Nick Clegg appeals to Labour supporters to vote for AV and signals greater distance from Tories after the vote Nick Clegg has made a last-minute appeal to Labour supporters to set aside their desire to “poke him in the eye” and recognise that the alternative vote is an unambiguously progressive reform. He has also vowed that his party will be more independent of the Conservatives after the referendum, saying the first phase of unanimity in public had been necessary due to the need to tackle the economic crisis. In a Guardian interview, Clegg said: “For Labour party supporters thinking about how they should vote, Labour has always been at its best a progressive movement for reform. It always has been and always will be. This is a progressive change, an unambiguously progressive change. “Yes, I understand people want to poke me in the eye and signal their displeasure. I understand all of that – I do not want to belittle that – but this is a fork of the road for progressives which is much bigger than me. This is not about Nick Clegg or the coalition government, it is about whether you take the progressive fork in the road, or do you stick with the status quo.” With polls showing that only a late swing by Labour voters to AV can rescue the yes campaign, Clegg – who is viewed with intense dislike by some on the left – praised Ed Miliband for the way he has led his party in the issue, contrasting him with the “old warhorses” of John Reid and David Blunkett, opposed to reform. He also expressed his frustration at what some see as the duplicity of his Tory colleagues in government when they claim they are not responsible for the literature put out by the no campaign attacking his “broken promises”. He said: “I take what people say at face value. I do not try to second guess them, but it seems to be an established fact that this no campaign has transformed itself into a Conservative party campaign in all but name. It was transformed by a commitment from Conservative party high command. It is a pity that old warhorses like John Reid and David Blunkett have turned themselves into mouthpieces for what is in effect a Conservative party campaign. “To be fair to George Osborne and David Cameron, they have been overt about the fact that they are going to do absolutely everything they can to stop a change that is inimical to their interests.” Echoing business secretary Vince Cable, he said the current electoral system had locked out progressive forces. “The last century, as Vince has quite rightly said, has been dominated by one party – the Conservative party – on a minority of the vote. That is an incontrovertible fact. The whole Roy Jenkins thesis is that if you look at the last century, the left wing parties did not get a look in because they were splitting the difference.” He admits it is not immutable but argued that the trend has been for Labour and Lib Dems to vote tactically for one another. “Clearly, there has been affinity historically, ideologically between the two progressive parties. I am a progressive politician. I lead a progressive party I always have and always will do.”. “I cannot for the life of me understand how intelligent, sophisticated folk in the Conservative party think it is defensible in the 21st century to have a system that ends up with hundreds of MPs with jobs for life – and they do not even deign to get 50% of the vote every few years.” Clegg is dismissive of critics who attack his record. “To use the challenges of coalition, compromise politics as a stick to beat us with is turning facts on its head to put it mildly. I don’t indulge in anger, I think anger is a slightly useless emotion, but I reject this idea that I wilfully went back on my word. People that accuse me of doing a U-turn think I can behave as if I had won a landslide. I didn’t. I will never apologise for the wider benefit of the country making those compromises. I accept that people want to shout me down simply to ignore argument and not to engage in rational debate, but that is the fact.” But he predicts his party from now on will be more independent inside the coalition. “If this referendum campaign, in a slightly gloves-off manner, has dramatised the fact that the Liberal Democrats are the progressive voice of this coalition, then it is not a bad thing in the long run. “As we chalk up more progressive successes, I think people will see a pattern of progressive advance, and if people look out for that, or it is more obvious, or we are more articulate in explaining it, that would be a good thing. I always felt that the early stages were the most disciplined stages of the coalition because we were grappling with tricky fiscal issues, but inevitably over time you get those differences of identity to re-emerge.” But he urges his party not to think in terms of retreat if the referendum is lost or the local elections go badly. “Do I think it would be sensible for Liberal Democrats to bail out of a five-year plan at the very hardest point after a year? I think it would be an act of spectacular political masochism and it is something I am not going to do.” Nick Clegg Alternative vote AV referendum Electoral reform Liberal Democrats Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Osama bin Laden ‘martyr’ tape expected soon • US weighing release of Bin Laden death evidence • White House says Bin Laden used wife as ‘shield’ • Pressure grows on Pakistan over al-Qaida hideout 6.35pm: CNN is now reporting that “administration officials” say Osama bin Laden did not take up or fire a weapon when the US special forces landed – again, in contradiction to earlier reports. The explanation is that more recent debriefing of the Navy Seals involved are providing more details of what actually took place in Abbottabad. 