Obama insiste: Guantánamo é mesmo para fechar

Apesar das dificuldades levantadas pelo Congresso, o Presidente está determinado em cumprir a promessa. Há mudanças que custam a mesmo concretizar...

Conservadores já exigem a cabeça de Pelosi

Newt Gingrich, «speaker» do Congresso durante a «Revolução Republicana» dos anos Clinton, critica duramente a sua sucessora Nancy Pelosi, ainda devido às declarações da líder do Congresso sobre eventuais mentiras da CIA na questão dos interrogatórios:

A ameaça do Paquistão (III): Hillary e os fundos

A ameaça do Paquistão (II): os conselhos de Kissinger a Obama

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=5179750&referralPlaylistId=df5603c3d11ca9a023b0070cfc5f297e279fd3a7

* O antigo secretário de Estado de Nixon e Ford encontrou-se com o presidente e falou sobre a questão paquistanesa, entre outros temas internacionais. É uma das eminências pardas do Council on Foreign Relations e do Clube Bilderberg a manter forte influência com um novo Presidente que chega à Casa Branca...

A ameaça do Paquistão (I): Hillary Clinton defende que a «assistência é essencial para manter a segurança»*

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

* isto, apesar dos mais recentes relatórios dos serviços secretos, que apontam para constantes desvios do dinheiro americano para Islamabad, aproveitados abusivamente por organizações controladas pelos taliban e outros sectores fundamentalistas

Elisabeth Edwards não desiste de lutar

Em entrevista ao «Countdown», da NBC, fala sobre o seu livro «Resilience». E não perde o sorriso, nem abdica de falar sobre a sua principal bandeira político-social: a reforma do sistema de saúde.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Um arrojado projecto de redução de gases poluidores

Obama inspirou-se no plano já testado por Schwarzenegger na Califórnia e pretende aproveitar as mudanças na indústria automóvel para reduzir a poluição e criar, nos próximos anos, uma maior autonomia energética dos EUA em relação ao petróleo. Arrojado e necessário.



(E assim se confirma, também, que Schwarzenegger -- que tem estado em dificuldades políticas mesmo no Partido Republicano, devido ao défice do estado da Califórnia -- pode vir a ser um dos maiores aliados de Barack no lado do GOP nos próximos anos. Iso, se Arnold não se mudar para os democratas entretanto, claro. Em casa, já tem um bom exemplo, na sua esposa Maria Shriver...)

O lado dos conservadores: Obama está «a levar os EUA à bancarrota»

A acusação podia ser de Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney ou Ann Coulter. Mas não. É de Michael Steele, o novo líder do RNC, o comité nacional republicano. Está visto: não é pelo homem ser negro que será uma ruptura no lado dos conservadores...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

As regras de Obama na discussão sobre o Irão

Salvar o Paquistão -- a nova guerra de Obama

«A chave do conflito está no Paquistão, onde Obama tem opções limitadas (...) No Paquistão, 'o Estado é o exército'. Este continua centrado na ameaça indiana. Dela decorreram o seu envolvimento no Afeganistão e a criação dos taliban. A posterior queda do regime taliban fez os militares temerem um reforço do cerco indiano através do Afeganistão. Os taliban não são a prioridade: são um capital político (...) Conhecendo o actual pensamento de Washington, que considera o Paquistão estrategicamente muito mais relevante que o Afeganistão, enviam-lhe uma mensagem: é mais importante «salvar o Paquistão» do que o actual regime afegão».

in «A guerra de Obama», Ponto de Vista, de Jorge Almeida Fernandes, P2 de 17 de Maio

Os seis pontos que separam Barack de Bibi

Uma extensa análise de Toni Karon, na Time:

«President Barack Obama welcomes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Monday, at a moment when the White House and the Israeli leadership are undeniably at odds over the path to Middle East peace. While the Obama Administration remains steadfastly committed to Israel's security, its ideas on how to achieve that security differ markedly from those of the hawkish Netanyahu government. As Obama moves to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, Monday's meeting has been widely predicted to be a tense affair, but that may be overstating the drama. Netanyahu, like any Israeli Prime Minister, has an overwhelming incentive to get along with Israel's single most important ally; Obama, for his part, needs to fashion a peace process that produces results, for which he requires Netanyahu's cooperation. So Monday's encounter won't be a showdown as much as the opening exchange of a difficult conversation that could continue for months.

