PJ: Since Barack Obama is the first African American to be elected to the Presidency of the United States, you have to wonder why he is also the first person to ever be hounded to provide his long-form birth certificate while all other elected presidents who had provided their certified "Certificate of Live Birth" were given a pass.
When Barack Obama was elected, once again as the first African American to hold that office, people around the world were in awe. "Only in America" was said with admiration for a country who, with significant racial tensions in its history, could look forward to a new brighter future. It is sad now that we shake our heads and use that same phrase with disappointment: Only in America.
The Independent
Special report: The day America took leave of its senses
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Has there ever been a more absurdly surreal moment, even in US politics, that unchallengeable theatre of the absurd and the surreal? One moment, we were watching a property magnate, with one eye on the presidency, the other on his reality TV show ratings, and puffed up like a bullfrog, rejoicing on an airport tarmac in New Hampshire that America's President of two years had finally made public his birth certificate.
The next, America's TV networks interrupted their schedules to cut to the White House, where that self-same President appeared to confirm the momentous fact: not that Barack Obama had indeed been born, but that the happy event indeed took place, as no sane person has ever doubted, on the unimpeachably American soil of Hawaii, one August evening in 1961.
Of late, however, America has seemed to be taking leave of its senses. A quarter of the population, polls showed, and close on half of Republicans, still refused to believe that unassailable fact.
Yesterday, in a bid to finally close the discussion, the White House released Mr Obama's original "long form" birth certificate, rather than the computer-generated duplicate with which the world thus far has had to make do. It is signed by his mother, the doctor who delivered him and the local registrar.
For the benefit of those who have been living – either literally or metaphorically – on a different planet for the last few years, the document bears witness that Barack Hussein Obama was born to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Senior at 7.24pm on August 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynaecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii's capital city.
The "birther" controversy – in other words, the contention that the 44th president had, in fact, entered this world in Kenya or Indonesia and that the Hawaii business was a conspiracy – has moved to the lunatic centre of American political debate. And no one has done more to propel it there than Donald Trump.
Forced to react to that change, the President yesterday expressed the hope that the matter would now be laid to rest. He had watched "puzzled and bemused", he said, at how the issue had persisted, in defiance of all good sense.
But the final straw, at least in Mr Obama's telling, had come a couple of weeks ago when he delivered a major speech on deficit reduction, as argument raged over how to tackle the national debt that threatens to squeeze the life out of the world's largest economy. And what, he asked, was making headlines the next day?
The "birther" question, of course.
"Normally I wouldn't comment on something like this," the President declared. But crucially serious problems confronted the country, and: "We don't have time for this kind of silliness." Nothing would be done "if we just make stuff up, pretend facts are not facts and get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers". The release of the document, which has briefly seemed as pivotal to the existence of the republic as the US Constitution would, Mr Obama hoped, lay the dispute to rest, except for a tiny minority who would never be convinced. "We live," he concluded, "in a serious time".
But do we really? Up in New Hampshire (just by coincidence, of course, the scene of the country's first presidential primary 11 months hence), the carnival barker par excellence claimed Mr Obama's announcement as a colossal victory for himself.
"I am really proud. I am really honoured. I feel I've accomplished something really really important that no one else was able to do," Mr Trump proclaimed, with the modesty that marks him. "I am really happy this has taken place. We have some issues that are unbelievably important."
Whether, however, this triumph will see "the Donald" addressing momentous matters like the deficit remains to be seen. Why so long, he wondered: why hadn't Mr Obama produced the certificate back in 2007 and 2008, when Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was asking for it? And even now, he mused, puffing his chest: "We have to look at it. Is it real? Is it proper?"
And if the rigorous Mr Trump is at last satisfied that Mr Obama was not born outside America – and thus disqualified from being President – other possible deceptions loom. "I've heard he wasn't a very good student at Occidental [College in Los Angeles, attended by the President between 1979 and 1981] but he ended up getting into Columbia [University in New York City] and Harvard. How did he do so, if he wasn't a very good student?"
All this may be entertainment. But even if Mr Trump's goal is not the White House, but a new season on NBC for Celebrity Apprentice, in American politics right now he is rather more than a sideshow. CNN was quick to squash a Trump claim yesterday that a poll by the cable network showed him running level with Mr Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up. No such poll had ever been taken, a CNN anchor declared. Others have been however, by various news organisations, which put the property tycoon and relentless self-promoter near the top of the Republican field.
Everyone's heard of Donald, even though he promises a decision on whether to enter the race only at the end of next month.
The likes of Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and Rand Paul would kill for such celebrity right now.
Some, though, ask whether Mr Obama might have done better by keeping the "birther" issue alive a little longer. Its very existence suggested that Republicans were indeed a party of extremists, they note, driving away the independents and centrists needed to win in November 2012. None other than Karl Rove, who plotted George W Bush's two White House victories, has said that Mr Trump's obsession with the "birther" issue "means he's off there in the nutty right". At moments like yesterday, however, you could believe that everyone's gone nutty.
