A key House investigating body has dropped its probe of Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.) and two other members of the House's defense-spending committee, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Office of Congressional Ethics has informed aides to Murtha as well as Reps. Norm Dicks (D., Wash.) and Jim Moran (D., Va.) that it is no longer looking into allegations that they traded government funding earmarks for campaign donations.
Dick's chief of staff, George Behan, said the congressman received a phone call earlier this month from an official at the Office of Congressional Ethics informing him that he matter has been closed.
Dicks was told that the body "found no basis for further action and the matter was closed," Behan said.
The Office of Congressional Ethics could still be looking into several other members of the defense-spending committee. It was already known that the Office of Congressional Ethics was examining the actions of Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D., Ohio), Todd Tiahrt (R., Kan.), Rep. Peter Visclosky (D., Ind.), and Bill Young (R., Fla.).
The Office of Congressional Ethics was created a few years ago to examine possible ethics violations by lawmakers and recommend action to the House Ethics Committee.
The story was first reported this afternoon by Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper.
The development doesn't mean that the lawmakers are in the clear. The Justice Department is looking into several companies that have received earmarks from Visclosky, Murtha and other members of the House defense-spending panel.
The Office of Congressional Ethics has been criticized for being too aggressive in pursuing ethics inquiries.
After the development, Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said congressional investigators have not been aggressive enough. "Yet again it appears that the congressional ethics committees exist to clear people of wrong doing," she said.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So thats it?
The most corrupt of politicians is off scott free.
can they even answer the phones at OCE without giggling at that title? This doesn't stop any FBI criminal investigations. The worst they would've gotten from the "congressional watchdogs" was a censure to hide the bribery better
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/20/2009 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
Rep. Frank Wolf, R.-Va., issued a public statement Thursday saying that President Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has instructed staff attorneys to ignore legal subpoenas by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (CRC) requesting information about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.
This is in stark contrast to Mr. Obama's pledge for transparency in government.
"We understand that the attorney general has instructed his department to ignore these subpoenas," Mr. Wolf said. "The nation's chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the attorney general's obstruction. At least one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel."
Mr. Wolf has written the attorney general six times seeking answers as to why the Justice Department (DOJ) dismissed a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia involving members of the New Black Panther Party. He also has written DOJ's inspector general seeking answers.
He has yet to receive a response from him.
The CRC has had a similar experience. They subsequently issued the aforementioned subpoenas for the information and to interview the career attorneys that handled the case.
Because of this, Mr. Wolf introduced a measure December 17 that would require the House Judiciary Committee to deal with this issue. He also announced that he had language inserted in the annual spending bill that funds the Justice Department requiring that its Office of Professional Responsibility provide the results of the investigation it is conducting surrounding the dismissal the case to the House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Wolf, the top Republican on the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, requested the investigation earlier this year.
"I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted," Mr. Wolf said in a statement.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe DOJ could enlist the assistance of former FBI Director William Webster. Webster could look into the Black Panther issue along with his detailed internal investigation of the FBI's handling of the Hasan case at Fort Hood. I am certain Webster, given time, could arrive at FBI, DOJ, and Obama Administration face-saving, politically correct outcomes for both. The attitudes, perceptions, and votes of the Black Panthers as well as the Mooslim community are at risk here. This stuff is important!
#2
Eric Holder needs to step in front of a moving semi speeding down the Beltway - three or four times. This man has to be the most corrupt DOJ we've ever had.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/20/2009 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I dunno. Compare with John Mitchell.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
12/20/2009 20:11 Comments ||
Top||
File this story under the pot calling the kettle black.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), prone for throwing his own political bombs at Republicans, has threatened a local critic with five years in jail for creating the website "mycongressmanisnuts.com."
The Orlando Sentinel reports that Grayson wrote a letter this week to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the federal government imprison Republican activist Angie Langley for five years because of her website criticizing him.
The website, designed to raise money against Grayson, catalogues videos and news clippings that portray the provocative congressman in an unfavorable light. It courts donors to donate money to help elect his Republican challenger next year -- collecting $3,725 to date.
Grayson accuses the activist of misrepresenting the fact that she's a constituent of his (she lives outside his district).
"Ms. Langley has deliberately masqueraded as a constituent of mine, in order to create the false appearance that she speaks for constituents who don't support me," Grayson wrote in the letter.
It's awfully ironic that Grayson is demanding to silence one of his critics, given his history of red-meat rhetoric against a host of powerful Republicans. Earlier this month, he told MSNBC's Chris Matthews he wished Dick Cheney would "STFU."
Earlier in the year, Grayson referred to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh as a "has-been hypocrite loser" who "was more lucid when he was a drug addict."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe Rep Grayson should submit a resolution to repeal the first amendment. Or at least the part about freedom of speech.
See how far that goes.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
12/20/2009 1:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Rambler, don't tempt the idiots in this Congress. (Don't look to the courts to strike it down if they did do something like that, either. The Wise Latina might come to a conclusion you wouldn't understand, due to the richness of her experience....)
I find it amazing that a sitting Congressman - who has taken a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution feels he can cast aside one of its primary tenants on a whim. This is a clear violation of his oath and office.
And about the self-proclaimed 'Wise Latina': Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:22)
The Civil Rights Commission did warn that they would do so if a willing response was not quickly forthcoming. Quick, Barbara, fire up the popcorn machine!
The United States Civil Rights Commission, an eight-member agency that investigates accusations of discrimination, has launched its latest offensive against a most unusual target: the Justice Department.
The United States Civil Rights Commission, an eight-member agency that investigates accusations of discrimination, has launched a new offensive against a most unusual target: the Justice Department.
That's the amusing part: half of the commissioners are Democrats.
The commission is investigating why the Justice Department dropped charges in May against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in a voter intimidation case that the government won.
The Justice Department has defended its actions, saying it obtained an injunction against one member while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."
But that explanation hasn't satisfied the commission or Republican lawmakers, who say the dismissal could lead to an escalation of voter intimidation.
Three members of the radical group were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force in November 2008 -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz,
One of the miscreants was a minister? Better and better... well, worse and worse, actually.
Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
OMG -- he's a racist as well as a badman?!?!
The Obama administration won the case in April but moved to dismiss the charges in May without explanation.
After Republican lawmakers pushed in the summer for an internal investigation, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility obliged, starting a probe that the department has said should conclude before it cooperates with the commission's investigation.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., announced Thursday that he had inserted language into the annual Justice funding bill that requires the OPR to provide results of its investigation -- a resolution that has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and must be voted on within 14 legislative days.
"I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted," Wolf said in a written statement.
"Time and again over the last year, the department has stonewalled any effort to learn about the decision to dismiss the case," he continued. "I have written Attorney General (Eric) Holder on six occasions asking for an explanation for the dismissal of this case. To date, I have received no response from him."
The commission feels it is being stonewalled, too, and has filed subpoenas with the department for the information as well as to interview career attorneys that handled the case.
"They've never given a satisfactory answer," said Todd Gaziano, a member of the commission and director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. "There is a heavy burden on the Justice Department to explain why those facts in the complaint do not constitute voter intimidation."
When asked about the commission's repeated requests for information, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said, "We're reviewing the commission's request."
Wouldn't it be fun if this ended up in front of the Supreme Court? Although of course it would be a dreadful use of the Court's limited time.
She told FoxNews.com that the civil division at the department reviews "these types of requests in accordance with longstanding guidelines governing the disclosure of internal department information."
The commission is likely to hold a public hearing on the case early next year and could have a report out by September, Gaziano said.
Before the next election, then. Clever.
The commissions sent two inquiries into the Justice Department's dismissal of the case in June and received what it called a "largely non-responsive letter" from the Justice Department in July and none of the documents requested. The commission sent another inquiry in August and September when it said it received notification from the Justice Department that it would not provide any information until its internal investigation was complete.
That prompted the commission to issue subpoenas and send its latest missive this month, a response to a Justice Department letter in November that that the commission said challenged its authority to subpoena the department or its employees.
"While your letter refers to an ongoing 'dialogue' between the Department and the Commission, it is the dearth of cooperation on the part of the Department that has resulted in the Commission's need to issue subpoenas," David Blackwood, general counsel for the commission, wrote.
"We are both mindful of the sensitivity of the subject matter involved and aware that, in response to similar requests, the department has raised various concerns and matters of privilege," Blackwood wrote. "While such considerations carry weight, cooperation with commission investigations is a mandatory statutory obligation."
"Moreoever, due to the unique investigative role of the commission -- akin to that of a congressional committee -- disclosure to the commission of the information sought it is both proper and required,' he added.
Wolf said in his written statement that the attorney general has instructed his department to ignore the subpoenas.
"The nation's chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the attorney general's obstruction," he said, adding that one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel.
"The House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general's obstruction," he said. "He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission."
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/20/2009 16:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who may be unaware that he is currently enjoying his final term in the U.S. Senate, claims to have the 60 votes he needs to muscle ObamaCare through his chamber. God help us if he does.
The current iteration of ObamaCare is classic Mussolini-style Fascism (i.e. corporatism). It forces Americans at gunpoint to purchase health insurance, a requirement never before imposed on the American people. The big insurance companies and the federal government have combined to subject the public to this tyrannical mandate that Americans overwhelmingly oppose. This is the economic essence of Fascism.
Shame on them on all.
Nonetheless, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard offers some words of encouragement to the patriotic Americans who still believe in limited government.
Keep fighting on health care. Fight for the next few days in the Senate. Fight the conference report in January in the Senate and the House. Start trying to repeal the worst parts of the bill the moment it passes, if it does.
After all, never before has so unpopular a piece of major legislation been jammed through on a party-line vote. This week, Rasmussen showed 57% of voters nationwide saying that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress, with only 34% favoring passing that bill. 54% of Americans now believe they will be worse off if reform passes, while just 25% believe they'll be better off. Making the 2010 elections a referendum on health care should work--if Republicans don't let up in the debate over the next year.
Indeed ObamaCare may be the Democrats' undoing. They are betting it all on their healthcare plan, which won't kick in for years to come. A public backlash before then could halt the program in its tracks and kill it, leading to a Bastille Day-like slaughter at the polls for the Democratic powers that be.
Of course, it would be better to abort this monstrosity while in the womb, but the beauty of politics is that the fight is never really over. There will be more battles to come.
As Kristol writes, "Fight on with respect to health care. Fight on other fronts. And recruit new fighters. In a word: Fight. "
Amen. If we quit, they win.... You bet. Keep fighting. And if they manage to jam it through, keep fighting. Americans are going to figure this out. Bambi, Reid and Pelosi will try to keep blaming everything on Bush. We won't let that happen.
#1
"Years to kick in" This is crap. It kicks in the day it is signed. Ya, we might not see socialized meds for a couple years but all that pork and spending start the very second Obama passes it! hell, if he was smart he could pass the bill, take the pork then tell the dumb Americans this bill needs to be redone, thus dolling out even more pork..
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/20/2009 21:20 Comments ||
Top||
Instant comment:
"This can be a catalyzing moment. It's a powerful signal to see President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma agree on a meeting of the minds. These are the four horsemen of a climate change solution. With this in hand, we can work to pass domestic legislation early next year to bring us across the finish line."
#1
Will someone please put Kerry back on his medications or change his precriptions, he is so whacked! Calling Barney Frank--- Take hold of your fellow Massachusetts representative to Congress and get him help.
#4
To what did Premier Wen agree? All I saw on his part was studied insult (of President Obama, he was right to be angry about that) and refusal to accept the conditions others claimed are required.
The money shot: The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22). Maybe Nelson will begin his backstroke soon...?
#7
If my math is correct, then if everyone in the country was enrolled in the plan, and an abortion cost $1000, there would be funds to abort everyone in America every year - in most cases very late-term (100th trimester or so), and we'd have to really increase immigration to get past the first year.
#10
Is the fight over? I'm still writing and calling the Senate, especially lieberman and webb, and isn't there an opportunity to peel back some blue-dogs in the house?
I cannot believe we can't scream louder, and by God make these bastards pay in November.
#11
we're basically left to hoping the leftists want too much (public option, single payer, abortion on demand with taxpayer funding) that the conference blows up and there's a Dem Civil War...come to think of it, I'd really like that
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/20/2009 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I REALLY don't think the people here will fight that hard. Too much trouble. Our young people know how to fight over in Afghanistan and Iraq have been fighting hard for 8 long years to keep us safe. In the meantime, people here state side layed down and let Socialists roll right over them, for the first time in over 200 years of American history. People here would rather ban fighters than fight.
#14
Skunky E: Maybe I'm optimistic but I think people will fight against this socialism. Nearly 60% of the people don't want he so-called health care [or cap and trade or the rest of this cockamie legislation. There have been millions of people getting active in the Tea Party, going to Washington and other locations and flooding Congress with letters and emails. We have had socialistic Presidents and administrations before, e.g. FDR and Lyndon Johnson.
Harry Reid has released the manager's amendment that Ben Nelson has reportedly agreed to vote for, meaning that the Senate bill has 60 votes. The abortion language includes the phony segregation of funding language that was rejected in the House. It would allow individual states to opt out of the abortion-funding program--in other words, the default position is to pay for abortions; states would have to pass legislation to not fund abortions. But states where public abortion-funding is mandated by state court rulings would be required to pay for abortions:
''(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.
There are 13 states where the state supreme court has required public abortion funding according to this map from the ACLU (assuming it's up to date). Four states have decided through their legislatures to pay for Medicaid abortions. So Ben Nelson is going to allow federal tax dollars to pay for abortions in California and New York?
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Very remeniscent of the local option legislative process over the slavery issue way back when.
Not that this will come as any great shock, but Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), the lone Democrat holdout against the current iteration of healthcare reform, announced Saturday he will vote for the bill.
Also unsurprising: much like Mary "Louisiana Purchase" Landrieu (D-La.) before him, Nelson sold his vote and his very soul for some financial benefits to his state.
As Politico reported moments ago:
Sen. Mary Landrieu got the "Louisiana Purchase." Sen. Ben Nelson got the federal government to pick up most his state's future Medicaid tab -- forever.
As part of the deal to win Nelson's support, the federal government will fund Nebraska's new Medicaid recipients. It's a provision worth about $45 million over the first decade. [...]
Medicaid is usually paid for with a mix of federal and state funding, but Nelson's carve out means that any Medicaid beneficiaries who join the program after the bill passes will be funded by the federal government.
It's a sweet deal considering that many governors are worried that the Medicaid expansion will further strain already stressed state budgets.
Great. So states with fiscal problems of their own get their budgets squeezed as a result of this bill, but the man that history will show cast the deciding vote gets his state off the hook!
Amazing!
Beyond this, tax dollars went to bribe two key Democrats so that a bill will be passed that will raise our taxes further!
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is the email I just sent to Nelson, my senator (spit):
Damn you Ben Nelson.
Damn you to the 9th circle of hell reserved for traitors and betrayers.
You sold out Nebraskans and all the American people for a mess of medicaid pottage.
You think voting for health control is OK because you were promised lighter weight chains for Nebraska?
#9
Steve, Nebraska's rural population will be hit very hard by hospital and nursing home closings that exist only because of Medicare. Living in rural Kansas has its blessings, but health care is not one of them especially for the elderly which compose about 70% of the population. I find it disgusting that rural Neb. will continue to keep their facilities while we will loose ours.
#10
violates constitutional guarantee of equal protection clause (not that any of these weasels care). What a joke. Vote them all. Better yet, over throw them and start all over.
The race for a Pennsylvania seat in the U.S. Senate in 2010 couldn't get any tighter, according to a poll of state voters released this morning.
Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter and Republican challenger Pat Toomey are deadlocked at 44 percent each, the latest Quinnipiac University poll says.
Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,381 state voters from Dec. 8 through Monday. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.
Pennsylvania voters also gave President Barack Obama a narrow job approval rating, 49 to 45 percent.
Mr. Specter held a 53 to 33 percent lead over Mr. Toomey in the May 4 poll, but Mr. Toomey took a 43 to 42 percent lead Oct. 1.
"Specter has the state's Democratic registration advantage on his side, while Toomey can take heart in the numbers that show problems for Specter in measures in addition to the horse race," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "For example, voters say 50 to 38 percent he does not deserve reelection."
Mr. Specter holds a strong 53 to 30 percent lead in the Democratic Senate primary over Congressman Joe Sestak, up from the 44 to 25 percent margin Oct. 1.
State voters give Mr. Specter a 47 to 45 percent job approval rating; 55 percent say they don't know enough about Mr. Toomey to form an opinion.
President Obama's approval rating is comparable to a 49 to 42 percent score Oct. 1. The president receives a positive rating from 82 percent of Democrats, 45 percent of independents and 17 percent of Republicans. Voters, however, disapprove 50 to 45 percent of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy and disapprove 56 to 37 percent of his handling of health care. On Afghanistan, state voters approve 51 to 41 percent.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
With all due respect to any 'burgers here from Pennsylvania...the voters there are stupid enough to vote for some guy who promised to make coal economically impossible and raise their power bills (Obama), another guy who dissed them as racist rednecks a week before the election (Murtha), and for a mayor (in Pittsburgh...sorry, don't know his name offhand) who wants to tax tuition because apparently it's not expensive enough.
They'll be dumb enough to return "Snarlin' Arlen", too. Just watch.
#2
With nearly if not more than 50% of the US population on the take rather than being taxpayers, why wouldn't they vote themselves more money, more money. They're on currency crack. Come on, this is the state that keeps sending Murtha back.
#3
How could anyone in good consciousness vote for Specter? He is a chameleon who changes allegiances and parties more often than most of us change underwear.
U.S. President Barack Obama walking uninvited into a meeting of Prime Ministers of China and India and Presidents of Brazil and South Africa proved to be a key moment for striking of a political deal to salvage the Copenhagen Climate Summit.
With hopes fading of a summit draft, in fact, it was a dramatic turn of events last night, which led to a breakthrough when all seemed lost.
Several key world leaders, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to turn back from the airport to huddle straight into a meeting at the Bella Centre in what was the last ditch effort by Mr. Obama to hammer a deal.
Mr. Obama was keen for a one-to-one meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.
It was no less a surprise for Mr. Obama, himself, and the White House team in Copenhagen when he went into a late afternoon bi-lateral meeting with Mr. Wen to find that three other world leaders were already there in the room Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Lula da Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma.
Later, U.S. officials said The only surprise we had, in all our history was...that in that room wasnt just the Chinese having a meeting...but all four countries that we had been trying to arrange meetings with where indeed all in the same room...The Presidents viewpoint is, I wanted to see them all and now is our chance.
Mr. Obama and his team appeared to be taken aback at this as the U.S. President had scheduled a last-minute bilateral meeting with the Chinese Premier, followed by a joint meeting with the Indian, Brazilian and South African leaders. But, it appeared that the Chinese, Brazilian, Indian and South African leaders wanted to meet him together, rather than in separate sessions.
Apprehending that the Copenhagen Summit has almost headed towards a dead end, Mr. Obama postponed his scheduled departure for the U.S. and told his advance team that he wanted to meet the Chinese premier separately; followed by a joint meeting with the India, Brazilian and South African leaders.
The Chinese team, initially reluctant, told the White House officials that most of the team were already on the airport, while Mr. Wen was in his hotel, getting ready to leave.
When they called Indian team, they were told that Mr. Singh is at the airport. This happened around 4 p.m. local time.
I think they thought the meeting was done. I think they thought there wasnt anything left to stay for, in all honesty, a senior administration official said. And, when they called Brazil, White House was told no meeting without India, as they knew that Singh was on his way back.
Mr. Zuma agreed as he did not had the latest information about Mr. Singh.
Brazil tells us that they dont know if they can come because they want the Indians to come. The Indians were at the airport. Mr. Zuma is under the impression that everybody is coming, a senior Administration official said. And when Mr. Zuma came to know that Singh was at the airport, he also backed out of the meeting.
If they (India and Brazil) are not coming I cant do this, Mr. Zuma told the White House.
Meanwhile, the White House received a call from the Chinese team that Mr. Wen wanted to move the bilateral meeting from 6.15 p.m. to 7 p.m. local time.
Mr. Obama, who was personally involved in all these, agreed to the Chinese request and instead went into a huddle with the European leaders, which lasted for about 45 minutes.
Before leaving for his bilateral meeting with Mr. Wen, Mr. Obama had last minutes talks with German Chancellor, Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The President is beginning to leave. He spends time right before he leaves, this would have been right before 7:00 pm, the President is talking with Chancellor Merkel and Gordon Brown about going for this bilateral meeting with Premier Wen, that they had rescheduled for 7:00 pm, the official said.
All this happened at the Bella Center the venue of the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change.
And as Mr. Obama was entering the room for his bilateral with Mr. Wen, he and the entire White House was surprised to see the Chinese Premier having meeting with Dr. Singh, Mr. Zuma and Mr. Lula.
We werent crashing a meeting; we were going for our bilateral meeting. We found the other (India, South Africa and Brazil) people (leaders) there, a senior Administration official said.
And when Mr. Obama entered the meeting room, there was no chair for him. Mr. Obama himself was reported as saying that there arent any seats. This is also reflected in some of the pictures of the meeting which shows that there are no chairs.
Mr. Obama said, No, no, dont worry, I am going to go sit by my friend Lula, and said, Hey, Lula. Walks over, moves a chair, sits down next to Lula. The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, sits down next to him.
Then the meeting started, at about 7:00 pm local time and concluded at about 8.15-8.20 p.m. local time.
Presumably taken aback by the Chinese, Indian, South African and Brazilian meeting, without their knowledge, a senior administration official later said: I will assume that their meeting was to get their ducks in a row. Because at this point, certainly our impression was that a number of these people were either at or on the way to the airport.
And all this while Chinese officials, told the White House that it was going to be a bilateral meeting and did not give an impression that all these leaders were also in the same room.
Presidents viewpoint was Im going to make one last run. When it appeared we couldnt get the Chinese earlier in the day, the President said, well, if we cant get the Chinese then lets get the next three (India, South Africa and Brazil) that are absolutely theyre working as a team. Theyve got similar interests, theres no doubt about that, the official said.
Again, the only surprise we had, in all honesty, was we did not know at 6.15 p.m., when we moved our meeting from 6.15 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., that in that room wasnt just the Chinese having a meeting about their posture going into the 7.00 pm meeting, but in fact all four countries that we had been trying to arrange meetings with were indeed all in the same room, the official said.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/20/2009 10:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Somewhat frustrated by the absence of progress even on the final day of the conference, a weary Obama at one stage stormed into a meeting attended by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma.
"Obama and (Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton turned up uninvited, which had one Chinese protocol officer apoplectic," said the observer. "Upon entering the room, Obama assumed the manner of a schoolmaster dealing with truant schoolboys, telling them that he didn't want them 'negotiating in secret'." It was from that 45-minute meeting that a non-binding political accord emerged, which Obama celebrated as a step forward, but which doesn't really pin down India and China to much more than voluntary pledges.
In fact, there had been much wily truancy afoot on Friday. In what was perceived as a calculated diplomatic insult, Premier Wen did not attend two impromptu meetings that Obama had convened earlier in the day; Wen instead sent three Chinese diplomats. Obama gave voice to his exasperation, saying that it would have been nice to negotiate with someone who actually had political authority.
"That was very unusual," said Julian Wong, an energy policy and technology analyst with Center for American Progress. "I wouldn't have thought this was something the Chinese would pull off, since they're very conscious of the concept of 'giving face'."
The latent Sino-US tension manifested itself somewhat more starkly when Chinese officials physically blocked American reporters from entering a room where Obama and Wen were to meet, according to a White House correspondent travelling with the US delegation. An incensed White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was "jostled about a bit in the scrum".
Posted by: john frum ||
12/20/2009 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
*bitchslap*
Teh Messiah thinks the mellifluous sound of his voice will slow the ocean's rise, cause Hindu and Muslim to link arms, cats and dogs will sleep together...if only they'd listen to their master's voice. Apparently, "some" were not as impressed by his "unprecedented" appearance
what a pretentious dick
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/20/2009 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What did you expect? OBumble has never had a real job - never had to meet hard commitments or be responsible for anything.
And never, ever, ever, ever, been held responsible for his actions (or inactions).
He really does believe his own P.R. with all his heart.
#5
Body Language: When your head is lower than the person you are speaking with, you are the supplicant - a person who requests or seeks something such as assistance or employment or admission - Score: Zero
#7
The look on Wen's face Angomorong Tojo9337
says
"But Barry, I already gave you a one trillion dollar allowance ... and you blew it .... now you want more ? ..... no."
#8
Rest assured that the Chinese got the message loud and clear. There is no equality, only inferior/superior, teacher/student, master/slave. Obama has told Wen who he considers himself.
Al Gore's claim last week that the Climategate emails were insignificant relied on two main defences. Both are so flagrantly wrong that it's not enough to say Gore is simply mistaken.
No, Al Gore is a liar.
Last week we showed that the first of his Climategate defences was so preposterously wrong that it was doubtful he had even read the leaked emails he tried to dismiss. You see, five times in two interviews he dismissed the emails as dated documents that were at least 10 years old:
I haven't read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.
In fact, most of the controversial emails, as I showed, were from just the past two years - and the most recent from just last month - November 12, to be precise.
So Gore was so wrong on the first count that it was difficult to think of any way an honest man could have made such a mistake. Five times.
But now Steve McIntyre has exploded the second argument Gore made. And now all doubt in my mind is gone. Gore must have simply lied.
Gore's second argument was that these emails which seemingly showed Climategate scientists trying to silence or sack sceptical scientists were taken out of context, since the two sceptical papers they referred to were in fact published, after all.
Here is the relevant passage in his interview with Slate:
Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.
A: I think it's been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you're referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn't be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody's opinion that a particular study isn't any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.
That is actually false.
But before I go to McIntyre's evidence on this, first note Gore's rhetorical trick - or deceit.
His trick is to ignore the mountain of emails that clearly suggest a collusion against sceptics, and the hiding of data, and to suggest instead that the allegations boil down to just a single email about a single instance of two Climategate scientists allegedly blocking two papers.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/20/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
#2 LOL. Indeed. Pinocchio! "This time Al Gore Lied." No, not just this time--constantly. He is an inveterate liar. It is a feature not a happenstance.
Posted by: JohnQC 2009-12-20 11:23
Of course he lied. He fit(s) right in with almost all politicians, especially the Clintons and Obamas.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A key House investigating body has dropped its probe of Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.) and two other members of the House's defense-spending committee, according to people familiar with the matter.
Harry Reid has released the manager's amendment that Ben Nelson has reportedly agreed to vote for, meaning that the Senate bill has 60 votes. The abortion language includes the phony segregation of funding language that was rejected in the House. It would allow individual states to opt out of the abortion-funding program--in other words, the default position is to pay for abortions; states would have to pass legislation to not fund abortions. But states where public abortion-funding is mandated by state court rulings would be required to pay for abortions: 
Not that this will come as any great shock, but Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), the lone Democrat holdout against the current iteration of healthcare reform, announced Saturday he will vote for the bill.
The race for a Pennsylvania seat in the U.S. Senate in 2010 couldn't get any tighter, according to a poll of state voters released this morning.
Al Gore's claim last week that the Climategate emails were insignificant relied on two main defences. Both are so flagrantly wrong that it's not enough to say Gore is simply mistaken. 