A Two-State Solution?
The idea of creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel on the territory it occupied in 1967 is the overwhelming international consensus, accepted even — according to opinion polls — by a majority of Israelis. The Obama Administration is not content to simply articulate that vision, as President George W. Bush did; instead, it seeks to move briskly toward realizing such a solution before the evolving facts on the ground make it untenable. Netanyahu, however, has refused to endorse the principle of Palestinian statehood, insisting that sovereign independence for the Palestinians would endanger Israel's security. The Palestinians, Netanyahu has argued until now, will have to settle for a more limited form of self-government within borders still effectively controlled by Israel. Despite some speculation that he might make a rhetorical concession on the statehood issue on Monday, a top aide told the Israeli media Netanyahu would not do so — at least, not yet.

The Administration has made clear that it expects Israel to work toward a two-state solution. Netanyahu is expected to agree to talk to the Palestinians, to ease their circumstances and build their economy. But he maintains that trying to reach a final-status agreement right now is misguided and counterproductive, arguing that the priority is to build Palestinian administrative, security and economic capacity — and to tackle Iran, which he sees as a spoiler to any peace effort.

President Barack Obama welcomes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Monday, at a moment when the White House and the Israeli leadership are undeniably at odds over the path to Middle East peace. While the Obama Administration remains steadfastly committed to Israel's security, its ideas on how to achieve that security differ markedly from those of the hawkish Netanyahu government. As Obama moves to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, Monday's meeting has been widely predicted to be a tense affair, but that may be overstating the drama. Netanyahu, like any Israeli Prime Minister, has an overwhelming incentive to get along with Israel's single most important ally; Obama, for his part, needs to fashion a peace process that produces results, for which he requires Netanyahu's cooperation. So Monday's encounter won't be a showdown as much as the opening exchange of a difficult conversation that could continue for months.

Iran First?
Netanyahu will argue that Washington's goals are best achieved if it gives priority to curbing Iran's nuclear and geopolitical ambitions before separating Israel from the Palestinians. He claims his Arab neighbors agree that reining in Iran is the region's priority, because it threatens their own stability. Given Tehran's support of Hamas, he'll say progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians is impossible until Iran has been pushed back.

Israel’s Iran Game
Obama will agree that curbing Iran's regional influence and limiting its nuclear activities is an urgent priority. But the U.S. President won't buy Netanyahu's sequencing. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a matter of urgency, Obama will argue, and he'll point out that the moderate Arab neighbors with whom the Israelis want to stand against Iran are also the ones most urgently insisting on the immediate implementation of a two-state solution with the Palestinians, whose unresolved plight strengthens radicals against moderates. Netanyahu will say no progress is possible on the Palestinian front until Iran is defanged; Obama will argue that rallying Arab support against Iran's ambitions requires resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What's the Hurry?
Netanyahu will argue that whether the outcome is two states or something less, this is not the moment to try to conclude the peace process. The Palestinians are hopelessly divided, with the moderate Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas lacking the political authority to deliver on any peace promises. Indeed, the PA President's term of office expired in January, and polls show he'd lose to Hamas in an election held now. Instead of final-status negotiations, Netanyahu will advocate building the Palestinians' administrative and security capacity, and promoting economic development, in enclaves currently under Abbas' control. Without this infrastructure of stability — and the neutralizing of Hamas — he'll argue, no progress is possible.