How the Republican right hounded Obama
"The fact is, nobody has any information. And his people in the United States don't even know which hospital. His relatives don't even know which hospital he was born in... the fact is, if he wasn't born in this country, he shouldn't be the president of the United States."
Donald Trump, Presidential hopeful
"The public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers... I think it's a fair question."
Sarah Palin
"It's not my job to tell the American people what to think [about his birth]. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people...the American people have the right to think what they want to think."
John Boehner, Speaker of the House
"He lived in Indonesia as a kid. He talked about, you know, the prayer at sunset being one of the most beautiful things... So, he grew up in a foreign country. So some have said, all right, you grew up in Hawaii, it's a constitutional requirement, show us [the birth certificate]. What's the big deal?"
Sean Hannity, Fox News host
"I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough."
Mike Huckabee
"I know that there's going to be a segment of people for which this issue will not be put to rest. But I'm speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We've got better stuff to do."
Barack Obama, today
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/special-report-the-day-america-took-leave-of-its-senses-2275816.html
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
UK: Conservatives keep the birther issue alive despite the release of Obama's long form Birth Certificate
PJ: President Obama had already proved his place of birth, just as other politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon had done, by providing his (legally) certified "Certificate of Live Birth". In most states that is the legal form issued to prove citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_certificate#Birth_certificates_in_the_United_States). Most politicians in the US have used that very same form to prove their citizenship in passport applications; most members of the armed services have used that form to prove birth date and citizenship; members of the diplomatic corp have used their certified "Certificate of Live Birth" to prove who they were; even the CIA accepts that particular form as proof of identity, birth and nationality for their most sensitive operatives. But for some reason, that should be an embarrassment to everyone in the US, many Republicans expect more proof of citizenship to be shown by their first African American President.
BBC
Obama releases 'long form' birth certificate
The White House has released President Barack Obama's birth certificate, in response to persistent rumours he was not born in the US.
Mr Obama had previously released an official "certification of live birth" showing he was born in Hawaii.
But fringe "birther" theorists have insisted Mr Obama was actually born in his father's native Kenya, making him ineligible to be president.
Recently potential Republican candidate Donald Trump has revived the rumour.
The White House clearly felt they had to lay this matter to rest. And they were almost certainly right.
I was out of town when the story broke and rushed to find a diner with a TV to watch what the president said. As I talked to people afterwards, it was very clear many had doubts about the president's birth certificate and wondered why something hadn't been said more clearly much earlier.
Something else was also very clear: They agreed with the president that this was a distraction and nearly everyone, unprompted, mentioned the price of petrol as their overwhelming concern.
'Silliness'
On Wednesday, Mr Obama described the unprecedented move as an effort to rid the US political debate of a distraction, saying he had watched, puzzled and bemused, as the birther conspiracy had built and developed over the past years.
He described the matter as a "sideshow" and its proponents as "carnival barkers".
"We do not have time for this kind of silliness," Mr Obama said. "We've got better stuff to do. I have better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve, and I'm confident we can solve them, but we're going to have to focus on them - not on this."
The release of Mr Obama's long form birth certificate, which had been stored in a bound volume among the records of the Hawaii Department of Health since his birth in August 1961, comes after years of speculation among conspiracy-minded conservatives.
Under the US constitution, only a "natural born citizen" - a clause widely interpreted to mean born in the US or in some cases to US citizens abroad - is eligible to be president.
Trump's birther hype
The birther conspiracy held that Mr Obama was born in Kenya or in Indonesia, where he lived as a child, or that the birth certificate revealed other unwholesome information about the president.
Barack Obama: "We've had every official in Hawaii...confirm that yes in fact I was born in Hawaii"
During the 2008 presidential campaign Mr Obama released a computer print-out of the birth certificate information that is recognised as an official record of his birth - on passport applications, for instance - and Hawaiian public health officials vouched for its authenticity.
But the move did little to quell the birthers, even as most mainstream Republicans have sought to quash the movement, calling it a distraction from substantive policy disagreements.
New York real estate entrepreneur and reality television star, meanwhile, has publicly flirted with a Republican presidential bid in recent weeks, founded in large part by stoking questions about Mr Obama's origins.
And on Wednesday, Mr Trump took credit for forcing Mr Obama's hand.
"I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," Mr Trump told reporters. "He should have done it a long time ago."
The White House released copies of the original birth certificate, with a stamp verifying its authenticity. White House officials said they had been given a waiver by Hawaii public health officials, as the state's policy in general bars release of long-form birth certificates.
Birthers unsatisfied
The document shows Barack Hussein Obama II was born 4 August 1961 at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, to Barack Hussein Obama, a 25-year-old student, and Stanley Ann Dunham, 18, and includes the signature of the attending physician.
