procure their weapons.After the bill collapsed, Mauser had written to the NRA asking why it had so fiercely opposed such a sensible safeguard to prevent future tragedies. “I wrote: ‘Do you have any idea what it’s like to go through this, to lose your son in that way? Why are you doing this?’” Mauser says.Mauser was surprised by the NRA’s response. Or lack of it. The NRA simply did not reply.So he raised the matter with LaPierre when he happened upon him, and LaPierre, being the polite and affable character he is widely said to be, promised to find out what had happened to the letter. Months passed, and still Mauser received no reply, so in 2002 he presented a copy of the same letter to the Washington offices of the NRA and picketed outside the front door.For his pains, the NRA called the police and Mauser was arrested. He repeated the action in 2005, and was arrested again. “It became clear to me, LaPierre would rather have me arrested than talk to me, reply to my letter or even acknowledge me as a human being.”In the 21 years he has been at the helm of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre has had to deal with plenty of Columbines: Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora – the list goes on. And on each occasion he has responded with the same behind-the-scenes lobbying, some say bullying, to prevent any political tightening of gun controls, mixed with a blanket refusal to respond to criticism.This time, though, it’s different. The tactic of not responding that Mauser experienced after Columbine could not hold after Newtown, the killing of 20 young children and six teachers in Sandy Hook elementary school. “People have been so shaken up by the deaths of little children that they demanded to know why the NRA was so quiet. LaPierre couldn’t get away with it this time,” Mauser says.On Friday, a week almost to the hour after Adam Lanza burst his way into Sandy Hook school and began his rampage, LaPierre was finally forced to speak. But what he said showed no sign of compromise, and no change of tack.He repeated a mantra that he has recited after several mass shootings, including the April 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, the worst rampage by a single gunman in US history in which 32 people died. “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said.Newtown represents the most perilous moment for LaPierre in his two decades as the dominant figure within one of the most influential lobbying groups in the country. Since he took on the job of the NRA’s executive vice-president in 1991 he has helped grow the association into the corporate powerhouse that it now is.”Wayne LaPierre has corporatised the NRA, creating a symbiotic relationship with the gun industry that includes a significant financial stake,” says the Violence Policy Center’s Josh Sugarmann, author of NRA: Money, Firepower, Fear.The irony is that LaPierre is not a true “gun man” in the classic mould. He neither comes from a militaristic background nor from the rural heartlands that generate much of the NRA’s core membership.What he is, though, is a professional bureaucrat. He was brought up in Roanoke, Virginia, and received an MA in government from Boston college. His passion is not guns, but for the machinations of power. As a young man he volunteered in several political campaigns including the failed 1972 presidential run of the leftwing Democrat George McGovern.A brief stint as the legislative aide to a Virginia Democratic politician brought him in contact with the NRA, which he joined in 1978. He rose up the ranks, as a regional lobbyist, then to Capitol Hill, and from there into the job as the association’s chief administrator.When he was given the top job, a joke circulated around the NRA that he didn’t know one end of a gun from another. But LaPierre quickly accommodated himself to the more aggressive wing of the gun movement that held sway within the NRA.On occasion, he even went further than the most extreme of his members, driving the pro-gun movement ever more to the right. His propensity for colourful language – such a contrast to his measured, bureaucrat’s demeanour – could get him into trouble. In 1995 he famously put his name to an NRA fundraising leaflet that depicted federal law enforcement agents as “jack-booted thugs”, adding that “in Clinton’s administration, if you have a badge, you have the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens”.A few weeks after the leaflet was circulated, Timothy McVeigh, a former NRA member, carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, killing 168 people including many federal agents. LaPierre was forced to issue a grovelling apology, and in the fall-out the former president George Bush Sr resigned from the association and several gun manufacturers broke off relations.Despite this bruising experience, LaPierre has continued to attack advocates of gun control in highly intemperate terms. In March 2000 he accused the then president Bill Clinton of having “blood on his hands” and being “willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda”.In between slamming advocates of gun control, LaPierre has maintained an unbending opposition to any legislative measures to introduce greater safety into the US gun market. He has used his substantial knowledge of the workings of Congress as well as his skills as a lobbyist to stymie any reforms.Such an inflexible approach has brought him into conflict even with other gun supporters. Richard Feldman, a former senior member of the NRA who now heads the Independent Firearm Owners Association, remembers how LaPierre came at him when he tried to introduce child safety locks on to all guns in the wake of the 1998 shooting spree at an Oregon high school in which Kip Kinkel, 15, killed two students an
1f40
d injured 25. LaPierre launched a campaign to discredit the case for child locks that argued it would expose single mothers in high-crime areas to greater risk of burglary.Feldman says: “We did it because the lack of safety locks was giving gun ownership a bad name, but still the NRA didn’t like it. That was a silly fight for them to engage in.”After every gun rampage that has erupted across the US, LaPierre has adopted the same posture. First, he maintains several days or weeks of silence; then, when the initial shock and anger have subsided, he mobilises the full resources of the NRA to resist any post-massacre moves towards gun controls.The pattern has been much on display during Barack Obama’s first four years in office. After the January 2011 Tucson shooting that killed six and left the Congress member Gabby Giffords shot in the head, LaPierre refused point blank even to meet Obama to discuss the issue of gun safety. “Why should I sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the second amendment in the US?”Three days after the Aurora cinema shooting this July, in which 12 people were killed, LaPierre put out a letter that sought to raise money off the back of the disaster. Using his favoured fear-mongering methods, he warned gun enthusiasts that were Obama re-elected in November, “the future of your second amendment rights will be at stake, and nothing less than the future of our country and our freedom will be at stake”.Such intransigence has tested the loyalty even of firm believers in the right to carry arms in America. Bill Badger is a retired US army colonel who, though not an NRA member, has been a lifelong gun owner and supporter of shooting rights.But he became convinced of the need for reforms, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, on 8 January 2011. He was attending a street-corner rally called by Giffords when the suspected killer, Jared Lee Loughner, opened fire, shooting Badger in the back of the head. Badger’s military training came into its own, and despite having been hit he managed to grab the shooter as he tried to reload and threw him to the ground.Loughner was armed with a Glock handgun equipped with a 33-round magazine. Badger believes that if a federal ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds had been in place, the shooter would have been overpowered more quickly and much grief and blood-spilling would have been avoided.When Badger went to the NRA annual conference last year and tried to make the case for a ban on extended clips and assault rifles to LaPierre, he was told the NRA chief was too busy to meet him. Badger has now concluded that it is time for LaPierre and the other NRA executives to go.”They are too stubborn, too publicity-loving. The top leadership of the NRA needs to be replaced.”By ruling out all compromise in his speech on Friday, LaPierre has thrown down the gauntlet to Obama, who has promised to use all his presidential powers to bring about meaningful change. This will be the NRA chief’s ultimate battle, and whether or not he wins will have deep implications not just for him, not just for gun owners, but for all Americans. Read More