Obama will make clear that whatever stability has been created thus far in the West Bank is premised on the achievement of Palestinian statehood, and will collapse without rapid movement along that path. Politically, President Abbas' Fatah movement suffers from the fact that its moderation and almost two decades of negotiation has seen only an expansion of Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Fatah cannot remain committed to a peace process without end if it is to reverse its declining political fortunes among its own people. The same may be true for the U.S.-trained security forces that have helped subdue the West Bank. Hamas has proven to be an intractable reality of Palestinian political life, and Obama may argue that a workable peace process would require its consent. Most importantly, he'll note that time is running out for Abbas and the Arab regimes that have cooperated with Israel and have come away empty-handed in the eyes of their own people.

Freeze the Settlements
Obama will tell Netanyahu that stability is undermined, potentially fatally, by Israel's continued expansion of its settlements in the West Bank, and by its moves to extend control over East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 war but claimed by the Palestinians as their future capital. But Netanyahu's government includes strong settler representation, and while he'll unenthusiastically promise to dismantle outposts built in violation of Israeli law, he's unlikely to court a confrontation with the settlers unless there are substantial political rewards. He'll insist on maintaining the "natural growth" of Israel's settlements, and reiterate his view that sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians is a nonstarter.

Unfreeze Gaza
The Gaza war earlier this year forced the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the top of the Obama Administration's agenda, and although the fighting has ended, no formal cease-fire has been agreed, and the Israeli blockade — and Palestinian political infighting — has prevented any of the $4.5 billion pledged for reconstruction by international donors from actually reaching the territory. The potential remains high for a renewed outbreak of fighting, and Obama will press Netanyahu to ease Israel's blockade to allow in construction materials and normalize economic traffic. Netanyahu remains committed to overthrowing Hamas in Gaza, and he wants Obama to pursue the same course. And his government will insist on securing the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit before easing up on Gaza.

How to Handle Iran
While supporting Obama's diplomatic efforts, Israel wants to see time limits imposed to prevent Iran playing for time while increasing its nuclear capabilities. Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that if diplomacy fails, Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama agrees that negotiations with Iran should not be open-ended, but will allow a longer time frame than that preferred by the Israelis for diplomacy to succeed. Israel's leaders believe Iran will not back down and that negotiations are necessary primarily to win support for stronger sanctions or military action. Israel has agreed to refrain from attacking Iran without first consulting the U.S. following reported warnings from the White House to avoid surprising Obama, whose military and security advisers have long argued that military strikes on Iran would cause more problems than they would solve. Once the diplomatic process with Tehran gets under way, the two sides may also disagree on where to draw the bottom line on uranium enrichment on Iranian soil.»

O primeiro encontro com Netanyahu

«President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday held their first face-to-face meeting since each took power, confronting a range of potentially divisive issues.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama visit at the White House on Monday.

At a pivotal moment in the Middle East peace process, the two leaders met at the White House to discuss, among other things, the endorsement of a two-state Palestinian solution and relations with Iran.

The issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions became an increasingly urgent one in recent months. Netanyahu wants a time limit for negotiations relating to such ambitions, with the threat of military action if no resolution is reached. Obama is seen as unlikely to provide a timetable.

Both Israel and the United States believe Iran is seeking nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear energy program; Tehran denies the accusation. Israeli leaders have pointed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls for the end of Israel as a Jewish state and argue that quick action is needed.

At an Oval Office news conference, Obama again refused to commit to an "artificial deadline" for Iranian negotiations. But he also warned that he would not allow such talks to be used as an excuse for delay while Iran develops a nuclear arsenal. Obama said he expects to accelerate such talks after the June Iranian elections.

"I firmly believe it is in Iran's interest not to develop nuclear weapons, because it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and be profoundly destabilizing in all sorts of ways," Obama said.

It "is important ... to be mindful of the fact that we're not going to have talks forever. We're not going to create a situation in which the talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing ... and deploying a nuclear weapon."

He said the United States is not "foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious."