It remains unclear whether the release of the birth certificate will satisfy the most hard-core birthers.
Joseph Farah, chief executive of birther-orientated website WorldNetDaily.com, said on the site the document "raises as many questions as it answers".
"It is important to remember there are still dozens of other questions concerning this question of eligibility... concerning Barack Obama's parentage, his adoption, his citizenship status throughout his life and why he continues to cultivate a culture of secrecy around his life," he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13212230
BBC
Obama releases 'long form' birth certificate
The White House has released President Barack Obama's birth certificate, in response to persistent rumours he was not born in the US.
Mr Obama had previously released an official "certification of live birth" showing he was born in Hawaii.
But fringe "birther" theorists have insisted Mr Obama was actually born in his father's native Kenya, making him ineligible to be president.
Recently potential Republican candidate Donald Trump has revived the rumour.
The White House clearly felt they had to lay this matter to rest. And they were almost certainly right.
I was out of town when the story broke and rushed to find a diner with a TV to watch what the president said. As I talked to people afterwards, it was very clear many had doubts about the president's birth certificate and wondered why something hadn't been said more clearly much earlier.
Something else was also very clear: They agreed with the president that this was a distraction and nearly everyone, unprompted, mentioned the price of petrol as their overwhelming concern.
'Silliness'
On Wednesday, Mr Obama described the unprecedented move as an effort to rid the US political debate of a distraction, saying he had watched, puzzled and bemused, as the birther conspiracy had built and developed over the past years.
He described the matter as a "sideshow" and its proponents as "carnival barkers".
"We do not have time for this kind of silliness," Mr Obama said. "We've got better stuff to do. I have better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve, and I'm confident we can solve them, but we're going to have to focus on them - not on this."
The release of Mr Obama's long form birth certificate, which had been stored in a bound volume among the records of the Hawaii Department of Health since his birth in August 1961, comes after years of speculation among conspiracy-minded conservatives.
Under the US constitution, only a "natural born citizen" - a clause widely interpreted to mean born in the US or in some cases to US citizens abroad - is eligible to be president.
Trump's birther hype
The birther conspiracy held that Mr Obama was born in Kenya or in Indonesia, where he lived as a child, or that the birth certificate revealed other unwholesome information about the president.
Barack Obama: "We've had every official in Hawaii...confirm that yes in fact I was born in Hawaii"
During the 2008 presidential campaign Mr Obama released a computer print-out of the birth certificate information that is recognised as an official record of his birth - on passport applications, for instance - and Hawaiian public health officials vouched for its authenticity.
But the move did little to quell the birthers, even as most mainstream Republicans have sought to quash the movement, calling it a distraction from substantive policy disagreements.
New York real estate entrepreneur and reality television star, meanwhile, has publicly flirted with a Republican presidential bid in recent weeks, founded in large part by stoking questions about Mr Obama's origins.
And on Wednesday, Mr Trump took credit for forcing Mr Obama's hand.
"I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," Mr Trump told reporters. "He should have done it a long time ago."
The White House released copies of the original birth certificate, with a stamp verifying its authenticity. White House officials said they had been given a waiver by Hawaii public health officials, as the state's policy in general bars release of long-form birth certificates.
Birthers unsatisfied
The document shows Barack Hussein Obama II was born 4 August 1961 at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, to Barack Hussein Obama, a 25-year-old student, and Stanley Ann Dunham, 18, and includes the signature of the attending physician.
It remains unclear whether the release of the birth certificate will satisfy the most hard-core birthers.
Joseph Farah, chief executive of birther-orientated website WorldNetDaily.com, said on the site the document "raises as many questions as it answers".
"It is important to remember there are still dozens of other questions concerning this question of eligibility... concerning Barack Obama's parentage, his adoption, his citizenship status throughout his life and why he continues to cultivate a culture of secrecy around his life," he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13212230
UK: Republicans backing of "birthism"
PJ: President Obama has tried to put an end to the rising vitriol about his place of birth (since many on the right insist that he was not born in the US and thereby ineligible to serve as the President). Recently he requested that the State of Hawaii make his long-form birth certificate available, which the White House released today. The President had years earlier made his certified copy of his Certificate of Live Birth available for inspection (this document is the same type of legal document most people in the US are issued for proof of birth and citizenship). By identifying that this is nothing more than a distraction when important issues are in need of attention, Mr. Obama said that he hopes that this will mean an end to the nonsense of this non-issue.
It must be noted that this non-issue was originally the brain-child of people on the far-far-right but has since been embraced by more mainstream conservatives, Fox News, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, who have used the birther issue to pander to the fringe in their party. Mr. Trump even went so far as to announce to the world recently that Mr. Obama's birth certificate had mysteriously disappeared (according to his sources). Mrs. Palin simply cheered on Mr. Trump's efforts in getting to the bottom of this supposed mystery (although there never was one). She even went so far as to spread proven false rumors that Obama had spent millions in trying to cover up his proof of birth. But even though the issue is considered a fringe issue, recent polls now show that nearly half of Republicans do not believe that the President was born in the US.