6.33pm ET: The White House is now saying two new pieces of news, via cable news channels: • the woman killed in the compound was not Bin Laden’s wife • Bin Laden was shot twice – not once as previously stated – once, in the chest and once in the head 11.22pm BST / 6.22pm ET: Remember when US evangelical leader Jerry Falwell blamed the 9/11 attacks on America’s gays, lesbians and liberals? Using Falwell’s logic, this tweet makes perfect sense. 6.14pm ET: The Associated Press is reporting comments by two Pentagon officials, who say a video of Osama bin Laden’s burial at sea will likely be made public “soon”, perhaps along with photos of his corpse. Bin Laden’s body was buried in the North Arabian Sea from the deck of the aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, earlier on Monday morning. 6pm ET: CNN reveals that the US code-name for Osama bin Laden during Sunday’s special operation was “Geranimo”. 5.54pm ET: Here’s a flashback to the 2008 election campaign, as the Republican candidate John McCain attacks his Democratic rival Barack Obama for his remarks about attacking high value targets in Pakistan: Senator John McCain intensified his attacks on Senator Barack Obama, saying he was “naive” for publicly suggesting several months ago he would attack targets in Pakistan. “The best idea is not broadcast what you are going to do. That’s naive,” McCain said at a news conference in Columbus. “You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is,” McCain added. “You don’t broadcast and say you are going bomb the country without their permission or without consulting them. This is the fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy. I believe in working with the other country.” Thank goodness President McCain won that election. 5.43pm ET: What news of the Osama bin Laden ‘martyr’ tape? According to US security briefings, the fear is that the tape could provoke counter-attacks by al-Qaida. In the meantime, there’s much speculation and few details about what might be on the “death tape”. 5.41pm ET: The Los Angeles Times highlights John Brennan’s coded remarks earlier today, putting pressure on Pakistan for its role in appearing to give sanctuary to Osama bin Laden: Brennan said it was “inconceivable” that bin Laden did not have a support system in Pakistan that allowed him to remain there for a long period of time. Asked about reports that some in Congress now want to attach strings to aid to Pakistan, he said: “People are raising a number of questions and understandably so. I’m sure a number of people have questions about whether there was some kind of support provided by the Pakistani government.” 5.36pm ET: I’ve blogged on the curious praise for Barack Obama coming from titans of the US conservative right, including the unlikely figures of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Here’s what Beck said earlier today on his radio talk show: Thank God we have a president who actually authorized the shoot to kill. That is a surprising shock to me. And I think that deserves to be said, that I didn’t think that this president would actually pull the trigger – well, he didn’t, but have somebody pull the trigger – and he did. Congratulations, President Obama. Thank you for doing the right thing on this. As they say: politics makes strange bedfellows. And this is strange as they get. 5.25pm ET: My colleague Ben Quinn has a round up of the latest news: • US intelligence officials believe Osama bin Laden made a propaganda recording shortly before his death and expect that tape to surface soon. It is unclear whether the tape is audio or video, but a US official has said that intelligence indicates it is already working its way through al-Qaida’s media pipeline. The official said the timing was coincidental and there is no indication he knew US forces were bearing down on him. • President Barack Obama has hailed bin Laden’s death as a “good day for America,” and claimed that the world is now a safer and a better place. “Today we are reminded that as a nation there is nothing we can’t do”, the US president said. However, the US has issued security warnings while CIA Director Leon Panetta said al-Qaida would “almost certainly” try to avenge its figurehead’s death. • Pakistan’s government is facing deeply uncomfortable questions in the US and beyond over the presence of bin Laden near a military facility less than two hours from the capital, Islamabad. There have also been angry claims from Afghanistan that its own position has been vindicated. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, hinted that the Pakistani state itself was complicit in sheltering the terrorist leader, saying Bin Laden had “hidden himself in the military bases of Abbottabad”. • It prevented any grave site emerging as a shrine but muslim clerics have warned that the US decision to bury Bin Laden’s body at sea may lead to reprisals. Some muslim scholars claimed it had breached sharia law and warned that it may provoke calls for revenge attacks against US targets while others used the sea burial question to doubt whether he was, in fact, dead at all, with doubts fuelled by the absence of photographs of his corpse. 