Document Text Content
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
rt
cle 1.
Jeffrey Epstein [jeeyacation@gmail.com]
2/15/2013 12:42:34 AM
Larry Summers
as you asked
The Washington Post
In State of the Union
address, Obama lays out
his second-term agenda
Editorial
February 13, 2013 -- TWO DOMESTIC
concerns towered above all others as
President Obama addressed a joint session
of Congress on Tuesday night on the state
of the union. One was stubbornly slow
economic growth. The other was the long-
term threat to prosperity posed by the
structural mismatch between the federal
government's projected revenue and its
spending commitments. A successful
second term for Mr. Obama will require
both credible proposals for overcoming
those related challenges and the
determination to carry them through.
The president addressed the deficit and
debt first, and at some length. This was
fitting, giving that the most pressing piece
of business facing Washington is what to
do about the impending $85 billion across-
the-board spending cut. He was forthright
Office of Terje Rod-Larsen
Show details
Ads — Why these ads?
Bar Mitzvah In Israel
Make it a moving family event
Plan your trip to Israel now!
bar-and-bat-mitzvah-in-israel.com
Military Refinance Loan
3.38% (3.53% APR) No lender fees
Use your benefit! No appraisal reqd
www.FreedomMortgage.com
Silver Prices to Drop 25%
Gain 67% if Buy after Correction.
As Silver Price Soars into 2013
www.sovereign-investor.com
Are you ready for DDoS?
Free DDoS Defense Test.
Get a Full Risk Assessment Now!
www.Corero.com
Submit Your Website Free
Drive Traffic to Your Website.
Reach 30 Million Customers Monthly.
Manta.com/Website Submission
Survive The Fiscal Cliff
40 Million have witnessed the
evidence for a 2013 crash. Prepare!
www.newsmax.com
specia Holy Land tour
Join our Holy Land tour
Special prices individual & groups
www.veredgo.com
Man Cheats Credit Score
1 simple trick & my credit score
jumped 217 pts. Banks hate this!
www.thecreditsolutionprogram.com
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025041
in declaring that this so-called sequester
threatens the military as well as domestic
programs. But his plan to avoid it basically
repeated the offer of a "balanced approach"
— unspecified tax hikes and spending cuts
— which Republicans have already
rejected.
Somewhat more substantively, he called for
a larger deficit-reduction deal built around
loophole-closing tax reform and what he
called "modest" reforms to Medicare and
entitlements. In an apparent effort to rally
Democrats to this cause, he called on
"those of us who care deeply about
programs like Medicare" to "embrace"
reform.
Yet in promising the same amount of
Medicare savings as the Simpson-Bowles
commision proposed, Mr. Obama did not
mention that this would be a mere $341
billion over 10 years. All told, he envisions
shaving an additional $1.5 trillion off
projected deficits over 10 years, which
would leave the national debt at a
historically aberrant 70-odd percent of
gross domestic product. In short, he
declined to push back against the mind-set
within his party that considers acceptable
"stabilizing" the debt at this level by the
time Mr. Obama's second term ends. At
best, that would buy a respite of a few
years before the debt resumed its upward
climb.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025042
As for raising the economy's growth
potential, the president was more
persuasive. His emphasis on reforming the
tangled and counterproductive corporate
tax code was especially welcome, and
relatively likely to draw GOP support. He
offered several promising ideas on
education, including a promise of "high-
quality preschool" for all children, though
how that would square with his promise not
to increase the deficit by a single dime
went unexplained. He sounded a ringing
call for greater federal attention to college
cost containment. "Taxpayers can't keep on
subsidizing" spiraling tuition, he said,
candidly and correctly.
As European trading partners had hoped,
the president endorsed negotiations for a
transatlantic free-trade zone, which would
help America's export industries and the
jobs that depend on them. Coupled with an
agreement that Obama is promoting for the
Pacific region, the proposal has the
potential to make his second term fruitful
for global trade. He also suggested raising
the federal minimum wage, from $7.25 per
hour to $9 — although the precise amount
is less important, in our view, than the
president's call for annual cost-of-living
adjustments.