Do I need to say it? Only in America!
The Guardian
Republicans will rue their birther backing
The timing of the release of Barack Obama's birth certificate expertly made a fool of Donald Trump – and the GOP with him
By Paul Harris
Given that his credentials as a citizen have been questioned by a significant minority of his fellow Americans, President Barack Obama could have justifiably been a bit annoyed as he finally released his long-form birth certificate.
After all, he has more pressing things on his mind: like numerous wars and the ever-stuttering US economy. But the lunatic birther movement, championed by Donald Trump, appeared to have forced his hand, questioning the very Americanness of the country's first black president so loudly that he had to act. To the surprise of no one with two brain cells to rub together, the document (pdf) proved that, yes, in fact, Obama was indeed born on American soil.
Yet Obama seemed barely in chiding mode at having to deal with this idiocy. Instead, he appeared relaxed. He told reporters that he had "watched with amusement" as the rumours spread and been surprised they refused to go away. "I have been puzzled with the degree with which this thing just kept going," he said, before adding the sanest words anyone has uttered on the subject: "We do not have time for this kind of silliness."
So, why the good mood in the White House?
The fact is that the Obama administration has played the recent spasm of birther attention remarkably well. They have let Trump rise up on a balloon of inflated birther nonsense – getting near the top of Republican polls for the 2012 nomination – and then promptly popped it underneath him. Look at the timing. This was meant to be a moment all about Trump appearing in New Hampshire, the vital first state to hold a primary in the nomination process. It was a moment where Trump the outsider upstart was meant to begin to look a little serious.
Instead, the White House timed the release so that Trump would be right in the media's glare when the birther bubble burst. Not surprisingly, he looked like an idiot. At a news conference, he blustered about his proud achievement in forcing the release of the birth certificate, then attempted to cast a little doubt on it and finally made up a CNN poll that he claimed showed him neck-and-neck with Obama in the race (CNN promptly reported no such poll exists).
No one needed any more proof to understand that Trump is a joke in very poor taste. But he provided it anyway – in long form. Not that Trump will give two hoots. His brand is about reality TV and celebrity, not political, reality. But the Republican party should care. A lot.
Which is why Obama has played this well. His team waited for Trump to have enough rope to hang himself on the birther issue, and in doing so, have helped him toxify the Republican brand – just as he tried to debut his serious side.
Birtherism has thus worked well for Obama. No one who has embraced the birther cause was likely much of an Obama supporter to begin with (hence the heavy skewing of birthers towards the Republican party: according to one recent poll, more than half its membership believed Obama was born abroad). But the sheer and increasing madness of the issue – especially now that the long form birth certificate has been released – must be offputting for the independents and moderates who are often so crucial in American elections.
There are plenty of reasons to be mad at President Obama after two and a half years in office, but you look at the bug-eyed, drooling internet conspiracists now lurking among the Republicans and suddenly he looks like the voice of reason all over again.
Which is why the reverse of the fact that Obama has played the birther hand well is that many senior Republicans have played the issue so badly. Too many top party figures sought to "dogwhistle" the issue, using various formulations designed to stoke it up without actually embracing it. "I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that," Sarah Palin told one interviewer. "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think," said House speaker John Boehner in response to a question about whether he should challenge birthers' views. "I don't think it's nice to call anyone crazy," said House minority leader Eric Cantor. It is a sad indictment of the Republican party that its own leaders took the attitude of not dismissing birtherism and its followers without qualifying their stance or hinting at closet sympathies.
Come 2012, they may yet pay at the polls for that cynicism and moral cowardice. It is going to be an easy task for Democrats to paint the Republicans as extremists with little grasp of reality and many Republicans will have only themselves to blame.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/donald-trump-birth-certificateration
It must be noted that this non-issue was originally the brain-child of people on the far-far-right but has since been embraced by more mainstream conservatives, Fox News, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, who have used the birther issue to pander to the fringe in their party. Mr. Trump even went so far as to announce to the world recently that Mr. Obama's birth certificate had mysteriously disappeared (according to his sources). Mrs. Palin simply cheered on Mr. Trump's efforts in getting to the bottom of this supposed mystery (although there never was one). She even went so far as to spread proven false rumors that Obama had spent millions in trying to cover up his proof of birth. But even though the issue is considered a fringe issue, recent polls now show that nearly half of Republicans do not believe that the President was born in the US.
Do I need to say it? Only in America!
The Guardian
Republicans will rue their birther backing
The timing of the release of Barack Obama's birth certificate expertly made a fool of Donald Trump – and the GOP with him
By Paul Harris
Given that his credentials as a citizen have been questioned by a significant minority of his fellow Americans, President Barack Obama could have justifiably been a bit annoyed as he finally released his long-form birth certificate.