Netanyahu emphasized that although "the common goal is peace ... the common threat we face are terrorist threats and organizations that seek to undermine [that] peace and threaten both our peoples."

"If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, could actually give [them] nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril," he said.

The divide between the two leaders -- Obama is considered to have a more conciliatory approach to the Arab world than Netanyahu -- was dramatically illustrated shortly before their meeting by Israel's decision to begin construction at the West Bank outpost of Maskiyot.

A number of families evacuated from Gaza are now being resettled in Maskiyot; several are living in temporary housing. A government spokesman said the construction's start date and the timing of Netanyahu's trip are a coincidence.

Obama wants such outposts dismantled, along with an immediate freeze on settlement expansion. Netanyahu wants to allow natural growth in Jewish settlements in the West Bank -- for example, allowing children who grow up in a settlement to build a home alongside that of their parents.

Obama also supports the idea of a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Netanyahu has not endorsed the idea, arguing that Israel needs security guarantees and a clear Palestinian partner for peace talks.

"I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. ... [If] Israel's security conditions are met and there's recognition of Israel's legitimacy -- its permanent legitimacy -- then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, security and in peace," Netanyahu said.

Pressed on the question of a two-state solution, the prime minister said he thinks "the terminology will take care of itself if we have the substantive understanding."

Netanyahu and his Cabinet were sworn in March 31. A day later, Israel's new hard-line foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, distanced himself from the Annapolis process, the 2007 relaunch of peace talks adopted by his predecessor, Tzipi Livni.

The PLO issued a statement after the meeting criticizing Netanyahu for failing to more explicitly endorse a two-state solution.

Netanyahu "missed yet another opportunity to show himself to be a genuine partner for peace," chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said. "Calling for negotiations without a clearly defined end-goal offers only the promise of more process, not progress."

Erakat praised Obama for supporting a freeze on Israeli settlement activity.

Despite their differences, Obama and Netanyahu agree on numerous key issues, such as U.S. military and financial support for Israel. Obama highlighted his stance during his presidential campaign.

Obama also supports funding for Palestinian entities not controlled by Hamas, which controls Gaza and which the United States labels a terrorist organization.

Before making his trip to Washington, Netanyahu met with leaders of Jordan and Egypt, viewed as potential partners in the effort to bring peace to the region.

Obama will host Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on May 26 and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on May 28.

He is also scheduled to deliver a long-awaited speech on relations between the United States and the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt, on June 4.

Some Palestinian leaders have expressed hope that Netanyahu, under pressure from the new U.S. administration, may soon choose to accept the principle of a two-state solution.

"If, in fact, Mr. Netanyahu were to make an unequivocal statement about acceptance of this as a solution concept, then he should immediately be asked to begin, immediately, to implement Israel's other obligations under the road map," said Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister.

The road map, put together by the Mideast Quartet -- composed of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States -- calls on Israel to stop settlement building and Palestinians to stop terrorism. The plan was introduced in 2003 but immediately stalled.

Monday's meeting between Obama and Netanyahu was largely expected to be a chance for the two sides to discuss their positions rather than iron out differences.

Aides on both sides stressed that each leader views the other as a friend in peace efforts.»

in CNNpolitics.com

Caroline Kennedy nega que a família tenha sido a razão para ter desistido de um lugar no Senado

A tese que circulou na imprensa americana, segundo a qual a filha de JFK terá desistido de concorrer à sucessão de Hillary Clinton, como representante de Nova Iorque no Senado, por pressão do marido e dos filhos, foi negada pela própria Caroline, em entrevista à NBC.

Kennedy, que foi um importante apoio para Barack Obama durante as primárias e na eleição geral, considera, no entanto, que «há outras formas, talvez ainda mais interessantes, de intervir».