5pm ET / 10pm BST: This is continuing live coverage of the fallout from the killing of al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden. Here is a summary of the latest events: • US intelligence officials believe Osama bin Laden made a propaganda recording shortly before his death and expect that tape to surface soon • John Brennan, the White House homeland security advisor, said President Obama’s decision to hunt down Bin Laden was “one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory” • Political allies and opponents unite in praise of the operation that finally caught up with Bin Laden , nine years after the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington DC • The White House confirmed that one of the four other people killed in the US special forces’s raid on the al-Qaida hideout in Abbottabad is believed to have been one of Bin Laden’s wives , used as a “human shield” • The US is weighing up whether or not to release photographs and other evidence of Bin Laden’s death You can catch up on the earlier news and events over the last 18 hours in our previous live blogs here and here . Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Obama administration US foreign policy Barack Obama Pakistan US military United States Global terrorism Richard Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Al-Qaida leader’s death on its soil leaves Pakistan facing awkward questions The Obama administration is demanding an explanation from Pakistan on how Osama bin Laden was able to hide in the country for so long before he was killed by US special forces. Bin Laden was staying in a prominent million dollar, high-security residence in an area full of soldiers and close to the country’s premier military academy. John Brennan, a counter-terrorism adviser to Barack Obama, told journalists at the White House: “People have been referring to this as hiding in plain sight. We are looking right how he was able to hide out there for so long.” He added it was “inconceivable” that Bin Laden did not enjoy a “support system” in Pakistan. The al-Qaida leader was killed by US special forces who attacked the compound in Abbottabad, about 30 miles from Islamabad on Sunday, according to US officials. His body was taken by helicopter to a US aircraft carrier in the Arabian Gulf and buried at sea. One of his adult sons was also killed, as was one of his four wives, whom the White House claimed had been used by Bin Laden as a shield. Obama said: “The world is safer. It is a better place because of the death of Osama bin Laden.” Although Obama, Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state and Brennan all expressed the importance of Pakistan in helping to fight al-Qaida, the presence of Bin Laden so close to the capital and just streets away from the principal training ground for the country’s officer corps threatened to create a fresh rift in already-strained US-Pakistan relations. Such was the American distrust of the notoriously leaky Pakistan government that it did not even inform it of the raid in its own territory until after US helicopters had cleared Pakistani airspace. Members of Congress threatened to withhold economic aid to Pakistan over the affair. Carl Levin, a Democrat who heads the powerful Senate armed services committee, reflected scepticism in the US about Bin Laden’s ability to remain hidden in Pakistan.”I think the Pakistani army and intelligence have a lot of questions to answer given the location, the length of time and the apparent fact that this facility was actually built for Bin Laden and its closeness to the central location of the Pakistani army,” he told a press conference. The US will step up pressure on Pakistan to hand over the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar and Bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, if they are in Pakistan. The death of Bin Laden could also lead to a rethink of the scale of the US involvement in Afghanistan. Embassies, airports and defence bases were placed on high alert for possible retaliation by al-Qaida sympathisers. David Cameron warned the world still faced a threat from “extremist terrorism” but hailed a “massive step forward”. The mood in the US was one of celebration as Americans gathered at New York’s Ground Zero, pleased finally to have retribution. Obama called it “a good day for America” that had made the world a safer place. The White House and Pentagon provided fresh details of the mission by Navy Seals. Bin Laden was killed with a shot to the head, according to US officials. Brennan denied that the special forces had been told not to capture him, only kill him. “If we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that,” he said. Clinton, anxious not to alienate a partner that may yet be needed for actions against al-Qaida and the Taliban, emphasised America’s “close co-operation” with Pakistan. She said: “In fact, co-operation with Pakistan helped lead us to Bin Laden and the compound in which he was hiding.” The Pakistan government welcomed the killing as “a major setback to terrorist organisations around the world”. But the former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf reflected his country’s unease over a breach of sovereignty. “America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty,” Musharraf told CNN. “Handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct. The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop.” Clinton suggested that US policy on Afghanistan would not shift but other officials hinted that the dynamics may have changed. The Pentagon only wants to see a token force of a few thousand withdrawn beginning in the summer but Obama may want a more significant reduction. A senior Afghan government official said he feared the death would give “justification for US premature disengagement from the region”. It was a view echoed by Ahmed Wali Massoud, an Afghan politician and brother of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary resistance fighter who was assassinated just two days before the September 11 attacks in 2001 on the orders of Bin Laden. “Obviously this is a huge relief for our family that justice has been done, but it also raises other concerns,” Massoud said. “Already the US has been thinking about shifting its policy on the war on terror and there is a risk that the American public will continue to question why their troops are still fighting there,” he said. One of the most senior American officers serving in Afghanistan, General William Caldwell, told the Guardian the death might encourage moderate elements within the Taliban to give up. Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Global terrorism Pakistan United States Ewen MacAskill Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Announcing the U.S. operation that killed Osama Bin Laden , President Obama reminded Americans and the world, “Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was.” But when candidate Barack Obama declared in 2007 “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” he was blasted by Republicans and their amen corner in the media. Now with Obama’s campaign promise kept, an apology is in order. On August 1, 2007 , Senator Barack Obama delivered a major speech on foreign policy. In addition to pledging to unilaterally launch strikes against Bin Laden and other high-value targets in Pakistan, Obama promised he would ramp up the U.S. effort in the under-resourced effort across the border in Afghanistan. In July 2008 , Obama explained: “The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won’t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.” Then in an October 2008 presidential debat e with John McCain, Obama declared simply: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.” And at every step of the way, Republican leaders and conservative commentators mocked him for it. In February 2008, on the same day the Washington Post reported on the Bush administration’s accelerated use of drones to target terrorist targets within Pakistan, John McCain blasted Obama’s hard line on AL Qaeda’s safe havens: “Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan?” (As Media Matters noted, USA Today dutifully reported that McCain was “ridiculing comments Obama has made” without adding the correction that Obama had said no such thing about “invading” Pakistan.) For his part, John McCain in July 2008 suggested that his record on Iraq and expertise on the geography of the Iraq-Pakistan border region would allow him to succeed where George W. Bush failed in capturing the Al Qaeda chieftain: “I’m not going to telegraph a lot of the things that I’m going to do because then it might compromise our ability to do so. But, look, I know the area, I have been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden — or put it this way, bring him to justice…We will do it, I know how to do it.” McCain repeated his boast during that same October presidential debate : “I know how to get bin Laden… but I’m not going to telegraph it.” (It’s worth remembering how John McCain planned to get Bin Laden. McCain repeatedly declared he would follow Bin Laden “to the gates of hell.” And as he told an audience at a small weapons factory in New Hampshire in October 2007, “”I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products.”) It is also worth remembering how candidate Obama’s aggressive posture towards eradicating the safe havens in Pakistan came to become the policy of the United States even before President Obama took the oath of office. In 2005, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called off a special forces operation in Pakistan designed to “snatch and grab” Ayman Al Zawahiri and other senior Al Qaeda leaders.” But even as White House press secretary Tony Snow was claiming in early 2008 “We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation,” his boss was ordering unilateral drone strikes there. As for President Bush himself, he like John McCain scoffed at Barack Obama’s policy towards Pakistan and the Al Qaeda safe havens there. Asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News in February 2008 if “voters know enough about him,” Bush replied: “I certainly don’t know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he’s going to attack Pakistan.” Ironically, for George W. Bush the threat posed by Bin Laden was always directly proportional to the threat to the President’s political standing. Trying to fight back the growing public outcry over his illegal domestic wiretapping program in January 2006, President Bush used the Bin Laden bogeyman during remarks at the National Security Agency: “All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take him seriously. When he says he’s going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it. I take it seriously, and the people of NSA take it seriously.” Bush, of course, did not take Bin Laden so seriously four years earlier. Questioned about his silence regarding Bin Laden in the months following the failure to capture the Al Qaeda chieftain in Tora Bora , a nonchalant Bush on March 13, 2002 downplayed his significance: “So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you…I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.” Bush may have been embarrassed by his failure to capture Bin Laden in 2002, but by the fall of 2004, he faced the prospect of American voters who seemed to recall the murder of 3,000 of their countrymen. In the third presidential debate with John Kerry, a childlike Bush on October 13, 2004 tried for a “do over” of his statement two and a half years earlier: “Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we’re worried about Osama bin Laden.” Which brings us full circle. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush used the specter of Osama Bin Laden to rally what had been a faltering presidency. In a show of frontier bravado, Bush talked tough about Bin Laden just days after the 9/11 attacks: “There’s an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’” Well, Osama Bin Laden is dead now, thanks to the incredible skill and bravery of the American military personnel who executed a daring operation into Pakistan and to the President who had the courage to order it. As for Barack Obama’s Republican opponents still reticent about giving credit where credit is due, their message to him should be a simple one. Thank you. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …On Osama’s Death Day, Chris Matthews Waits Just 43 Seconds to Launch Into Another Birther Rant