After all, he has more pressing things on his mind: like numerous wars and the ever-stuttering US economy. But the lunatic birther movement, championed by Donald Trump, appeared to have forced his hand, questioning the very Americanness of the country's first black president so loudly that he had to act. To the surprise of no one with two brain cells to rub together, the document (pdf) proved that, yes, in fact, Obama was indeed born on American soil.
Yet Obama seemed barely in chiding mode at having to deal with this idiocy. Instead, he appeared relaxed. He told reporters that he had "watched with amusement" as the rumours spread and been surprised they refused to go away. "I have been puzzled with the degree with which this thing just kept going," he said, before adding the sanest words anyone has uttered on the subject: "We do not have time for this kind of silliness."
So, why the good mood in the White House?
The fact is that the Obama administration has played the recent spasm of birther attention remarkably well. They have let Trump rise up on a balloon of inflated birther nonsense – getting near the top of Republican polls for the 2012 nomination – and then promptly popped it underneath him. Look at the timing. This was meant to be a moment all about Trump appearing in New Hampshire, the vital first state to hold a primary in the nomination process. It was a moment where Trump the outsider upstart was meant to begin to look a little serious.
Instead, the White House timed the release so that Trump would be right in the media's glare when the birther bubble burst. Not surprisingly, he looked like an idiot. At a news conference, he blustered about his proud achievement in forcing the release of the birth certificate, then attempted to cast a little doubt on it and finally made up a CNN poll that he claimed showed him neck-and-neck with Obama in the race (CNN promptly reported no such poll exists).
No one needed any more proof to understand that Trump is a joke in very poor taste. But he provided it anyway – in long form. Not that Trump will give two hoots. His brand is about reality TV and celebrity, not political, reality. But the Republican party should care. A lot.
Which is why Obama has played this well. His team waited for Trump to have enough rope to hang himself on the birther issue, and in doing so, have helped him toxify the Republican brand – just as he tried to debut his serious side.
Birtherism has thus worked well for Obama. No one who has embraced the birther cause was likely much of an Obama supporter to begin with (hence the heavy skewing of birthers towards the Republican party: according to one recent poll, more than half its membership believed Obama was born abroad). But the sheer and increasing madness of the issue – especially now that the long form birth certificate has been released – must be offputting for the independents and moderates who are often so crucial in American elections.
There are plenty of reasons to be mad at President Obama after two and a half years in office, but you look at the bug-eyed, drooling internet conspiracists now lurking among the Republicans and suddenly he looks like the voice of reason all over again.
Which is why the reverse of the fact that Obama has played the birther hand well is that many senior Republicans have played the issue so badly. Too many top party figures sought to "dogwhistle" the issue, using various formulations designed to stoke it up without actually embracing it. "I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that," Sarah Palin told one interviewer. "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think," said House speaker John Boehner in response to a question about whether he should challenge birthers' views. "I don't think it's nice to call anyone crazy," said House minority leader Eric Cantor. It is a sad indictment of the Republican party that its own leaders took the attitude of not dismissing birtherism and its followers without qualifying their stance or hinting at closet sympathies.
Come 2012, they may yet pay at the polls for that cynicism and moral cowardice. It is going to be an easy task for Democrats to paint the Republicans as extremists with little grasp of reality and many Republicans will have only themselves to blame.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/donald-trump-birth-certificateration
UK: No change in Egyptian US opinion
The Economist
No freedom dividend
by Lexington
THE Egyptian people's opinion of America has not changed for the worse. That, for now, is the only consolation America can derive from a fascinating opinion poll just published by the Pew Research Centre. This shows that although nearly two out of three Egyptians are happy with the way things are going in their own country, the end of the Mubarak regime, and the role some people say Barack Obama played in helping to ease out the dictator, have not made them any better disposed towards the United States. Only one in five Egyptians have a positive view of America and only 15% would like to see closer ties. A majority (54% to 36%) would like to annul the peace treaty with Israel. More Egyptians (82%) say that better economic conditions are important to them than say that about honest multi-party elections. The institution that has come out best from the upheaval is the army: 88% say it is having a positive impact on the country.
In fairness, it's early days. People don't change their deeply held convictions overnight. But if America expected some sort of freedom dividend from the Arab awakening, it isn't visible yet.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2011/04/america_and_arabs
No freedom dividend
by Lexington
THE Egyptian people's opinion of America has not changed for the worse. That, for now, is the only consolation America can derive from a fascinating opinion poll just published by the Pew Research Centre. This shows that although nearly two out of three Egyptians are happy with the way things are going in their own country, the end of the Mubarak regime, and the role some people say Barack Obama played in helping to ease out the dictator, have not made them any better disposed towards the United States. Only one in five Egyptians have a positive view of America and only 15% would like to see closer ties. A majority (54% to 36%) would like to annul the peace treaty with Israel. More Egyptians (82%) say that better economic conditions are important to them than say that about honest multi-party elections. The institution that has come out best from the upheaval is the army: 88% say it is having a positive impact on the country.