In keeping with Mr. Obama's theme of
nation-building at home, foreign policy
played a secondary role in his speech. He
promised to bring home half of the
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025043
remaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan
within the next year. But officials said the
withdrawal would be weighted toward
year's end, leaving most of the troops to
partner with Afghan troops for much of this
year. The president said the United States
would support democratic transitions in the
Middle East, "keep the pressure on [the]
Syrian regime" and "do what is necessary
to prevent" Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon — but he offered no specifics.
Mr. Obama pressed his case for reform of
immigration laws and for action to slow
global warming — and, in especially
moving terms, tougher gun laws. In each
case, there may be measures he can take
through executive action, but new laws will
be needed for substantial progress.
Mr. Obama was right when he pointed to
the survivors and grieving relatives of gun
violence victims and insisted, "They
deserve a vote."
Article 2
Foreign Policy
The world is no longer
America's problem
Aaron David Miller
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025044
February 13, 2013 -- If you want to know
what an American president's foreign
policy is likely to be, particularly in a
second term, don't listen to his State of the
Union speech. You'd probably have more
luck playing with Tarot cards, or reading
tea leaves or goat entrails. But not this year.
Barack Obama's fourth such address left a
trail of foreign-policy cookie crumbs that
lead directly to some pretty clear, if hardly
surprising or revolutionary, conclusions.
His first term contained no spectacular
successes (save killing Osama bin Laden),
but no spectacular failures either. And
more than likely, that's what the president
will settle for in a second, even as the Arab
world burns and rogues like Iran and North
Korea brandish new weapons. He's nothing
if not a cautious man.
Behold: I am the Extricator in Chief
Afghanistan -- the "good war" -- has been
pretty much MIA in Obama's speeches
since he became president. He's alternated
between spending a few words on the
mission there (2009) or a paragraph (2010,
2011, 2012). If his words have been brief,
the message has been stunningly clear: It's
about the leaving. And tonight was no
exception. Not more than two minutes in,
the president spoke about America's men
and women coming home from
Afghanistan.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025045
Obama's signature is indeed that of the
extricator. And he broke the code early (the
2009 surge was designed politically to get
in so that he could get out with a clearer
conscience). He is the president who has
wound down the longest and among the
most profitless wars in American history,
where victory was never defined by
whether we can win, but by when can we
leave. It is his legacy, and one about which
he has reason to be proud. Obama has left
himself and his military commanders
plenty of discretion about the pace of
extrication. But that's fine with the
president so long as they're heading for the
exits.
Not the Destroyer and Rebuilder of Worlds
Surprise, surprise: There was scant mention
of Syria in the president's speech -- just one
throwaway line about supporting Syria's
opposition. Obama did not disengage from
Iraq and Afghanistan only to plunge
America into new black holes in the
Middle East.
Obama isn't worried about boots on the
ground in Syria. That was never on the
table. Instead the question is this: Given the
uncertainty about the end state in Syria and
the risks of providing serious weapons to
the rebels (and a no-fly zone) that might
alter the arc of the fight against the regime,
the president saw and continues to see no
purpose in America providing arms of
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025046
marginal utility. That course would either
expose him to be truly weak and ineffectual
or lead to calls to do more. So he's going to
provide non-lethal support and is
apparently prepared to take the hits from
critics who see the president's policy as
passive, cruel, and unforgiving, particularly
now that we know that members of his own
cabinet clearly wanted to do more. The
Iranian nuclear issue, the other potential tar
baby in the SOTU, followed a pretty
predictable rising arc of concern in the list
of presidential foreign-policy worries. In
2009, in Obama's address to a joint session
of Congress (a speech some regard as a
SOTU), Iran wasn't even mentioned. In the
2010 SOTU, Obama threatened that if Iran
ignored its international obligations, there
would be consequences; in 2011, he did the
same; and in 2012, he made it clear that he
would prevent Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon and take no option off the
table. Obama repeated half of what he said
in 2012 about preventing Iran from getting
a nuclear weapon, but instead of saying all
options were on the table, he spoke of the
importance of diplomacy. I suspect he'll go
to extreme lengths to avoid war, and won't
greenlight an Israeli attack either until the
arc of diplomacy has run its course. And
then Obama would likely act only if the
mullahs push the envelope by accelerating
their uranium enrichment program and
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025047
other military aspects of the nuclear
enterprise.