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Barómetro semanal: 63 por cento de aprovação

A taxa de aprovação de Barack Obama mantém-se estabilizada em valores acima dos 60 por cento, dando sinais de uma grande continuidade em níveis que tornam esta administração uma das mais populares das últimas décadas:

SONDAGEM CBS
-- Aprovação: 63%
-- Reprovação: 26%

Republicanos dispostos a colaborar com Obama na Reforma da Saúde

A garantia é de Charles Boustany, congressista do Luisiana:

Obama na Universidade de Notre Dame

«Podemos não concordar no tema do aborto, mas mesmo assim podemos estar de acordo em que essa decisão tão difícil não é tomada pela mulher de forma leve. Tem, ao mesmo tempo, uma dimensão moral e espiritual. Por isso, vamos todos trabalhar para que o número de mulheres que recorrem ao aborto seja cada vez menor. Vamos tornar o número de gravidezes indesejadas mais pequeno. Vamos tornar o processo de adopção mais fácil. Vamos aumentar o apoio e o acompanhamento às mulheres que decidam levar as gravidezes até ao fim»

Obama, candidato pró-escolha durante a campanha, teve uma recepção calorosa no Indiana, numa universidade profundamente católica e contra o aborto. Foi vigorosamente aplaudido por uma maioria esmagadora dos alunos. Chegou a ser interrompido por contestatários durante o discurso, mas reagiu com um sorriso e com um diplomático: «That's fine, no problem...»

Notável, convencional ou, no fim de tudo, uma... desilusão em potência?

Depende do ponto de vista e, claro, do que vier a acontecer no futuro. As ideias, sobre o que é e o que pode vir a ser Barack Obama, são de David Held, professor na London School of Economics, em entrevista ao P2:

«Há três coisas em relação a Obama. Em primeiro lugar, Obama é um ser humano notável. Depois, olhando para a sua história de votos como senador, vejo que era um democrata convencional. E, por fim, olhemos para 1997. Nesse ano, em Inglaterra, um jovem cheio de promessa chegou a primeiro-ministro. Dez anos depois, já só queríamos ver-nos livres dele. Mas claro que Obama é uma grande promessa. Agora, o grande teste para ele não é o de saber se irá ser um grande líder, mas sim se é capaz de fortalecer as instituições, especialmente a um nível global. Fazer com que os EUA sejam um parceiro credível na reforma da governação ambiental, financeira e de segurança. Se conseguir isso, será um dos melhores presidentes de todos os tempos.»

Manter Robert Gates: uma decisão corajosa, mas acertada

A demissão do general David McKiernan e o orçamento que conseguiu para o Pentágono são dois exemplos de como Bob Gates tem sido bem-sucedido na Defesa. A opinião é de Gerald Saib, em artigo no Wall Street Journal:

«It now appears that President Barack Obama's shrewdest personnel move wasn't making Timothy Geithner his Treasury secretary, or Lawrence Summers his chief economic adviser.

It was keeping Robert Gates, a Bush administration holdover, as secretary of defense.

Mr. Gates is a smart guy, tough in his own clipped manner, and an extremely crafty bureaucratic operator. All that was known before the president decided to keep him on.

It isn't Timothy Geithner or Larry Summers. Obama's decision to ask Bush-appointed Robert Gates to stay at his Pentagon post has been Obama's best move so far, Jerry Seib says.
What's now clear is that Mr. Gates, as someone appointed to top national-security jobs by the past two Republican presidents, brought to the table a credibility that no Obama appointee would have had in making a series of difficult decisions without setting off a political firestorm.

Consider three specific cases:

The debate over harsh interrogation methods. First, Mr. Gates provided important political cover to the president by endorsing his decision to release the secret memos the Bush administration used to justify waterboarding and other interrogation tactics for terrorism suspects. That decision still was attacked by those who thought the disclosure harmed American intelligence efforts, but Mr. Gates's endorsement went a long way toward muting the criticism.