In fairness, it's early days. People don't change their deeply held convictions overnight. But if America expected some sort of freedom dividend from the Arab awakening, it isn't visible yet.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2011/04/america_and_arabs
China: A dramatic change in US policy regarding Arab countries
Xinhua
U.S. Arab world policy sees consistent threads emerge
by Matthew Rusling
WASHINGTON, April 26 (Xinhua) -- As the Arab world reels from unrest, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has been charged with having a vague and, at times ad hoc, policy toward tumult in the region.
Indeed, the U.S. president called for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi -- a historical U.S. nemesis -- to step down while launching airstrikes against his forces. At the same time, however, Obama called for the resignation of now former Egyptian President and longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak. While the White House has outlined no overarching doctrine, a few themes are emerging.
David Pollock, senior fellow at the Washington Institute, noted three trends: First, the Obama administration opposes the use of force of a government against its own citizens. Second, Obama supports dialogue between governments and opposition groups. Finally, the United States will apply these principles to countries that are friendly to Washington, as well as to those that are not.
Still, many observers have questioned what makes Libya -- in the eyes of the Obama administration -- different from any other nation that has attacked protesters, and many have asked why Obama would choose to intervene in one conflict and not others.
In a White House press briefing on Monday, spokesman Jay Carney said there are a number of differences between the situation in Libya and other instances of governments attacking protesters in their countries.
Carney said Libya was "a unique situation" in the sense that the Libyan government "was moving against its own people in a coordinated military fashion" and there was "an international consensus to act."
The spokesman did not mention opposition or concerns expressed by a number of countries over the Western-led airstrikes in Libya.
Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said there are other cohesive threads in what many have blasted as a jumbled heap of loosely connected and reactive policies. The administration aims to support the process of reform in the region, but to do so pragmatically and gradually, he said.
Monarchies, such as Morocco, are special cases: Within constitutional monarchies there exists the possibility of delegating more power over time to an elected government under a constitutional monarchy framework. So Obama is unlikely to call for leaders of such countries to step down.
Obama has also said that each country in the region is different, and some analysts said the administration is acting out of practicality, arguing that no one-size-fits-all solution exists.
SLIMMING DOWN
Aside from questions about how to respond to the recent unrest, there remain questions over U.S. military plans, as nearly 50,000 U.S. troops are still in Iraq and around 100,000 in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration is trying to slim down its military commitment to the region with a two part strategy. First, Washington wants to stem the influence of Iran by leaving a footprint in Iraq and Kuwait of around 20,000 to 25,000 U.S. troops. A degree of Iranian influence is tolerable, from the U.S. point of view, as long as it does not exceed a certain limit, said Vice President of Analysis Peter Zeihan, of global intelligence company Stratfor.
The second part of the equation is Turkey. If Iran took over Iraq, Turkey would have yet another foe on its borders along with nemesis Syria. Turkey feels cornered, which will prompt a Turkish emergence with U.S. support, in a bid to contain Iranian power in Mesopotamia, he said.
FEAR OF RADICAL ISLAM
In spite of Obama's stated support for some Democratic movements in the Arab world, fear of Islamic extremism is impeding U.S. efforts in Libya, said Wayne White, former deputy director of the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia.
"We are literally obsessed with that in the wake of 9/11," he said. "I think it's being taken out of proportion in light of what probably exists on the ground."
"I suspect that (there is) partly a fear of what the rebels represent, and that has hobbled our efforts to engage because we are reluctant to do more before we know what the opposition represents."
While it remains unknown how far the United States will go in supporting Libya's rebels, the White House announced on Wednesday that it okayed 25 million U.S. dollars in non-lethal aid -- such as communications equipment -- to rebels. On Monday U.S. Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain called for the United States to ramp up support for the rebels, including immediate military aid and more direct U.S. involvement.
Meanwhile, in nearby Egypt, much discussion in the United States centered around the Muslim Brotherhood -- an Islamist organization that ranks as Egypt's most influential dissident group.
While the organization is likely to play a major role in Egypt, it is far different from Al-Qaeda, White said.
Zeihan said that as a whole, the Obama administration would like to see moderately democratic regimes that are obsessed with their own internal issues. But one major U.S. concern is that some countries that have never had democracy could vote in a government less amenable to Washington than the previous one.
Right now most regional leaders are strongmen, but they nonetheless keep internal dissidence in check so it cannot turn into international terrorism, according to the U.S. view, he said.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-04/27/c_13847218.htm
U.S. Arab world policy sees consistent threads emerge
by Matthew Rusling
WASHINGTON, April 26 (Xinhua) -- As the Arab world reels from unrest, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has been charged with having a vague and, at times ad hoc, policy toward tumult in the region.
Indeed, the U.S. president called for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi -- a historical U.S. nemesis -- to step down while launching airstrikes against his forces. At the same time, however, Obama called for the resignation of now former Egyptian President and longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak. While the White House has outlined no overarching doctrine, a few themes are emerging.
David Pollock, senior fellow at the Washington Institute, noted three trends: First, the Obama administration opposes the use of force of a government against its own citizens. Second, Obama supports dialogue between governments and opposition groups. Finally, the United States will apply these principles to countries that are friendly to Washington, as well as to those that are not.
Still, many observers have questioned what makes Libya -- in the eyes of the Obama administration -- different from any other nation that has attacked protesters, and many have asked why Obama would choose to intervene in one conflict and not others.
In a White House press briefing on Monday, spokesman Jay Carney said there are a number of differences between the situation in Libya and other instances of governments attacking protesters in their countries.
Carney said Libya was "a unique situation" in the sense that the Libyan government "was moving against its own people in a coordinated military fashion" and there was "an international consensus to act."
The spokesman did not mention opposition or concerns expressed by a number of countries over the Western-led airstrikes in Libya.
Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said there are other cohesive threads in what many have blasted as a jumbled heap of loosely connected and reactive policies. The administration aims to support the process of reform in the region, but to do so pragmatically and gradually, he said.
Monarchies, such as Morocco, are special cases: Within constitutional monarchies there exists the possibility of delegating more power over time to an elected government under a constitutional monarchy framework. So Obama is unlikely to call for leaders of such countries to step down.
Obama has also said that each country in the region is different, and some analysts said the administration is acting out of practicality, arguing that no one-size-fits-all solution exists.
SLIMMING DOWN
Aside from questions about how to respond to the recent unrest, there remain questions over U.S. military plans, as nearly 50,000 U.S. troops are still in Iraq and around 100,000 in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration is trying to slim down its military commitment to the region with a two part strategy. First, Washington wants to stem the influence of Iran by leaving a footprint in Iraq and Kuwait of around 20,000 to 25,000 U.S. troops. A degree of Iranian influence is tolerable, from the U.S. point of view, as long as it does not exceed a certain limit, said Vice President of Analysis Peter Zeihan, of global intelligence company Stratfor.
The second part of the equation is Turkey. If Iran took over Iraq, Turkey would have yet another foe on its borders along with nemesis Syria. Turkey feels cornered, which will prompt a Turkish emergence with U.S. support, in a bid to contain Iranian power in Mesopotamia, he said.
FEAR OF RADICAL ISLAM
In spite of Obama's stated support for some Democratic movements in the Arab world, fear of Islamic extremism is impeding U.S. efforts in Libya, said Wayne White, former deputy director of the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia.
"We are literally obsessed with that in the wake of 9/11," he said. "I think it's being taken out of proportion in light of what probably exists on the ground."
"I suspect that (there is) partly a fear of what the rebels represent, and that has hobbled our efforts to engage because we are reluctant to do more before we know what the opposition represents."
While it remains unknown how far the United States will go in supporting Libya's rebels, the White House announced on Wednesday that it okayed 25 million U.S. dollars in non-lethal aid -- such as communications equipment -- to rebels. On Monday U.S. Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain called for the United States to ramp up support for the rebels, including immediate military aid and more direct U.S. involvement.
Meanwhile, in nearby Egypt, much discussion in the United States centered around the Muslim Brotherhood -- an Islamist organization that ranks as Egypt's most influential dissident group.
While the organization is likely to play a major role in Egypt, it is far different from Al-Qaeda, White said.
Zeihan said that as a whole, the Obama administration would like to see moderately democratic regimes that are obsessed with their own internal issues. But one major U.S. concern is that some countries that have never had democracy could vote in a government less amenable to Washington than the previous one.
Right now most regional leaders are strongmen, but they nonetheless keep internal dissidence in check so it cannot turn into international terrorism, according to the U.S. view, he said.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-04/27/c_13847218.htm
Australia: White House release's Obama's long form birth certificate
PJ: For some on the right, nothing short of a trip in a time machine back to watch Obama's mother giving birth will satisfy them.
The Sydney Morning Herald
Obama to address birthplace conspiracy
April 27, 2011 - 11:30PM
US President Barack Obama was to make a statement on Wednesday about conspiracy theories that allege he was not born in the United States after the White House released his long-form birth certificate.
Obama's 2008 presidential campaign had previously released a shorter regular birth certificate issued by Hawaii authorities after conservative critics and pundits fanned rumours that he was not American born.
The version released by the White House on Wednesday was a copy of a long-form, original document made at the time of his birth and kept since in official records in Obama's native state.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The document lists Obama's birthplace and birthdate as "Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii" on August 4, 1961 at 7.24pm.
According to the US Constitution, presidents and vice-presidents must be natural born citizens of the United States.