Seizing the Nuclear High Road with Little
to Lose
Even as he confronts a real bomb in North
Korea (very bad options there) and a
potential one in Iran (bad options there
too), Obama is trying to make good on a
longstanding commitment to reduce
America's own nuclear arsenal. Backed by
the military chiefs and likely by the public
too (getting rid of nukes equals saving
money), but opposed by Republicans in
Congress, Obama will try to work around
the political obstacles by seeking a deal
with yes ... you got it ... his old friend Vlad
Putin. It's worth a try. If Putin balks or
Republicans get in the way, the president
can always advocate unilateral cuts -- not
something he wants to do. But if he can't
have his way on nukes, he can always
blame it on the Russians and the
Republicans with little to lose. The road to
getting rid of nukes is a long one. Let the
next guy (or gal) worry about it.
A Little Leg on Palestine?
Obama hasn't mentioned the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict in a SOTU speech since
2009. And that's no coincidence. His own
poorly thought-through initial effort
crashed and burned, leaving the president
pretty frustrated and annoyed with both
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025048
Israelis and Palestinians, particularly Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But hey, that was then. A second-term
president has committed himself early in
2013 to a trip to Israel and has an Energizer
bunny in Secretary of State John Kerry,
who wants to do the right thing and keep
the two-state solution alive. Obama clearly
kept his distance from the issue again on
Tuesday night. He spoke of standing with
Israel to pursue peace, but didn't mention
Palestinians or the peace process. He
mentioned his own trip to the Middle East,
but missed an opportunity to give what
might be a trip to the region by his new
secretary of state higher profile. It's just as
well. The paradox of the Israeli-Palestinian
issue is that it's too complicated to
implement right now and too important to
abandon. It's in this space that Obama will
be forced to operate. And while the odds of
success are low, Obama will be tempted in
his final term to do something bold,
perhaps laying out a U.S. plan of
parameters on the key final-status issues.
It's the Middle Class, Not the Middle East
Spoiler alert: Barack Obama might still be
a consequential foreign-policy president if
he's lucky, willful, and skillful. But it's his
domestic legacy that will make or break his
presidency. Health care -- his signature
legacy issue -- will look much better if the
economy improves, driven by a revived
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025049
housing market and rising employment,
and of course if some broader deal can be
struck on entitlements and taxes.
Immigration reform and gun-control
legislation driven by a functional
bipartisanship would cement that legacy.
He'd be an historic rather than a great
president.
Two clocks tick down in a president's
second term: the drive for legacy and the
reality of lame duckery. Obama's political
capital will diminish quickly. Where, how,
and on what he wants to spend it is critical.
The Middle East is violent and volatile and
may yet suck him in, but if he can avoid it,
he'll try. This was a State of the Union
address that stressed fixing America's
broken house, not chasing around the world
trying to fix everyone else's. The future of
America isn't Cairo or Damascus; it's
Chicago and Detroit.
Aaron David Miller is a distinguished
scholar at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars.
Article 3.
Agence Global
Can the United States
Strike a Deal with Iran?
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025050
Patrick Seale
12 Feb 2013 -- Negotiations with Iran are
once more on the international agenda.
After an eight-month break, the five
permanent members of the UN Security
Council plus Germany -- the so-called
P5+1 -- are due to hold a meeting with Iran
on 25 February in Kazakhstan. What are
the prospects of success? In a nutshell, that
would seem to depend more on the climate
in Washington than in Tehran. Iran is
gesturing that it wants to negotiate, but
Washington has not yet signalled any
greater flexibility than in the past.