May 2, 2011 No CommentChris Matthews' obsession with birthers didn't take a break on the day after the killing of Osama bin Laden. Only 43 seconds into Monday's show on the terrorist, the Hardball anchor connected, “Barack Obama. The cool hand directs the operation step by step. All this time, the crazies were talking birth certificates, he was working.” Politicizing the death of the man who murdered 3000 people, Matthews berated, ” Will this make the Republicans look for someone who can do what Obama can do? Or will they keep on celebrating the clown show?” The liberal cable host jeered, “Will they stop enjoying their passion and go from cheering their buffoon parade to finding a real pick to put up against a proven master and commander?” [Video to follow shortly] Later, Matthews interviewed Politico's John Harris and Major Garrett of National Journal. Garret paraphrased Obama from 2008 on fighting terrorism and opined, “'I'm going to fight it hard. I'm going to think about it new and prosecute that war more aggressively than the current president,' which he has done.”
Continue reading …
enlarge Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter: ‘Mayors could never get away with the kind of nonsense that goes on in Washington.’ Really good piece from Huffington Post, it’s well worth reading the whole thing. And of course the federal officials at the meeting were unresponsive and condescending, one of them telling a mayor he should run for Congress: CHICAGO — Near the end of a two-day summit here that brought together mayors and federal officials to talk about city design, the mood turned confrontational. It started when Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, in the middle of a Friday discussion on the federal government’s role in city development, turned toward the Washington officials who were sitting with him on stage and expressed his disappointment. “Mayors could never get away with the kind of nonsense that goes on in Washington,” he said. “In our world, you either picked up the trash or you didn’t. You either moved an abandoned car or you didn’t. You either filled a pothole or you didn’t. That’s what we do every day. And we know how to get this stuff done.” That evidently hit a nerve, as cheers erupted through the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton hotel , where many in the audience were mayors. Manny Diaz, former mayor of Miami, who sat on stage with Nutter, gave an impromptu speech criticizing Washington lawmakers. Other mayors stood up and took the microphone during the question and answer session — not to ask questions, but to get things off their chests. The event, co-sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, the American Architectural Foundation and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, became, for a few minutes, a forum for mayors to express a difficult truth: Two-and-a-half years after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the nation’s cities still struggle with chronic budget gaps that can’t easily be filled. Tax revenue has plunged as property values have fallen and payrolls have shrunk. Local governments, many of which are legally required to balance their budgets, have made cuts that a few years ago would have been unthinkable. Municipal budget woes stem partially from crises on the state level, which in turn aren’t helped by a lack of federal assistance. Federal dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act covered less than half of states’ combined budget shortfall during this fiscal year, according to a recent report from the nonpartisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Come next fiscal year, which for many states begins this July, states’ combined shortfall will exceed $110 billion, with only $6 billion in federal aid available, according to the report. That leaves cities out in the cold, as states focus on solving their own problems. In Newark, aid from the state of New Jersey fell by 40 percent between 2008 and 2010, contributing to a budget crisis that eventually prompted the city, one of the country’s most dangerous according to FBI data, to lay off 13 percent of its police force late last year. In Milwaukee County, a community that has contended with a decade-long erosion of bus service, a transit cut in the coming state budget could deal a critical blow to the region’s public transportation. “We get the brunt of what the recession really entails. We’re also the last to come out of that,” Ed Pawlowski, the mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, said in an interview after the panel discussion. “While the economy is getting slowly better, cities are still struggling in a significant way.” Mayors want federal money. They say they can put it to quick and efficient use, creating jobs and helping improve the economy from the bottom up. Nutter gave an example: He closed Philadelphia’s crumbling South Street Bridge in 2008, initiating a two-year repair project that was completed on budget and a month early last fall, he said. But federal funds are running dry, as Washington lawmakers have become seemingly obsessed with a desire to cut the federal deficit.
Continue reading …Joe Klein: President Bush ‘Deserves Both Credit and Blame’ for bin Laden Killing
May 2, 2011 No CommentIn his May 2 Swampland blog post “Osama Gone, and Now…”, Time's Joe Klein makes some arguably contradictory assertions in his thoughts on the role former President Bush played in ultimately finding and killing Osama bin Laden: George W. Bush deserves both credit and blame here. He deserves great credit for amping up the human intelligence and special operations sectors of the intelligence community, which made this success possible. These, and little more, are precisely the tactics and level of engagement that the war against al-Qaeda required from the start; it is, and should have been, a special forces war. Bush’s decision to divert attention from the goal by going to war in Iraq seems more disproportionate and foolish every day–does anybody believe that Saddam Hussein would have survived the Arab Spring? But if Afghanistan was and always has been a special forces war — even under Bush — how was engaging in a more conventional military operation in Iraq a diversion? Even if it diverted public attention, is Klein arguing the U.S. military and U.S. intelligence establishment cannot handle two military theaters of operation at a time? If so, shouldn't Klein be more outspoken in his critique of Obama for starting a third theater of military operation in Libya? And why is Klein so sure that the Arab Spring protests would have happened in an alternate universe in which the U.S. and its coalition had never ousted Hussein from power? Even if it would have, how could he be sure that Hussein would not relinquish power short of a coup d'etat by his own military? How could Klein be so sure that Saddam's military and security forces would have turned on him, rather than prop up his regime indefinitely as is the case with Gadhafi in Libya.
Continue reading …
Martin Sheen’s new film will make the religious route in Spain even more popular In the Middle Ages, Santiago de Compostela in north- western Spain was the No 1 centre of pilgrimage in Christendom. The first recorded pilgrims arrived in AD950 and by the 13th century more than half a million people a year trekked from across Europe to visit the grave of the apostle Saint James, whose remains had supposedly been discovered by a shepherd. The past 20 years have seen a revival of interest in the pilgrimage, especially along the best-known path, the 500-mile Camino Francés, which crosses northern Spain from the Pyrenees across the flat central “meseta” and finally over the green hills of Galicia. In 1985 just 2,500 pilgrims walked to Santiago. Last year, the Confraternity of Saint James reported that more than 150,000 people received their “compostelas”, the certificate of pilgrimage. And interest looks set to increase with the release this month of The Way , a film about an American doctor, played by Martin Sheen, who completes the route in memory of his son, killed while walking the Camino. So is the revival of the pigrimage a sign of increased religiosity? No matter what the Catholic church might hope, I don’t think so. Most people I walked with a few years ago were not practising Catholics; I started the walk as an atheist, and came back as one. But the Camino is a fantastic antidote to our stressful lives – and a lesson in deferred gratification. You set little targets, some forced by geography, some self-imposed. So, no water until the top of the hill, no lunch until the next village, nowhere to sleep until the next refugio. My fellow pilgrim Jonna, a Finnish journalist, says: “The rhythm of walking was magic. It was such a mental relief to get away from city life, cars and noise.” You probably won’t find the answers you’re looking for, but after 33 days of walking (plus two rest days) I certainly ended up asking different questions. You also learn what you really need to be happy: a light rucksack, less clutter, and no blisters. Santiago de Compostela Walking holidays Spain Martin Sheen Rob Williams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Obama’s Poker Face: President Reacts to Bin Laden Joke at Correspondents’ Dinner
May 2, 2011 No Comment
Having ordered the raid on bin Laden’s hideout Friday, Obama kept the secret well-guarded even when Seth Meyers joked about it Saturday. As Seth Meyers equated C-SPAN’s ghostliness to bin Laden’s elusiveness, Obama sat back in his chair and gave a hearty laugh. But did the Commander-in-Chief know fully what was going down in Pakistan?