Market Buzz: Balancing on the edge of the US ‘fiscal cliff’

A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.(AFP Photo / Andrew Burton)The US ‘fiscal cliff’ issue maintains its grip on world stocks. Fitch warned it may strip the US of its top AAA rating if it fails to pass a budget deal, adding to investor concerns that the world’s biggest economy could fall back into recession.A US failure to avert the “fiscal cliff” and raise the debt ceiling before 2013 could mean that Fitch will take a “negative rating action” towards the United States, the rating agency said on Wednesday. The term “fiscal cliff” refers to a set of austerity measures – spending cuts and tax hikes – that will go into effect if legislators in Washington fail to pass a budget that addresses the country’s debt load.“The Russian market together with the world floors is waiting for the end of the talks over the US budget. But as the holidays are approaching, the interest of traders to this topic is fading,” Liliya Brueva of Investcafe said.Wednesday trading on Russian floors was mixed, with the RTS rising 0.39% to 1,517.39 and the MICEX going down 0.18% to 1,478.83.On US floors, the warning by Fitch and disappointing news from the housing market weighed down stocks. Housing starts in the US fell 3% in November to 861,000, the Census Bureau said, short of the expected figure of 894,000.The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq all closed down between 0.3% and
3e3
0.8%.All major indices in Europe made gains, with French shares leading the region. The CAC 40 was up 0.44%, while London’s FTSE 100 added 0.43% and Germany’s DAX gained 0.19%. The investor optimism in Europe was largely due to inspiring news from Germany, where its December IFO index indicating business optimism went up to 102.4 points from 101.4 the previous month.Japanese stocks fell Thursday as talks to avert a US fiscal crisis stalled. MSCI’s broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan was little changed, with Australian shares easing 0.1%, off a 17-month high hit on Wednesday. Seoul shares opened 0.5% higher after Wednesday’s presidential election, where the country chose its first female president, Park Geun-Hye, the daughter of the country’s former dictator. Many traders are expecting proposals for fresh stimulus measures from Seoul. Read More

UBS Libor-fixing fine may reach $1.5 billion

Swiss banking giant UBS may be slapped with a combined fine of $1.5 billion (1.1 billion euros) to settle allegations that it manipulated Libor interest rates, the Financial Times reported Tuesday. “UBS is close to finalising a deal with UK, US and Swiss authorities in which the bank will pay…

Read More

Image Syria_Khatib_Hollande.jpg

US-Backed Syrian Opposition Demands Support for Al Qaeda

US-handpicked opposition leader, Moaz al-Khatib wants US to reconsider terror listing for Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra front. Read More