Then, just this week, he helped keep the president out of hot water by tipping a second, related decision in the opposite direction. Mr. Gates successfully argued that the administration should try to block the court-ordered release of photos of prisoners under interrogation. He channeled into the White House military commanders' deep worries about a backlash against American soldiers in the Islamic world if the photos were released. That was enough to persuade key White House aides, and ultimately Mr. Obama, who reversed his previous position and decided to go to court to stop the release.

Changing course was politically embarrassing for the president, but that problem likely pales when compared with the attacks from critics and the military itself that likely would have followed unchallenged release of the photos.

A change of commanders in Afghanistan. The decision to replace the head of allied forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, had the potential to set off fireworks on both the right and left. On the right, there could have been a furor if a relatively new Obama appointee, rather than Mr. Gates, had decided to dump such a senior military officer in the midst of his tour. At the same time, there could have been an uproar on the left because he is being succeeded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a commander whose background is in the shadowy world of special operations, including seizing and handling terrorism suspects.

But because the switch was a joint Obama-Gates maneuver, criticism was muted on both sides, and largely drowned out by cheers over a decisive shift in approach in Afghanistan.

A radical revamping of the Pentagon budget. Mr. Gates has proposed a sweeping overhaul of Pentagon spending, killing some big, sacred-cow weapons systems designed for fighting a conventional war, and moving the money to less-sexy systems designed for unconventional wars and counterinsurgency operations.

This is a big change, roundly opposed by some lawmakers and defense firms deeply invested in the old programs. Imagine the outcry if a Democrat newly appointed by Mr. Obama had proposed eliminating the F-22 fighter jet and winding down the Army's multibillion-dollar Future Combat Systems program. Charges that Democrats were again reflexively gutting defense would have come instantly.

Such charges couldn't be easily made, though, when the changes came from Mr. Gates, who had pondered them for more than two years.

Mr. Gates can do such things in part because he occupies an unusual position in Washington, and not just because he straddles administrations of two political parties. He had capped a long Washington career with a stint in the job of his dreams, as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, when he left town for business and academia in 1993. And he wasn't particularly eager to return when coaxed by President George W. Bush into taking over at the Pentagon in 2006. He has nothing left to prove, nobody to impress, no next job to covet.

He also knows how to play the Washington game. For proof, simply look at how he handled the release of his new defense budget.

Mr. Gates has been around long enough to know how such a plan normally would be undermined. As soon as the budget started to move around the bureaucracy, it would leak to Capitol Hill, where lobbyists and lawmakers invested in the defense status quo would begin to mount a counterattack before the details were even announced.

So Mr. Gates outfoxed the system. He had Pentagon officials involved in the budget process sign nondisclosure agreements to prevent leaks. After that, defense officials say, he got permission from Mr. Obama to announce the specifics of the Pentagon plan weeks before the rest of the administration's budget details were released. He went public just as the full plan was sent to the White House budget office, aides say, thereby eliminating the mischief-making season.

Then, rather than rely on others to brief congressional leaders, he called them himself to explain his changes, putting his personal imprimatur and credibility on the plan from the outset.

It was a virtuoso bureaucratic performance, showing why Mr. Obama decided that keeping Mr. Gates around was worth whatever grief he took from allies on the left for doing so.»

Mensagem Semanal: Obama quer aprovar a Reforma da Saúde até ao final de 2009

Jon Huntsman, possível candidato presidencial do Partido Republicano para 2012, é o novo embaixador americano na China

Mais uma prova da vocação conciliadora de Barack Obama: o Presidente nomeou Jon Huntsman, o actual governador do Utah, um republicano que manda naquele que será, talvez, o mais conservador dos estados americanos, para representar a diplomacia dos EUA num país tão importante como a China.

Huntsman, antigo embaixador americano em Singapura, é uma estrela em ascensão no GOP. Ao aceitar este cargo, poucos meses depois de ter sido reeleito para um segundo mandato no Utah, mostra estar disponível para colaborar com esta administração (vai servi-la num importante posto diplomático) e pode dar um passo em frente na sua carreira política.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy