Les Tours de Laliberté

mardi 3 mars 2015

Caricature heure avancée pour tout le monde?

Caricature de DAVE GRANLUND, POLITICALCARTOONS.COM

Obama doit répondre à Netanyahou (position éditoriale du Washington Post)

Si les arguments et les doutes exprimés aujourd'hui par Benjamin Netanyahou devant le Congrès américains ne représentent rien de neuf, le Washington Post avance qu'il est plus que temps pour le Président Obama de présenter son argumentaire dans le dossier du nucléaire iranien.

"The Israeli prime minister’s most aggressive argument concerned the nature of the Iranian regime, which he called “a dark and brutal dictatorship” engaged in a “march of conquest, subjugation and terror.” Saying that the regime’s ideology is comparable with that of the Islamic State, he asserted that it could not be expected to change during the decade-long term of an agreement. He proposed that controls on the nuclear program should be maintained “for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.”

In essence, this was an argument that Iran must be sanctioned and contained while its clerical regime remains in power. That has been the explicit or de facto U.S. policy since 1979, but Mr. Obama appears to be betting that detente can better control Iran’s nuclear ambitions and, perhaps, produce better behavior over time. Yet he has shied from explicitly making that case; instead, his aides argue that the only alternative to his approach is war."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-needs-real-answers-to-netanyahus-arguments/2015/03/03/9cd8f760-c1d0-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html?hpid=z3

Netanyahou au Congrès américain: plus de mal que de bien?

Caricature de JOHN DARKOW, COLUMBIA DAILY TRIBUNE, MISSOURI

La position de Benjamin Netanyahou dans le dossier du nucléaire iranien était déjà bien connue, il y a avait donc d'autres enjeux aujourd'hui lorsqu'il s'est exprimé au Congrès américain. Le Premier Ministre israélien prétend qu'il est préférable de pas s'entendre avec l'Iran plutôt que d'aller de l'avant dans les négociations actuelles. Cette option est-elle viable?

"The real problem came, however, when Netanyahu began to address the current negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Netanyahu criticized elements of a deal currently being negotiated (nothing has actually been finalized) and argued that America and the other nations involved in the negotiations should just walk away. “No deal is better than a bad deal,” he said. “Well this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.”

So where would that leave things? Netanyahu argues that if the U.S. walked away, Iran would eventually capitulate on everything; the “better deal” he imagined is one in which Iran does everything short of dismantling its government. He had nothing to say about why this might happen if we weren’t negotiating, other than that we should “keep up the pressure.” That’s his alternative: Do nothing, and instead of just going ahead and developing nuclear weapons, Iran will see the light and completely reverse everything it’s been doing.

To call that position “absurd” is too kind. You don’t have to be some kind of foreign policy whiz to grasp that there’s something weird about arguing that 1) Iran is a nation run by genocidal maniacs; 2) they want nuclear weapons so they can annihilate Israel; and 3) the best way to stop this is to abandon negotiations to limit their nuclear program and just wait to see what they do. But that’s the position Netanyahu and his supporters in the Republican Party are now committed to."

La suite:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/03/why-netanyahus-speech-didnt-do-his-american-allies-any-favors/?hpid=z3

Obamacare et la Cour suprême: Roberts et Kennedy feront-ils la différence?

Le juge Roberts a penché en faveur de L'Affordable care act la dernière fois et le juge Kennedy est reconnu comme un "swing vote" entre les juges plus conservateurs et les progressistes. Comme les opinions des autres juges de la Cour suprême semblent être fixées, on attend impatiemment l'interprétation de Roberts et Kennedy demain. Un test majeur pour le grand héritage politique du Président Obama.

"The challengers — four Virginia residents who don’t want to abide by the mandate that Americans buy health insurance — argue that the Obama administration is illegally giving out Obamacare subsidies. They say a phrase in the text of the massive law — that subsidies go to “exchanges established by the state” — only allows the money to go to residents of the 16 states, plus Washington, D.C., that set up their own insurance exchanges. If the plaintiffs prevail, more than 7 million people now receiving the subsidies in 34 states would lose them.

The opponents’ lawyer, Michael A. Carvin of the law firm Jones Day, will argue that Congress all along intended to direct the subsidies through the state-run exchange as an incentive for the states to take on that task instead of leaving it to the federal government. The plaintiffs point to early versions of health reform legislation, one considered in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, that tied together subsidies and a state’s insurance reforms."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/obamacare-supreme-court-case-john-roberts-anthony-kennedy-115673.html?hp=t4_r

Hillary Clinton: des courriels compromettants?

Hillary Clinton n'aurait utilisé qu'une adresse courriel personnelle lors de son passage au Secrétariat d'État. Est-ce bien grave? Oui si on considère qu'on ne sait pas si tous les échanges effectués au nom du gouvernement américain pourraient ne pas avoir été archivés comme le veut la loi. On se demande également si ce compte était suffisamment sécurisé.

"Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.

The revelation about the private email account echoes longstanding criticisms directed at both the former secretary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for a lack of transparency and inclination toward secrecy.

And others who, like Mrs. Clinton, are eyeing a candidacy for the White House are stressing a very different approach. Jeb Bush, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, released a trove of emails in December from his eight years as governor of Florida.%% It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton’s private email account included encryption or other security measures, given the sensitivity of her diplomatic activity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news