Image anti-aircraft-missiles-patriot.jpg

US sending Patriot surface-to-air missiles to Turkey – reports

Patriot anti-aircraft missiles (AFP Photo)US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has signed an order to deploy two Patriot air-defense missile batteries to Turkey, he said in an exclusive interview with CBS News. The missiles are expected to bolster Turkish defenses against Syria.
function showFullDoc(link) {
$(“.more_link”).hide();
$(“.tail_text”).html(“­Up to 400 American servicemen are being sent to Turkey to operate the batteries. On December 4 NATO foreign ministers approved the deployment of German and Dutch batteries of Patriot missiles on the Turkish-Syrian border.On December 14 Germany’s lower chamber of Parliament is expected to vote on deploying country’s Patriot complexes to Turkey.The air defense shield on Turkish-Syrian border will not only protect Turkey. There are fears that Patriot batteries might create practicalno-fly zones inside the Syrian territory, as Patriot has a range of 160 kilometers.Germany and Netherlands are expected to dispatch Patriot batteries to Turkey in early 2013.The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Patriots are defensive weapons and NATO’s decision to deploy the surface-to-air missiles to Turkey is clear signal to Damascus that Turkey is backed by its NATO allies.NATO Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen told the media earlier this month that “Patriots are effective as interceptors against chemical weapons,” following the news spread in the western media that Syria is getting its chemical weapons stock ready.The US fears that in case President Bashar Assad loses control of the situation the chemical weapons of Syria could fall into the hands of radical Islamists.Several cross border incidents between Syria and Turkey over the summer have stoked fears within Ankara that the ongoing civil war in its southern neighbor could spill over into Turkish territory.”);
$(“.tail_text”).show(500);
return false;
}

­Up to 400 American servicemen are being sent to Turkey to operate the batteries. On December 4 NATO foreign ministers approved the deployment of German and Dutch batteries of Patriot missiles on the Turkish-Syrian border.On December 14 Germany’s lower chamber of Parliament is expected to vote on deploying country’s Patriot complexes to Turkey.The air defense shield on Turkish-Syrian border will not only protect Turkey. There are fears that Patriot batteries might create practicalno-fly zones inside the Syrian territory, as Patriot has a range of 160 kilometers.Germany and Netherlands are expected to dispatch Patriot batteries to Turkey in early 2013.The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Patriots are defensive weapons and NATO’s decision to deploy the surface-to-air missiles to Turkey is clear signal to Damascus that Turkey is backed by its NATO allies.NATO Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen told the media earlier this month that “Patriots are effective as interceptors against chemical weapons,” following the news spread in the western media that Syria is getting its chemical weapons stock ready.The US fears that in case President Bashar Assad loses control of the situation the chemical weapons of Syria could fall into the hands of radical Islamists.Several cross border incidents between Syria and Turkey over the summer have stoked fears within Ankara that the ongoing civil war in its southern neighbor could spill over into Turkish territory. Read More

Image morning-first-session-2012.jpg

Battle over Internet: US web authority challenged – report

Delegates at the first morning session of WCIT 2012, Dubai U.A.E., 3-14 December 2012 (Photo from flickr/itupictures)Several countries including Russia, China and Saudi Arabia are reportedly seeking to reduce US dominance over the Internet. If successful the move will empower governments to silently eliminate troublesome websites.­A UN group is challenging US dominance over the key parts of the Internet, which is reportedly reflected in a proposal put through at the Worldwide Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai.Among the most controversial calls of the proposal is a reformulation of the role played by the US-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the Domain Name System (DNS). Several national governments believe the management of domestic Internet addresses should be left in state hands.The nations behind the call include China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates.The conference is organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations agency tasked with updating the technical standards which enable different countries’ telephone networks to work together. The agency has insisted that the conference does not seek to increase the UN’s authority over the Internet.The Dubai conference is meant to review the outdated 1988 International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), a global treaty which “sets out general principles for assuring the free flow of information around the world, promoting affordable and equitable access for all and laying the foundation for ongoing innovation and market growth,” the ITU web page says.No actual vote on the UN group proposal has taken place yet, but a consensus has been reached, Mohammed Nasser al-Ghanim, the chairman of the Thursday marathon talks reported. “The temperature in the room” showed the majority backed the proposal, he said, which reflects the strong support for reducing US rule over the Internet and allowing national governments to manage the web from within their own borders.Those in opposition say the proposal threatens Internet stability and privacy of information, as control over the web would grant governments the ability to make “undesirable” sites inaccessible to the outside world.The US negatively reacted to the calls for change, saying the Obama administration “will not s
2d7
upport” such a treaty.“From the start, the US position has been clear: the WCIT should be about updating a public telecommunications treaty to reflect today’s market-based realities — not a new venue to create regulations on the Internet, private networks, or the data flowing across them,” the White House blog post read.Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany and Sweden have also expressed opposition to the proposal.There were also reports that Russia withdrew the proposal for revision, but later resubmitted it with the group. The conference ends on Friday. Read More