In a major speech in Tehran last Sunday,
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
addressed the United States: "Take your
guns out of the face of the Iranian nation
and I myself will negotiate with you," he
declared. Meanwhile, the Iranian
ambassador to Paris told French officials
that, provided a work plan was agreed, Iran
was ready to allow inspectors of the
International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) to visit Parchin, a military facility
where Iran is suspected of having done
work on atomic weapons. Ahmadinejad
himself has said repeatedly that Iran was
ready to stop enriching uranium to 20% if
the international community agreed to
supply it instead to the Tehran research
reactor for the production of isotopes
needed to treat cancer patients.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025051
The only recent encouraging word from the
United States was a hint by Vice-President
Joe Biden at last week's Munich security
conference that the time may have come
for bilateral U.S.-Iranian talks. Iran's
Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi
responded positively to Biden's offer,
although he added that Iran would look for
evidence that Biden's offer was 'authentic'
and not 'devious'.
The road to a U.S.-Iranian agreement is
littered with obstacles -- grave mutual
distrust being one of them. There is little
optimism among experts that a
breakthrough is imminent. For one thing,
Iran is almost certain to want to defer any
major strategic decision until a new
President is elected next June to replace the
sharp-tongued Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. To
strike a deal with Iran, the United States
would also need to assure its Arab allies in
the Gulf that they would not fall under
Iranian hegemony or lose American
protection. Guarantees would no doubt
have to be given.
Israel, America's close ally, poses a more
substantial obstacle. It is totally opposed to
any deal which would allow Iran to enrich
uranium, even at the low level of 3.5%.
Wanting no challenge to its own
formidable nuclear arsenal, Israel's long-
standing aim has been to halt Iran's nuclear
programme altogether. To this end it has
assassinated several Iranian nuclear
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025052
scientists and joined the United States in
waging cyber warfare against Iranian
nuclear facilities. Its belligerent prime
minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has for
years been pressing Obama to destroy
Iran's nuclear programme and -- better still
-- bring down the Islamic regime
altogether.
Faced with these obstacles, it is clear that
any U.S. deal with Iran would require
careful preparation. Obama would need to
mobilize strong domestic support if he is to
confront America's vast array of pro-Israeli
forces. They include Congressmen eager to
defend Israeli interests at all costs (as was
vividly illustrated by the recent Chuck
Hagel confirmation hearings), powerful
lobbies such as AIPAC, media barons,
high-profile Jewish financiers like Sheldon
Adelson, a phalanx of neo-con strategists in
right-wing think tanks, influential pro-
Israelis within the Administration, and
many, many others. The cost in political
capital of challenging them could be very
substantial. Nevertheless, elected for a
second term, he now has greater freedom
and authority than before.
Obama is due to visit Israel on March 20-
21, something he did not do in his first
term. This visit will be the first foreign trip
of his second term -- in itself a sign of its
importance. Although the White House is
anxious to play down suggestions that he
will announce a major initiative, either on
HOUSE OVERSIGHT 025053
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or on Iran,
there are issues he cannot avoid. He may,
however, choose to raise them in private
talks with Israeli leaders rather than in
public. His message is expected to be
twofold: Israel should not delay in granting
statehood to the Palestinians, however
painful that choice may be, and it should be
careful not to make an eternal enemy of
Iran. Both conflicts have the potential to
isolate Israel internationally and threaten its
long-term interests, if not its actual
existence.
In his first term of office, Obama resisted
Netanyahu's pressure to wage war on Iran.
This was no more than a semi-success,
however, since he managed to blunt
Netanyahu's belligerence only by imposing
on Iran a raft of sanctions of unprecedented
severity. They have halved Iran's oil
exports, caused its currency to plummet
and inflation to gallop, severed its relations
with the world's banks and inflicted severe
hardship on its population.
The key question today is this: What are
Obama's intentions? Is he seeking to bring
down Iran's Islamic regime, as Israel
would like, or is he simply seeking to limit
its nuclear ambitions? If 'regime change' is
his aim then sanctions will have to be
tightened even further and extended