Continue reading …
Tribute to late designer from city’s Metropolitan Museum of Art follows royal wedding dress commission In life, Alexander McQueen was the risqué rebel of fashion, a designer who occasionally struggled to juggle his extraordinary creativity with the demands of commerciality; in death, he has achieved a level of establishment acceptance that he could never have dreamed possible – even with his elastic imagination. Only four days after it was revealed that his label had received the commission of a generation , when the Duchess of Cambridge stepped out of the car wearing a wedding dress by the label’s head designer, Sarah Burton, the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York held a preview of its retrospective of the designer’s work. Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty opens on Wednesday. Since his death last year, Lee McQueen, who adopted the name Alexander for his label, has grown in prominence. It is an irony that this designer, who often played with images of mortality in his work, would have appreciated with his typically black humour. The exhibition features all of McQueen’s best-known work, from his early days in the 1990s, through his tempestuous tenure at Givenchy, to his very last collection. The dress that was famously spraypainted mid-show by paint jets in 1999, the Chinese garden hat from his 2005 collection that was worn by his long-term muse, Isabella Blow, whose suicide in 2007 preceded McQueen’s, and videos from his highly original shows all serve as reminders of the designer’s unique talent. “For me, this feels horrific, but [McQueen] would have loved it – he would have pretended that he didn’t, but he would have, and the wedding dress would have given him such a sense of validation,” said McQueen’s long-time collaborator, milliner Philip Treacy, as he walked through the show. “Fashion is supposed to be effortless, but when I look at every piece I think of what he put into it and how in the end the sheer pressure of creativity killed him. He promoted this idea of himself as an enfant terrible but he was actually a very sweet and gentle person – he wouldn’t have wanted you to know that, either.” Fellow British designer Stella McCartney talked about “the genius of my friend” and remembered when the two of them were just starting out and “used to joke about starting businesses in London – who’d have thought”. The highly private Sarah Burton, fresh off the plane from London after a fairly busy few days, recalled the weekend when McQueen went for a walk on the beach and returned to the office on Sunday with bags full of shells to be incorporated into his collection. “The studio smelled like the seaside,” she said. Harold Koda, chief of the Costume Institute, said that what particularly struck him was how “McQueen took things that were terrifying but made them beautiful.” This is certainly apparent in the exhibition: the jewellery that more than flirts with S&M imagery, the billowing capes that oscillate between ghostly and elegant, the body-fitted leather dresses that turn feminine gowns into armour. “He confronted demons and made them magical,” added Koda. Meanwhile, the Duchess of Cambridge’s wedding dress is to go on display. It is not known exactly when or where it will appear, although Kensington Palace and the Victoria & Albert Museum in London are among possible locations. “The Duchess of Cambridge is considering a number of options to give members of the public the opportunity to see, close up, the skilled British craftsmanship that went into the making of her wedding dress by Sarah Burton and her team as well as the Royal School of Needlework,” said Clarence House. For months, the dress was fashion’s best-kept secret. Even the team of embroiderers at Hampton Court Palace did not know the identity of the designer. At the forefront Duchess of Cambridge Her decision to opt for wedding dress by head designer Sarah Burton propelled it to the highest prominence a brand can have Michelle Obama Wore a flame-red floor-length McQueen gown to state dinner in honour of China earlier this year, prompting much embarrassing bluster among American designers and journalists, cross that she didn’t wear a design by a homegrown label Kate Moss Moss and McQueen were mutually supportive of one another from the early days of their careers. After Moss was photographed apparently taking cocaine, McQueen appeared at his next show proclaiming his love for the model Isabella Blow McQueen’s lifelong muse and supporter bought his entire graduate collection and was hardly ever seen wearing another label Blow’s suicide in 2007 was said to have contributed to the depression that led to the designer’s death last year. Alexander McQueen Fashion Fashion designers Museums Kate Middleton Royal wedding United States Hadley Freeman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …