BJP’s STATESMAN, Atal Bihari Vajpayee is tight-lipped on the nuke deal. Its depressing that when the country is debating this issue, a person of his stature should be quiet. The country has high regard for him even today. Does he think this will not be an issue for the next elections? He served the nation not only as the prime minister but also as a foreign minister during Janata Party government. He praised the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as ‘Adiparasakthi’ after the victory in Bangladesh war. He possesses a clean record. One of the architects of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, praised him on many occasions. All these instances remind us how great some Indian politicians are.
When people and political parties are engaged in an issue, which relates to the future of the nation, it is expected that a leader will express his opinion. On the issue of Lok Sabha Speaker’s resignation, former speaker Rabi Ray has taken his stand. The former law minister also marked his comments on the nuclear deal. The astonishing thing is not to hear a comment of former Prime Minister VP Singh who reacts on every other issue.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has no serious objections as we go by the comments of its leaders and also LK Advani. As an Opposition party they may have some political objections. Because of that should the nuke deal process stop? What they were asking is for some amendments. If they come to power they could sign the deal as part o their foreign policy. Then what would be the difference between communists and them? Taking all these factors into account, BJP should act in this moment in a responsible Other . People of the country are already suffering due to increase in prices, as the inflation rates are mounting due to crude oil rates. In the existing scenario, if they fight on this economic issues, their credibility will grow rather than on the nuke issue.
The infighting in the Communist Party Marxist (CPM) is already sending a signal to people that it is on the verge of division after the voting in the Parliament. It shows that the next elections are almost between the two major national parties. Keeping all this in mind a party like BJP should take a different stand on the nuke deal
Thursday, July 17, 2008
US sends top envoy to IAEA when India presents case tomorrow
The Bush Administration has despatched a top envoy to Vienna to bolster support for the Indo-US civil nuclear deal tomorrow when India is due to brief the IAEA Board of Governors on the safeguards agreement.
William Burns, US undersecretary of state for political affairs, will be at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) enroute to Geneva for a weekend meeting over Iran's controversial nuclear programme.
"Friday, he's (Burns) going to have some consultations at the International Atomic Energy Agency, related to the nuclear deal," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters here.
"... I don't have many more details for you than that, that he is going to be in Vienna at the IAEA for some consultations on the civil nuclear deal...," he said of the trip by Burns, the third ranking American diplomat who succeeded Nick Burns, the US pointsman for the deal since it was conceived.
As the UPA Government braced for a trust vote on July 22 in the Lok Sabha, India yesterday said it has decided to scale down tomorrow's special briefing for the IAEA on the safeguards agreement and other aspects of Indo-US nuclear deal, confining it to its 35-member Board of Governors and NSG countries which are not part of the Board. Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon will be presenting India's case.
The IAEA has said its Board of Governors will meet on August 1 to discuss a draft safeguards agreement with India, necessary for the implementation of the deal.
In addition, India must obtain a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG), a group of 45 states that export nuclear fuel and technology before it gets the approval of the US Congress
William Burns, US undersecretary of state for political affairs, will be at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) enroute to Geneva for a weekend meeting over Iran's controversial nuclear programme.
"Friday, he's (Burns) going to have some consultations at the International Atomic Energy Agency, related to the nuclear deal," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters here.
"... I don't have many more details for you than that, that he is going to be in Vienna at the IAEA for some consultations on the civil nuclear deal...," he said of the trip by Burns, the third ranking American diplomat who succeeded Nick Burns, the US pointsman for the deal since it was conceived.
As the UPA Government braced for a trust vote on July 22 in the Lok Sabha, India yesterday said it has decided to scale down tomorrow's special briefing for the IAEA on the safeguards agreement and other aspects of Indo-US nuclear deal, confining it to its 35-member Board of Governors and NSG countries which are not part of the Board. Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon will be presenting India's case.
The IAEA has said its Board of Governors will meet on August 1 to discuss a draft safeguards agreement with India, necessary for the implementation of the deal.
In addition, India must obtain a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG), a group of 45 states that export nuclear fuel and technology before it gets the approval of the US Congress
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
DA for govt employees raised by 5 per cent
The government has increased the dearness allowance for officers and employees of the central public sector enterprises (CPSEs) by 5 per cent, to help them meet the increasing cost of living.
The CPSE employees, pursuant to a notification issued by the government, would get industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) at 84.4 per cent of basic pay with effect from July 1.
The employees and workers of the CPSEs were earlier getting an IDA of 79.4 per cent of the basic pay, which came into effect on April 1.
The decision, according to a Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE) official, would benefit all board level executives, below board level officers, employees and workers of the central PSUs.
The government revises the IDA for the PSU staff every quarter depending upon the movement of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with a view to compensating them for the rising cost of living.
The hike in IDA would provide some relief to the CPSE staff, reeling under the spate of rapidly rising wholesale price-based inflation, which is nearing a 13-year high mark of 12 per cent.
The next installment of the IDA would become due on October 1, 2008.
The CPSE employees, pursuant to a notification issued by the government, would get industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) at 84.4 per cent of basic pay with effect from July 1.
The employees and workers of the CPSEs were earlier getting an IDA of 79.4 per cent of the basic pay, which came into effect on April 1.
The decision, according to a Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE) official, would benefit all board level executives, below board level officers, employees and workers of the central PSUs.
The government revises the IDA for the PSU staff every quarter depending upon the movement of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) with a view to compensating them for the rising cost of living.
The hike in IDA would provide some relief to the CPSE staff, reeling under the spate of rapidly rising wholesale price-based inflation, which is nearing a 13-year high mark of 12 per cent.
The next installment of the IDA would become due on October 1, 2008.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Viacom Decides It Doesn't Need YouTube Histories
Viacom has backed off a request to gain access to all YouTube user histories after public outcry over privacy concerns, according to a YouTube blog post.
"We are pleased to report that Viacom, MTV and other litigants have backed off their original demand for all users' viewing histories and we will not be providing that information," YouTube said in a statement.
Earlier this month, Judge Louis Stanton with the U.S. District Court for Southern New York ruled that Google must provide Viacom with YouTube user histories in Viacom's ongoing $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against the video Web site.
That meant that Google had to hand over all the information contained in its logging database, including the login ID of the users who have watched videos, the time they started to watch the video, users' IP address, and the video identifier.
Privacy advocates were aghast and said the ruling threatened to expose the identities of millions of YouTube users. Viacom had argued that the information it requested would not contain personally identifiable data.
Whether or not an IP address contains such data has been a point of contention. Some argue that not much can be garnered from a bunch of numbers, but combine that with someone's search history or username, and a more industrious Web user might be able to piece some things together about that user's identity.
Under Monday's deal between YouTube and Viacom, YouTube will basically mask user IDs, IP addresses and visitor IDs and describe them in some other manner. The two parties have not yet agreed how that will happen, but under the agreement, YouTube has seven days after the court approves the deal to come up with a workable plan.
Viacom also agreed not to circumvent any encryption techniques YouTube might put in place to protect user identities.
Viacom is apparently still seeking to evaluate the activity of YouTube employees and agents on the site because the masking technique they agreed upon for the average users does not extend to employees and agents, according to the filing. Viacom and YouTube plan to meet on that issue in the next 14 days, it said.
YouTube said Monday that it remains "committed to protecting your privacy and we'll continue to fight for your right to share and broadcast your work on YouTube."
"We are pleased to report that Viacom, MTV and other litigants have backed off their original demand for all users' viewing histories and we will not be providing that information," YouTube said in a statement.
Earlier this month, Judge Louis Stanton with the U.S. District Court for Southern New York ruled that Google must provide Viacom with YouTube user histories in Viacom's ongoing $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against the video Web site.
That meant that Google had to hand over all the information contained in its logging database, including the login ID of the users who have watched videos, the time they started to watch the video, users' IP address, and the video identifier.
Privacy advocates were aghast and said the ruling threatened to expose the identities of millions of YouTube users. Viacom had argued that the information it requested would not contain personally identifiable data.
Whether or not an IP address contains such data has been a point of contention. Some argue that not much can be garnered from a bunch of numbers, but combine that with someone's search history or username, and a more industrious Web user might be able to piece some things together about that user's identity.
Under Monday's deal between YouTube and Viacom, YouTube will basically mask user IDs, IP addresses and visitor IDs and describe them in some other manner. The two parties have not yet agreed how that will happen, but under the agreement, YouTube has seven days after the court approves the deal to come up with a workable plan.
Viacom also agreed not to circumvent any encryption techniques YouTube might put in place to protect user identities.
Viacom is apparently still seeking to evaluate the activity of YouTube employees and agents on the site because the masking technique they agreed upon for the average users does not extend to employees and agents, according to the filing. Viacom and YouTube plan to meet on that issue in the next 14 days, it said.
YouTube said Monday that it remains "committed to protecting your privacy and we'll continue to fight for your right to share and broadcast your work on YouTube."
Some jitters about the trust vote
In case the motion of the government under Rule 184 gets carried through, it does not give immunity to the government for another six months from the Opposition, which is free to move a motion of no-confidence under Rule 198 any time — even on the same day itself.
The political crisis created by the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement may persist beyond July 22 even if the government is able to secure its vote of confidence. The evidence of the inappropriate manner in which the voting issue has been handled has exposed several inadequacies in the Congress think tank, which continues to put the continuation of the government in serious jeopardy.
On paper, the Congress and the UPA may appear to have the numbers on their side at the moment, but what is in serious doubt is the ability of the Congress managers to ensure that the government gets the majority vote when it seeks the trust of the Lok Sabha. All these years, political managers who have been running the show have not shown any evidence of their grasp over the rules and procedures of Parliament and have spent more time in manipulations aimed at keeping their detractors within the Congress at bay.
Their first litmus test could be as early as July 22 when the trust motion is likely to be put to vote. But the securing of the trust vote does not put the government out of danger. The Opposition can immediately move a vote of no-confidence. And if it picks up the issue of rising prices and inflation, the government may be in deep trouble.
The very fact that the government has decided to follow an irregular precedent of seeking the trust vote is proof enough of how the political managers have not been able to see an ambush that may be lying ahead. As per the conduct of rules of business of the Lok Sabha, there is no provision for a trust vote. G.V.G. Krishnamurty, one of the foremost experts on parliamentary procedures and constitutional matters, has pointed out that as per the rules of business, only a no-confidence motion can be moved under Rule 198 to dislodge a government. There is no provision of a confidence motion under the current rules, which could have been amended to include such a provision. But they were not.
Now the situation is such that the government citing past precedents dating back from the time of Charan Singh and later V.P. Singh and some others has decided to go in for a confidence motion under Rule 184 of the Lok Sabha. Under this rule, any motion can be moved and thus a confidence motion may be legal, but, as Krishnamurty opines, it is highly irregular.
The logical corollary of this is that in case the motion of the government under Rule 184 gets carried through, it does not give immunity to the government for another six months from the Opposition, which is free to move a motion of no-confidence under Rule 198 any time — even on the same day itself. Therefore, if the government survives on the nuclear deal on July 22, the Opposition could easily trip it on some other issue like rising prices and inflation.
Even the Constitution does not have any mention of a confidence or no-confidence motion. The mention of no-confidence motion is there only in the conduct of business rules of the Lok Sabha. What the Congress and government managers have failed to comprehend are the circumstances under which the confidence motion was moved for the first time under Rule 184 in 1979. President Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy had appointed Charan Singh as the Prime Minister after the fall of the Morarji Desai government, preferring him to Jagjiwan Ram. Charan Singh never faced the House and resigned shortly afterwards.
In 1990, when the V.P. Singh government became a minority after the BJP withdrew support, he moved a confidence motion under the same rule. However, a no-confidence motion under Rule 198 was also moved but the Speaker, perhaps to oblige V.P. Singh, took up the first motion raising many eyebrows. Later P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and H.D. Deve Gowda also used the same irregular method.
In other words, the onus of proving that a government is in a minority is on the Opposition and those who move a motion of no-confidence. By withdrawing support from the government outside the House, the Left parties have proved nothing. It is on the floor of the House that the government’s strength can be challenged. The current presumption in some quarters is that some members of the Samajwadi Party may not vote as per the party line. This is equally applicable to the Left parties. So the floor test is the final test, but only after a motion of no-confidence.
As far as the Left goes, Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have been very gracious in praising their role in the running of this government. They, unlike some others in the Congress, have not said anything that may burn bridges with the Left. Similarly, veteran CPI(M) leader Jyoti Basu is more pragmatic and has asked the Left not to bring down the government as it has already expressed its opposition to the deal. And voting along with the BJP may send the wrong signals.
Indira and Rajiv Gandhi’s political adviser M.L. Fotedar, too, has reiterated that leaders like Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet understand that their biggest enemy are forces represented by the Sangh Parivar and the BJP — and not each other. It is this spirit that should be understood by the Left leadership and Congress office bearers who have been speaking against each other publicly and, therefore, burning all bridges.
And even as politicking among friends-turned-foes appears to be at its peak, the outcome of the July 22 confidence vote is eagerly awaited. Between us.
The political crisis created by the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement may persist beyond July 22 even if the government is able to secure its vote of confidence. The evidence of the inappropriate manner in which the voting issue has been handled has exposed several inadequacies in the Congress think tank, which continues to put the continuation of the government in serious jeopardy.
On paper, the Congress and the UPA may appear to have the numbers on their side at the moment, but what is in serious doubt is the ability of the Congress managers to ensure that the government gets the majority vote when it seeks the trust of the Lok Sabha. All these years, political managers who have been running the show have not shown any evidence of their grasp over the rules and procedures of Parliament and have spent more time in manipulations aimed at keeping their detractors within the Congress at bay.
Their first litmus test could be as early as July 22 when the trust motion is likely to be put to vote. But the securing of the trust vote does not put the government out of danger. The Opposition can immediately move a vote of no-confidence. And if it picks up the issue of rising prices and inflation, the government may be in deep trouble.
The very fact that the government has decided to follow an irregular precedent of seeking the trust vote is proof enough of how the political managers have not been able to see an ambush that may be lying ahead. As per the conduct of rules of business of the Lok Sabha, there is no provision for a trust vote. G.V.G. Krishnamurty, one of the foremost experts on parliamentary procedures and constitutional matters, has pointed out that as per the rules of business, only a no-confidence motion can be moved under Rule 198 to dislodge a government. There is no provision of a confidence motion under the current rules, which could have been amended to include such a provision. But they were not.
Now the situation is such that the government citing past precedents dating back from the time of Charan Singh and later V.P. Singh and some others has decided to go in for a confidence motion under Rule 184 of the Lok Sabha. Under this rule, any motion can be moved and thus a confidence motion may be legal, but, as Krishnamurty opines, it is highly irregular.
The logical corollary of this is that in case the motion of the government under Rule 184 gets carried through, it does not give immunity to the government for another six months from the Opposition, which is free to move a motion of no-confidence under Rule 198 any time — even on the same day itself. Therefore, if the government survives on the nuclear deal on July 22, the Opposition could easily trip it on some other issue like rising prices and inflation.
Even the Constitution does not have any mention of a confidence or no-confidence motion. The mention of no-confidence motion is there only in the conduct of business rules of the Lok Sabha. What the Congress and government managers have failed to comprehend are the circumstances under which the confidence motion was moved for the first time under Rule 184 in 1979. President Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy had appointed Charan Singh as the Prime Minister after the fall of the Morarji Desai government, preferring him to Jagjiwan Ram. Charan Singh never faced the House and resigned shortly afterwards.
In 1990, when the V.P. Singh government became a minority after the BJP withdrew support, he moved a confidence motion under the same rule. However, a no-confidence motion under Rule 198 was also moved but the Speaker, perhaps to oblige V.P. Singh, took up the first motion raising many eyebrows. Later P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and H.D. Deve Gowda also used the same irregular method.
In other words, the onus of proving that a government is in a minority is on the Opposition and those who move a motion of no-confidence. By withdrawing support from the government outside the House, the Left parties have proved nothing. It is on the floor of the House that the government’s strength can be challenged. The current presumption in some quarters is that some members of the Samajwadi Party may not vote as per the party line. This is equally applicable to the Left parties. So the floor test is the final test, but only after a motion of no-confidence.
As far as the Left goes, Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have been very gracious in praising their role in the running of this government. They, unlike some others in the Congress, have not said anything that may burn bridges with the Left. Similarly, veteran CPI(M) leader Jyoti Basu is more pragmatic and has asked the Left not to bring down the government as it has already expressed its opposition to the deal. And voting along with the BJP may send the wrong signals.
Indira and Rajiv Gandhi’s political adviser M.L. Fotedar, too, has reiterated that leaders like Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet understand that their biggest enemy are forces represented by the Sangh Parivar and the BJP — and not each other. It is this spirit that should be understood by the Left leadership and Congress office bearers who have been speaking against each other publicly and, therefore, burning all bridges.
And even as politicking among friends-turned-foes appears to be at its peak, the outcome of the July 22 confidence vote is eagerly awaited. Between us.
Obama says Afghanistan 'a war that we have to win'
Contending that the U.S. is not pursuing a sound strategy for keeping Americans safe, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority after ending the war in Iraq.
"This is a war that we have to win," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington.
In a major speech on Iran and national security, Obama said he would also secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations, achieve "true energy security," and rebuild the nation's international alliances.
The speech sets the stage for Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and offers a high-profile explanation of his opposition to the war and his pledge to complete a U.S. troop pullout within 16 months of becoming president. It also gives him a forum for criticizing President Bush and his rival for the presidency, Republican John McCain.
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said. "In fact — as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. McCain — the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."
In a White House news conference shortly before Obama was to speak, a reporter asked President Bush what advice he might give Obama as he prepared to visit Iraq. The president said he would ask Obama to listen carefully to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
"It's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way, you know, with the considered judgment of the commanders," Bush said. He defended his policy and maintained that the effort in Iraq was succeeding and acknowledged that the war in Afghanistan remained "a tough fight."
Obama said the Bush strategy that McCain supports has placed the burden for U.S. foreign policy on American military. National security policy should go well beyond Baghdad, he said, and involve allies around the world. He focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying that if the U.S. were attacked again, it likely would be from the same region where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned.
"Sen. McCain said — just months ago — that Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq. I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq," Obama said.
Later in the day, Obama was expected to conduct a series of television interviews to bolster his remarks.
McCain planned to respond during a town-hall meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., but his staff released his remarks before the event.
"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," according to McCain. "And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
Meanwhile, the New York Daily News reported that the Obama campaign altered its Web site to remove a statement that Bush's surge of troops in Iraq "is not working." Over the weekend, the site was changed to describe an "improved security situation" at the cost of U.S. lives.
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi told the newspaper that Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
The flurry of activity comes a day after an Obama op-ed piece in the New York Times that called for the additional Afghanistan brigades and argued the U.S. faces a growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
McCain planned an address Thursday focused on Afghanistan. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 14 injured in a militant attack Sunday, the military's highest death toll there in three years.
While he has accused Obama of favoring surrender in Iraq by outlining a troop withdrawal timetable, McCain told reporters on Monday, "I think we need to do whatever is necessary (in Afghanistan) and that could entail more troops."
Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, has visited Iraq only once and has never been to Afghanistan. He plans to visit both during a trip that will also take him to Jordan and Israel in the Middle East, as well as European capitals in Germany, France and Great Britain.
He will be accompanied on the trip by Sens. Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, is a Vietnam War veteran, while Reed is a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger. Both have been mentioned as possible Obama vice presidential running mates.
McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war, has lambasted Obama for his lack of travel in the region and for not meeting in Iraq with the top U.S. commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama has been trumpeting the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American forces included in a deal needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.
Bush opposes a withdrawal timetable, arguing it will embolden insurgents and prompt them to lay in wait for a U.S. departure.
"This is a war that we have to win," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington.
In a major speech on Iran and national security, Obama said he would also secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations, achieve "true energy security," and rebuild the nation's international alliances.
The speech sets the stage for Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and offers a high-profile explanation of his opposition to the war and his pledge to complete a U.S. troop pullout within 16 months of becoming president. It also gives him a forum for criticizing President Bush and his rival for the presidency, Republican John McCain.
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said. "In fact — as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. McCain — the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."
In a White House news conference shortly before Obama was to speak, a reporter asked President Bush what advice he might give Obama as he prepared to visit Iraq. The president said he would ask Obama to listen carefully to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
"It's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way, you know, with the considered judgment of the commanders," Bush said. He defended his policy and maintained that the effort in Iraq was succeeding and acknowledged that the war in Afghanistan remained "a tough fight."
Obama said the Bush strategy that McCain supports has placed the burden for U.S. foreign policy on American military. National security policy should go well beyond Baghdad, he said, and involve allies around the world. He focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying that if the U.S. were attacked again, it likely would be from the same region where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned.
"Sen. McCain said — just months ago — that Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq. I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq," Obama said.
Later in the day, Obama was expected to conduct a series of television interviews to bolster his remarks.
McCain planned to respond during a town-hall meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., but his staff released his remarks before the event.
"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," according to McCain. "And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
Meanwhile, the New York Daily News reported that the Obama campaign altered its Web site to remove a statement that Bush's surge of troops in Iraq "is not working." Over the weekend, the site was changed to describe an "improved security situation" at the cost of U.S. lives.
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi told the newspaper that Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
The flurry of activity comes a day after an Obama op-ed piece in the New York Times that called for the additional Afghanistan brigades and argued the U.S. faces a growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
McCain planned an address Thursday focused on Afghanistan. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 14 injured in a militant attack Sunday, the military's highest death toll there in three years.
While he has accused Obama of favoring surrender in Iraq by outlining a troop withdrawal timetable, McCain told reporters on Monday, "I think we need to do whatever is necessary (in Afghanistan) and that could entail more troops."
Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, has visited Iraq only once and has never been to Afghanistan. He plans to visit both during a trip that will also take him to Jordan and Israel in the Middle East, as well as European capitals in Germany, France and Great Britain.
He will be accompanied on the trip by Sens. Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, is a Vietnam War veteran, while Reed is a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger. Both have been mentioned as possible Obama vice presidential running mates.
McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war, has lambasted Obama for his lack of travel in the region and for not meeting in Iraq with the top U.S. commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama has been trumpeting the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American forces included in a deal needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.
Bush opposes a withdrawal timetable, arguing it will embolden insurgents and prompt them to lay in wait for a U.S. departure.
Monday, July 14, 2008
For some, Republican John McCain is 'too old'
So how old is John McCain? Six-packs, automatic transmissions and the American Express card were all introduced after he was born, not to mention computers which McCain admits he doesn't use.
McCain, himself, jokes that he's older than dirt. And while his age is being raised as a campaign issue, medical experts say voters shouldn't be concerned that, if elected, McCain would be the oldest man to assume the presidency, at 72.
In politics and other fields, they explain, it's not unusual for talented people to do signature work late in life, when they can apply the cumulative wisdom of experience, and leverage personal connections cultivated over time.
Nonetheless, a significant slice of the electorate has qualms about McCain's age. The presumed Republican nominee will celebrate his 72nd birthday shortly before his party's convention. Polls show the age question isn't going away, despite the Arizona senator's efforts to deflect it with self-deprecating humor, or disprove it by keeping a grueling schedule.
"Sure, people live to be 90, but you are not as sharp," said Virginia Bailey, 73, a retired administrative assistant who lives near Schenectady, N.Y., and is a Republican. "I'm not as sharp as I was ten years ago, and I'm sure (McCain) isn't either — even though he wouldn't admit it."
McCain's senior-citizen status raises more concerns among voters than Sen. Barack Obama's relative youthfulness, a new AP-Yahoo News poll indicates. Twenty percent said "too old" describes McCain "very well," compared with 14 percent who felt strongly that Obama is "too young." Overall, 38 percent said "too old" describes McCain somewhat or very well, compared with 30 percent who worried that the Illinois Democrat, who turns 47 this summer, is too young.
Capitalizing on the concern, New York City graphics designer Joe Quint has launched an Internet site called thingsyoungerthanmccain.com. Quint, a Democrat, said he doesn't believe septuagenarians should be disqualified from the presidency, but age should be part of the discussion. He's planning a book of his Web site items before the election.
The age issue is "clearly a potential problem" for McCain, said independent pollster Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "There is a larger issue of whether people will come to see him as old apart from his age," Kohut added. "Will they think of him as having old ideas?"
Medical science, however, suggests that concerns about McCain's age are exaggerated.
"The presidential campaign is full of chatter — much of it quite misinformed — about the role of age," said Dr. William Thomas, a geriatrician and professor at the University of Maryland's Erickson School of Aging Studies. Geriatrics is a medical specialty that focuses on the elderly.
"People in old age are fully capable of imaginative and skillful work," Thomas added. "A person's age is not a block to doing fantastic work."
Although U.S. life expectancy at birth is about 78 years, a person who reaches 70 can expect to live another 15 years. For a seventy-something president, that could work out to two terms in office, plus time for writing memoirs_and cashing in on book sales.
But differences among people in their seventies can be stark, because some have already started into a steep decline.
Dr. David Reuben, chief of geriatrics at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said he sees no outward evidence of such a problem with McCain, despite the occasional gaffe.
"As a clinician, I look at whether they appear to be robust, whether their sentences flow, whether their thoughts connect, whether they are easily distractible," said Reuben. "McCain appears to be quite robust."
The main medical concern about McCain is not his age, but his history of melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. If McCain is elected, Americans would have to get used to the idea of their president as a cancer survivor, closely followed by doctors for any sign of a recurrence.
But Reuben said there's very little difference in clinical terms between McCain's age and Ronald Reagan's, who turned 70 soon after he was sworn in for his first term. Reagan managed to avoid the "old" label by often riding horses and clearing brush on his ranch in California. But could seem to be forgetful at times. In Iran-Contra testimony in 1990, a year after leaving office, he couldn't remember that Gen. John W. Vessey served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for three years in his administration.
Reagan's Alzheimer's diagnosis came later, nearly six years after leaving the White House.
McCain has embraced what he calls his own "oldness." He jokes that he's older than dirt and has more scars than Frankenstein, but he's learned some useful things along the way. That seems to put many voters at ease. In the AP-Yahoo News poll, 58 percent said the term "too old" doesn't describe McCain at all well, or only slightly.
"I figure he's a very experienced man," said Robert Covarrubias, 38, a trucking company manager from Los Angeles, and a Republican. "We've had presidents who were up there in age before."
Mindful that it could backfire on them, Democrats have mostly broached the age issue indirectly, by trying to link McCain to festering problems that Washington hasn't resolved. That may resonate with some voters.
"Not only age wise is (McCain) old, but he has also been a politician for a long time," said Aaron Andrus, 28, a software developer from Salt Lake City, who is not affiliated with either party. "I don't see how what he would do would be any different from what has been done time and time again, and has brought our country to the point where we are today."
McCain, himself, jokes that he's older than dirt. And while his age is being raised as a campaign issue, medical experts say voters shouldn't be concerned that, if elected, McCain would be the oldest man to assume the presidency, at 72.
In politics and other fields, they explain, it's not unusual for talented people to do signature work late in life, when they can apply the cumulative wisdom of experience, and leverage personal connections cultivated over time.
Nonetheless, a significant slice of the electorate has qualms about McCain's age. The presumed Republican nominee will celebrate his 72nd birthday shortly before his party's convention. Polls show the age question isn't going away, despite the Arizona senator's efforts to deflect it with self-deprecating humor, or disprove it by keeping a grueling schedule.
"Sure, people live to be 90, but you are not as sharp," said Virginia Bailey, 73, a retired administrative assistant who lives near Schenectady, N.Y., and is a Republican. "I'm not as sharp as I was ten years ago, and I'm sure (McCain) isn't either — even though he wouldn't admit it."
McCain's senior-citizen status raises more concerns among voters than Sen. Barack Obama's relative youthfulness, a new AP-Yahoo News poll indicates. Twenty percent said "too old" describes McCain "very well," compared with 14 percent who felt strongly that Obama is "too young." Overall, 38 percent said "too old" describes McCain somewhat or very well, compared with 30 percent who worried that the Illinois Democrat, who turns 47 this summer, is too young.
Capitalizing on the concern, New York City graphics designer Joe Quint has launched an Internet site called thingsyoungerthanmccain.com. Quint, a Democrat, said he doesn't believe septuagenarians should be disqualified from the presidency, but age should be part of the discussion. He's planning a book of his Web site items before the election.
The age issue is "clearly a potential problem" for McCain, said independent pollster Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "There is a larger issue of whether people will come to see him as old apart from his age," Kohut added. "Will they think of him as having old ideas?"
Medical science, however, suggests that concerns about McCain's age are exaggerated.
"The presidential campaign is full of chatter — much of it quite misinformed — about the role of age," said Dr. William Thomas, a geriatrician and professor at the University of Maryland's Erickson School of Aging Studies. Geriatrics is a medical specialty that focuses on the elderly.
"People in old age are fully capable of imaginative and skillful work," Thomas added. "A person's age is not a block to doing fantastic work."
Although U.S. life expectancy at birth is about 78 years, a person who reaches 70 can expect to live another 15 years. For a seventy-something president, that could work out to two terms in office, plus time for writing memoirs_and cashing in on book sales.
But differences among people in their seventies can be stark, because some have already started into a steep decline.
Dr. David Reuben, chief of geriatrics at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said he sees no outward evidence of such a problem with McCain, despite the occasional gaffe.
"As a clinician, I look at whether they appear to be robust, whether their sentences flow, whether their thoughts connect, whether they are easily distractible," said Reuben. "McCain appears to be quite robust."
The main medical concern about McCain is not his age, but his history of melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. If McCain is elected, Americans would have to get used to the idea of their president as a cancer survivor, closely followed by doctors for any sign of a recurrence.
But Reuben said there's very little difference in clinical terms between McCain's age and Ronald Reagan's, who turned 70 soon after he was sworn in for his first term. Reagan managed to avoid the "old" label by often riding horses and clearing brush on his ranch in California. But could seem to be forgetful at times. In Iran-Contra testimony in 1990, a year after leaving office, he couldn't remember that Gen. John W. Vessey served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for three years in his administration.
Reagan's Alzheimer's diagnosis came later, nearly six years after leaving the White House.
McCain has embraced what he calls his own "oldness." He jokes that he's older than dirt and has more scars than Frankenstein, but he's learned some useful things along the way. That seems to put many voters at ease. In the AP-Yahoo News poll, 58 percent said the term "too old" doesn't describe McCain at all well, or only slightly.
"I figure he's a very experienced man," said Robert Covarrubias, 38, a trucking company manager from Los Angeles, and a Republican. "We've had presidents who were up there in age before."
Mindful that it could backfire on them, Democrats have mostly broached the age issue indirectly, by trying to link McCain to festering problems that Washington hasn't resolved. That may resonate with some voters.
"Not only age wise is (McCain) old, but he has also been a politician for a long time," said Aaron Andrus, 28, a software developer from Salt Lake City, who is not affiliated with either party. "I don't see how what he would do would be any different from what has been done time and time again, and has brought our country to the point where we are today."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)