AFP
http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-to-address-birthplace-conspiracy-20110427-1dx4j.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
Obama to address birthplace conspiracy
April 27, 2011 - 11:30PM
US President Barack Obama was to make a statement on Wednesday about conspiracy theories that allege he was not born in the United States after the White House released his long-form birth certificate.
Obama's 2008 presidential campaign had previously released a shorter regular birth certificate issued by Hawaii authorities after conservative critics and pundits fanned rumours that he was not American born.
The version released by the White House on Wednesday was a copy of a long-form, original document made at the time of his birth and kept since in official records in Obama's native state.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The document lists Obama's birthplace and birthdate as "Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii" on August 4, 1961 at 7.24pm.
According to the US Constitution, presidents and vice-presidents must be natural born citizens of the United States.
AFP
http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-to-address-birthplace-conspiracy-20110427-1dx4j.html
India: Doctor ignored torture at Guantanamo
The Times of India
Doctors turned 'blind eye' to Guantanamo torture: Study
WASHINGTON: US department of defense doctors and psychologists whose duty was to care for inmates at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, concealed evidence of intentional harm and torture, said a study.
The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PloS Medicine on Tuesday, come in the wake of a host of secret US documents released by WikiLeaks, shedding light on conditions in the US military prison in Cuba.
Co-authored by a retired army brigadier general and an expert with Physicians for Human Rights, the study is based on a review of the medical records and legal files of nine inmates at the US "war on terror" prison.
The authors call into question whether military doctors, who like their civilian colleagues generally adhere to the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, should have done more when confronted with potential signs of abuse or torture.
The department of defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Military doctors noted the sudden onset of post-traumatic stress symptoms in some inmates who had no history of mental problems, heard stories of rape and documented bone fractures, contusions and lacerations, but they did not question the cause, the study said.
"The medical doctors and mental health personnel who treated the detainees... failed to inquire and/or document causes of the physical injuries and psychological symptoms they observed," it said.
In one case, a clinician with the defense department's behavioural health service noted a detainee's suicidal thoughts, memory lapses and nightmares, and prescribed antidepressants.
"(You)... need to relax when the guards are being more aggressive," the inmate was told, according to medical records cited by the study.
Reports have already come to light of alleged complicity by CIA doctors and psychologists and DoD behavioural consultants, described by the US government as "non-clinical" experts who were present during the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding.
But according to lead author Vincent Iacopino, this study focuses on defense department medical personnel -- doctors and psychologists -- who directly cared for Guantanamo inmates and whose role has been largely obscured.
"There has been no information to date on the role of those health professionals in turning a blind eye, as the paper has indicated, until this time," Iacopino told AFP.
The study does not name the clinicians involved. Iacopino said the doctors' names had been redacted from the documents they consulted, but would be available to those with classified access.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Doctors-turned-blind-eye-to-Guantanamo-torture-Study/articleshow/8096426.cms
Doctors turned 'blind eye' to Guantanamo torture: Study
WASHINGTON: US department of defense doctors and psychologists whose duty was to care for inmates at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, concealed evidence of intentional harm and torture, said a study.
The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PloS Medicine on Tuesday, come in the wake of a host of secret US documents released by WikiLeaks, shedding light on conditions in the US military prison in Cuba.
Co-authored by a retired army brigadier general and an expert with Physicians for Human Rights, the study is based on a review of the medical records and legal files of nine inmates at the US "war on terror" prison.
The authors call into question whether military doctors, who like their civilian colleagues generally adhere to the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, should have done more when confronted with potential signs of abuse or torture.
The department of defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Military doctors noted the sudden onset of post-traumatic stress symptoms in some inmates who had no history of mental problems, heard stories of rape and documented bone fractures, contusions and lacerations, but they did not question the cause, the study said.
"The medical doctors and mental health personnel who treated the detainees... failed to inquire and/or document causes of the physical injuries and psychological symptoms they observed," it said.
In one case, a clinician with the defense department's behavioural health service noted a detainee's suicidal thoughts, memory lapses and nightmares, and prescribed antidepressants.
"(You)... need to relax when the guards are being more aggressive," the inmate was told, according to medical records cited by the study.
Reports have already come to light of alleged complicity by CIA doctors and psychologists and DoD behavioural consultants, described by the US government as "non-clinical" experts who were present during the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding.
But according to lead author Vincent Iacopino, this study focuses on defense department medical personnel -- doctors and psychologists -- who directly cared for Guantanamo inmates and whose role has been largely obscured.
"There has been no information to date on the role of those health professionals in turning a blind eye, as the paper has indicated, until this time," Iacopino told AFP.
The study does not name the clinicians involved. Iacopino said the doctors' names had been redacted from the documents they consulted, but would be available to those with classified access.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Doctors-turned-blind-eye-to-Guantanamo-torture-Study/articleshow/8096426.cms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)