sledge_hammer
03-24 07:14 PM
Can you please explain how you conluded that my theory was its okay to copy (exploit loopholes) unless you get caught?
Please point to the exact post of mine...
Again, I am not defending anyone, I am saying that we should point all the consultanting...not just desi consulting ones...just don't descriminate...from your theory, it looks it is ok to copy unless you are caught.....I don't want to argue on this and deviate from the OP .
Please point to the exact post of mine...
Again, I am not defending anyone, I am saying that we should point all the consultanting...not just desi consulting ones...just don't descriminate...from your theory, it looks it is ok to copy unless you are caught.....I don't want to argue on this and deviate from the OP .
wallpaper makeup wallpaper vista nature wallpaper vista nature. wallpaper vista
milind70
07-10 08:18 PM
My situation goes something like this.
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
There are two things
1. when you got your 7th year extension 797 with I 94 , you were supposed to submit that I 94 ( on 797) along with the i 94 in your passport.
This is important most people dont do it .
2. when u aplied for 8th year extension u submitted the 797 of the 7th year along with the i 94 attached to it( which you were suppose to submit when you left the country for 7th year stamping) hence the I 94 number did not change. Your I 94 are out of synch.
I would suggest to talk to an immigration attorney and i mean a real good one .
Otherwise you could talk to an immgration officer and expalin your case.
Or you could now go out get stamped and get a new I 94 9make sure this time you submit both the I 94s when you leave)
I had a very peculiar situation where i had to travel outside the country when my H1 extension was pending and it got approved when i was out of the country and when i got a new i 94 when i came back with a new number than the one with i 94 on 797 ( which was of a later date)
I spoke to immigrtaion officer and he heard me my circumstances and said i was in status and my i 94 were in order.
Last year i went to my home country and got stamped and got a new i 94 but i submiited the two i 94s when i left the country.
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
There are two things
1. when you got your 7th year extension 797 with I 94 , you were supposed to submit that I 94 ( on 797) along with the i 94 in your passport.
This is important most people dont do it .
2. when u aplied for 8th year extension u submitted the 797 of the 7th year along with the i 94 attached to it( which you were suppose to submit when you left the country for 7th year stamping) hence the I 94 number did not change. Your I 94 are out of synch.
I would suggest to talk to an immigration attorney and i mean a real good one .
Otherwise you could talk to an immgration officer and expalin your case.
Or you could now go out get stamped and get a new I 94 9make sure this time you submit both the I 94s when you leave)
I had a very peculiar situation where i had to travel outside the country when my H1 extension was pending and it got approved when i was out of the country and when i got a new i 94 when i came back with a new number than the one with i 94 on 797 ( which was of a later date)
I spoke to immigrtaion officer and he heard me my circumstances and said i was in status and my i 94 were in order.
Last year i went to my home country and got stamped and got a new i 94 but i submiited the two i 94s when i left the country.
sk2006
06-05 03:09 PM
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
All your logic works in healthy (Not Bubble) housing market when rents are comparable to mortgage.
In bubble times rents were much lower. Infact in my area for a comparable unit mortgage(30year fixed) was about 4 times the rent. So how would that pay somebody's mortgage?
(Dont tell me owning on ARMs with teaser rates)
Rent would not even cover the monthly payment, forget property tax(appx 2%) and maintenance.
All your logic works in healthy (Not Bubble) housing market when rents are comparable to mortgage.
In bubble times rents were much lower. Infact in my area for a comparable unit mortgage(30year fixed) was about 4 times the rent. So how would that pay somebody's mortgage?
(Dont tell me owning on ARMs with teaser rates)
Rent would not even cover the monthly payment, forget property tax(appx 2%) and maintenance.
2011 free nature wallpaper 1137 jpg
Macaca
12-28 07:44 PM
Why Nobel laureate Obama will not cry for Binayak Sen (http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Main-Street/entry/why-nobel-laureate-obama-will-not-cry-for-binayak-sen) By Shobhan Saxena | Times of India
Liu Xiaobo is locked up in a dark cell in a notorious Chinese prison whose walls are so thick that even the news of him winning the Nobel Peace Prize hasn�t reached his ears. Liu has been to jail four times. His crime: speaking up against China�s current system. Liu was picked up by the police in June 2009 on "suspicion of inciting subversion of state power," a crime under Article 105 of China's Criminal Law. According to Xinhua, Liu was arrested because he had incited the subversion of �state power and the overturn of the socialist system through methods such as spreading rumours and slander�.
But Liu's real crime was his participation in drafting �Charter 08�, a letter written by more than 300 Chinese intellectuals who demanded �more freedom of expression, human rights, more democratic elections, for privatizing state enterprises and land and for economic liberalism�. In a country where a Communist party runs the world�s second-biggest capitalist economy, it�s a heinous crime to challenge the state.
But, let�s look at what�s happening in our own backyard. Dr Binayak Sen, a doctor and human rights activist, has been sent to jail for sedition under Section 124A. According to this notorious law, invented by British imperialists, �Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.�
The charge against Liu was that he had written �Charter 08�. He has not denied the accusation. The charge against Dr Sen is that he was a courier of letters �for imprisoned Naxal leaders and was sympathetic to their cause�. Dr Sen has been given life sentence.
Though Liu and Sen are very similar � both are intellectuals fighting for human rights, there is a huge difference in their positions. The day Liu was supposed to receive the Nobel, US President Obama called on China to release him. "Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving of this award than I was," Obama said. "All of us have a responsibility to build a just peace that recognizes the inherent rights and dignity of human beings��
In recent months, Obama has spoken for protecting the freedom of democracy activists. The list is long: Liu Xiaobo, Aung San Suu Kyi, Dalai Lama and Shireen Abadi of Iran. Himself a Nobel winner, Obama has been using his poetic words to show that he cares for human rights. Surprisingly, on the Binayak Sen issue, he has been totally silent. Forget the US president, even American human rights organization, magazines and bloggers have not raised this issue. Dr Sen may not be a Nobel laureate but he is a well-known figure.
Why is that the Americans� heart begins to bleed when a Chinese dissident is held, but they keep quiet when after a kangaroo court-style trial India sends a human rights activist to jail. Not that it matters, nor should we worry about the Americans' view interest on our internal affairs, but Obama�s deafening silence on the Binayak Sen�s case says a lot about the world�s oldest democracy and the biggest democracy and the conspiracy of silence between them. Why America loves Liu Xiaobo but ignores Binayak Sen? Why even a slight violation of human rights in Tibet rattles the US but it looks away when systematic torture in Kashmir is brought to light? Why Washington begins to scream if the Iranian police use tear gas on the streets in Tehran but keeps quiet when the Indian security forces kill young boys, rape women and raze entire tribal villages?
Why the Americans don�t treat Sen at par with Liu?
The answer lies in their politics. From his writings, Liu comes across as a pro-West intellectual. "Modernization means whole-sale westernization, choosing a human life is choosing Western way of life. Westernization is not a choice of a nation, but a choice for the human race," he once said in an interview. In his articles, Liu has argued that the �free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights �." Liu has defended US policies in the Israeli�Palestinian conflict and supported George W Bush's war on Iraq. No wonder when Liu got the Nobel, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We raise human rights in every meeting that we have between the US and China, and we will continue to do so."
Clinton comes to India at least 10 times a year, but she never raises the human rights issue. Of course, she cares two hoots if a doctor who has been working among the poor tribals of Chhattisgarh for 30 years lives or die. For the Americans and their MNCs, Chhattisgarh is a goldmine of business opportunities. In recent years, almost all American ambassadors have made trips to Raipur. American MNCs have signed hundreds of MOUs with Chhattisgarh government. The content of these MOUs and the agenda of US ambassadors� visit remain secret. Why?
Dr Sen�s crime was that he spoke against Salwa Judum, a private militia created by Chhattisgarh government with the objective of forcing the tribals to give their land to mining barons and MNCs. Till a few years ago, Salwa Judum was on a rampage, killing people, raping women and burning down villages. As Salwa Judum�s atrocities became unbearable, Dr Sen exposed their crimes. Dr Sen in his jail on sedition charges because he spoke against the state that kills its own people.
But, the Americans love Chhattisgarh government as it is making the state safe for profiteering (a coincidence if its sounds like �Making the world safe for democracy� � Hollywood�s favourite punch line). That's why this client state privilege to India. That�s why they are quiet about Dr Sen, who will never get the Nobel because that will force the Americans to speak for him. That will be embarrassing for another Nobel laureate: Barack Husain Obama.
Verdict against Sen (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/article995829.ece) Letters | The Hindu
Call to free India rights activist Binayak Sen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12084785) BBC
Dr Binayak Sen: Tribal doctor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7397734.stm) BBC
Jailed rights activist wins award (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7361046.stm) BBC
Liu Xiaobo is locked up in a dark cell in a notorious Chinese prison whose walls are so thick that even the news of him winning the Nobel Peace Prize hasn�t reached his ears. Liu has been to jail four times. His crime: speaking up against China�s current system. Liu was picked up by the police in June 2009 on "suspicion of inciting subversion of state power," a crime under Article 105 of China's Criminal Law. According to Xinhua, Liu was arrested because he had incited the subversion of �state power and the overturn of the socialist system through methods such as spreading rumours and slander�.
But Liu's real crime was his participation in drafting �Charter 08�, a letter written by more than 300 Chinese intellectuals who demanded �more freedom of expression, human rights, more democratic elections, for privatizing state enterprises and land and for economic liberalism�. In a country where a Communist party runs the world�s second-biggest capitalist economy, it�s a heinous crime to challenge the state.
But, let�s look at what�s happening in our own backyard. Dr Binayak Sen, a doctor and human rights activist, has been sent to jail for sedition under Section 124A. According to this notorious law, invented by British imperialists, �Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.�
The charge against Liu was that he had written �Charter 08�. He has not denied the accusation. The charge against Dr Sen is that he was a courier of letters �for imprisoned Naxal leaders and was sympathetic to their cause�. Dr Sen has been given life sentence.
Though Liu and Sen are very similar � both are intellectuals fighting for human rights, there is a huge difference in their positions. The day Liu was supposed to receive the Nobel, US President Obama called on China to release him. "Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving of this award than I was," Obama said. "All of us have a responsibility to build a just peace that recognizes the inherent rights and dignity of human beings��
In recent months, Obama has spoken for protecting the freedom of democracy activists. The list is long: Liu Xiaobo, Aung San Suu Kyi, Dalai Lama and Shireen Abadi of Iran. Himself a Nobel winner, Obama has been using his poetic words to show that he cares for human rights. Surprisingly, on the Binayak Sen issue, he has been totally silent. Forget the US president, even American human rights organization, magazines and bloggers have not raised this issue. Dr Sen may not be a Nobel laureate but he is a well-known figure.
Why is that the Americans� heart begins to bleed when a Chinese dissident is held, but they keep quiet when after a kangaroo court-style trial India sends a human rights activist to jail. Not that it matters, nor should we worry about the Americans' view interest on our internal affairs, but Obama�s deafening silence on the Binayak Sen�s case says a lot about the world�s oldest democracy and the biggest democracy and the conspiracy of silence between them. Why America loves Liu Xiaobo but ignores Binayak Sen? Why even a slight violation of human rights in Tibet rattles the US but it looks away when systematic torture in Kashmir is brought to light? Why Washington begins to scream if the Iranian police use tear gas on the streets in Tehran but keeps quiet when the Indian security forces kill young boys, rape women and raze entire tribal villages?
Why the Americans don�t treat Sen at par with Liu?
The answer lies in their politics. From his writings, Liu comes across as a pro-West intellectual. "Modernization means whole-sale westernization, choosing a human life is choosing Western way of life. Westernization is not a choice of a nation, but a choice for the human race," he once said in an interview. In his articles, Liu has argued that the �free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights �." Liu has defended US policies in the Israeli�Palestinian conflict and supported George W Bush's war on Iraq. No wonder when Liu got the Nobel, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We raise human rights in every meeting that we have between the US and China, and we will continue to do so."
Clinton comes to India at least 10 times a year, but she never raises the human rights issue. Of course, she cares two hoots if a doctor who has been working among the poor tribals of Chhattisgarh for 30 years lives or die. For the Americans and their MNCs, Chhattisgarh is a goldmine of business opportunities. In recent years, almost all American ambassadors have made trips to Raipur. American MNCs have signed hundreds of MOUs with Chhattisgarh government. The content of these MOUs and the agenda of US ambassadors� visit remain secret. Why?
Dr Sen�s crime was that he spoke against Salwa Judum, a private militia created by Chhattisgarh government with the objective of forcing the tribals to give their land to mining barons and MNCs. Till a few years ago, Salwa Judum was on a rampage, killing people, raping women and burning down villages. As Salwa Judum�s atrocities became unbearable, Dr Sen exposed their crimes. Dr Sen in his jail on sedition charges because he spoke against the state that kills its own people.
But, the Americans love Chhattisgarh government as it is making the state safe for profiteering (a coincidence if its sounds like �Making the world safe for democracy� � Hollywood�s favourite punch line). That's why this client state privilege to India. That�s why they are quiet about Dr Sen, who will never get the Nobel because that will force the Americans to speak for him. That will be embarrassing for another Nobel laureate: Barack Husain Obama.
Verdict against Sen (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/article995829.ece) Letters | The Hindu
Call to free India rights activist Binayak Sen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12084785) BBC
Dr Binayak Sen: Tribal doctor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7397734.stm) BBC
Jailed rights activist wins award (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7361046.stm) BBC
more...
sweet23guyin
08-05 11:51 AM
There are burning issues like recapture of un used visas which has little momentum after a lot of lobbying....remember this is just to implement the existing law.
Now you are talking about not allowing EB3 folks to EB2. Come on...the process is not a child play. There is a reasons why this whole process is in place....
Now you are talking about not allowing EB3 folks to EB2. Come on...the process is not a child play. There is a reasons why this whole process is in place....
LostInGCProcess
08-05 03:56 PM
ROLLING_FLOOD HAS STARTED THE 'FLOOD' AND HE 'ROLLED' OUT....He is probably laughing his as* off....
Don't worry too much about GC...it would ruin your life if you think a lot about it.
We all (at least most of us) came to this country with 2 big suitcases and a carry-on bag (with lots of pickels and masalas and clothes and many other stuff) and maybe couple of thousand $$.
So, if you look back you all have achieved something more then that for sure...if we don't get GC, then lets pack those 2 suitcases and head home...no big deal !!!! keep a positive attitude and everything would be fine.
just my thoughts :)
Don't worry too much about GC...it would ruin your life if you think a lot about it.
We all (at least most of us) came to this country with 2 big suitcases and a carry-on bag (with lots of pickels and masalas and clothes and many other stuff) and maybe couple of thousand $$.
So, if you look back you all have achieved something more then that for sure...if we don't get GC, then lets pack those 2 suitcases and head home...no big deal !!!! keep a positive attitude and everything would be fine.
just my thoughts :)
more...
Winner
03-25 11:01 AM
Thanks for contributing to IV with meaningful discussions. Would you all consider making a monetary contribution to IV?
2010 Plants HD Wallpaper ,Vista
chanduv23
04-13 01:40 PM
It is not illegal to work on percentage basis. But if employer-employee relationship is now followed the way it should be followed by law then there are issues. For example, you are not in the same medical plans as employees or your work insurance is not covered (or you are not invited in annual christmas party for employees - just kidding). Specially, labor approval procedure has heavy dependency on prevailing wages and salary offered. In percentage basis there is no salary offered. Think about it.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
From what I understand, employers ready to pay all these benefits if employee decides to be salaried, but will not give employee control over the billing.
In my case, I never take per diem, but I do find projects on my own and control over how much I must get and employer adjusts payroll accordingly because I marketed myself and also work hard at the client and get projects extended due to performance which benefits the employer, I also help employer with inhouse work. My wife has excellent benefits covered so I don't bother to take any benefits from my employer other than the money.
Anyone can be paid a fixed consulting fee, just not h1b. You can find US citizens working for hourly pay because they don't need benefits as they may get through spouse.
As long as you declare income and pay taxes, this is not a grey area.
Once again, anti immigrants can make this also an issue as for them everything with H1b seems to be an issue.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
From what I understand, employers ready to pay all these benefits if employee decides to be salaried, but will not give employee control over the billing.
In my case, I never take per diem, but I do find projects on my own and control over how much I must get and employer adjusts payroll accordingly because I marketed myself and also work hard at the client and get projects extended due to performance which benefits the employer, I also help employer with inhouse work. My wife has excellent benefits covered so I don't bother to take any benefits from my employer other than the money.
Anyone can be paid a fixed consulting fee, just not h1b. You can find US citizens working for hourly pay because they don't need benefits as they may get through spouse.
As long as you declare income and pay taxes, this is not a grey area.
Once again, anti immigrants can make this also an issue as for them everything with H1b seems to be an issue.
more...
alahiri
07-10 10:10 AM
What logiclife has written is well said .. but did we get a chance to articulate this in the radio itself? Or "Mikey" got all the air time?
hair tattoo wallpapers vista
rajeshiv
07-10 01:04 PM
That's correct spelling mistakes, etc., can be corrected if you go back to the port of entry who generated the I-94 card.
I 102 is more for replacement of an I-94 card.
However; POE entering you on a wrong companies h-1b isn't so easily correctible after the fact.
In situations such as this; it is better to go back out and re-enter with proper company h-1b.
In May and June before people were getting ready to file the 485's a lot of these issues were found in reviewing their files/history. Many people had their visas expired and they didn't want to go for visa stamping. What many people did was go to Canada and use auto revalidation and then re-enter USA on the proper companies h-1b and/or get a new I-94 card and also reset the 245k benefit since it is measured from the date of last entry to filing the 485.
Hello United Nations..
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
I 102 is more for replacement of an I-94 card.
However; POE entering you on a wrong companies h-1b isn't so easily correctible after the fact.
In situations such as this; it is better to go back out and re-enter with proper company h-1b.
In May and June before people were getting ready to file the 485's a lot of these issues were found in reviewing their files/history. Many people had their visas expired and they didn't want to go for visa stamping. What many people did was go to Canada and use auto revalidation and then re-enter USA on the proper companies h-1b and/or get a new I-94 card and also reset the 245k benefit since it is measured from the date of last entry to filing the 485.
Hello United Nations..
After looking into above message...I have some doubts, could you please clarify them.
1. In order to file 485, the person must have a valid visa in his passport?
In my case I have a valid I 94 but my visa got expired 2 months back, Am I eligible to file 485?
2. What is auto revalidation?
I appreciate for your answers.
Thanks
RR
more...
pete
04-09 11:51 AM
As is true with everything else it cannot be all gain.
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
pete,
i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
If we are to have CIR based GC advantage there will need to be H1B regulation. Thousands of h1Bs get filled in matter of hours. Many for consultants. How can that be right. Tough choices will need to be made and so be it.
pete,
i am a physician and in the same boat as you. my employer searched high and dry before i came along. but you are missing something here. except universities that can hire the "best candidate", every other employer has to employ a citizen/gc applicant with the "minimum qualifications for the job". please revisit the rules if you do not understand this. your talent and extra skills count for nothing. employers cannot take the best applicant...if an LCA is needed. this is a very significant problem if applied to H1B renewals. Any tom dick and harry can displace you every 3 years. think about it please, not just your own situation. i am strongly in favor of H1B reform. i believe that this if linked with a bill like strive dramatically increase support for retrogression relief. however the reform needs to be thought through carefully. a 6 mnth LCA process for each renewal would kill us. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...
hot 3d nature wallpapers vista
chmur
09-30 09:31 PM
he is going to delay my GC further. Simple .I cannot vote but I would rather give my money to McCain if he is a better help in getting GC faster or atleast does not delay it any further.
I am surprised at the arguments like "I know Obama will hamper our GC further but he is such good talker that my kids future will be safe "
At best Obama will turn out yet another democrat pres . I doubt if he can match Clinton ...he will be more on Carter lines. Either way I could,nt care less.
I guess it's time we focus only on our selfish needs ..which is GC ....why would something else be important in next 4 years for this community ...nothing else should matter ...
I am surprised at the arguments like "I know Obama will hamper our GC further but he is such good talker that my kids future will be safe "
At best Obama will turn out yet another democrat pres . I doubt if he can match Clinton ...he will be more on Carter lines. Either way I could,nt care less.
I guess it's time we focus only on our selfish needs ..which is GC ....why would something else be important in next 4 years for this community ...nothing else should matter ...
more...
house pictures x wallpaper , vista themes, wallpapers vista nature. nature
Macaca
12-21 10:00 AM
Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html) By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
tattoo Nature Wallpaper 103
new_horizon
01-06 02:49 PM
Israel is fully justified in responding to the rocket attacks from Gaza. How long can they show restraint by not responding to the unprovoked attacks. Do you think US will remain silent, if Canada were to lob rockets into US. Asbolutely not. Every country has the right to protect itself.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
more...
pictures wallpaper vista 2011. new
pappu
07-13 11:37 AM
My thougts are, writing letter would not help, It will go to deaf ears. EB3-I status is not hidden to any one DOS/USCIS/DOL, but looks like no one is doing any thing for that.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
IV already met DOS, USCIS on visa recapture during our admin fix campaign. IV even met this official mentioned in the first post this thread in the letter. There was a long conversation with this official. IV even went higher up in the hierarchy of DOS to meet officials. Visa recapture needs to be done via a bill at this time.
When USCIS can interpret so many things why cant they interpert to recapture unused visa numbers ?
I guess they will find some other way to mess up.
IV already met DOS, USCIS on visa recapture during our admin fix campaign. IV even met this official mentioned in the first post this thread in the letter. There was a long conversation with this official. IV even went higher up in the hierarchy of DOS to meet officials. Visa recapture needs to be done via a bill at this time.
dresses 3D Wallpapers, Vista
Pineapple
12-26 09:39 PM
Thanks Macaca, for doing the hard work no one else will (or can!!), and unearthing articles/compiling/collating research papers on the broader issues... My hats off to you!
more...
makeup wallpaper vista nature
decipher
07-09 01:05 AM
If the past employer didn't pay salary, you can file a complaint with DOL regarding unpaid wages (I believe that there are some time limits for such complaints - please check).
Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.
Even if you are not going to file such a complaint, you might be able to use it to get the required experience letter from the past employer if needed.
girlfriend Windows Vista Wallpaper
nogc_noproblem
08-06 12:14 PM
A man realizes he needs to buy a hearing aid, but he is unwilling to spend much money.
"How much do they run?" he asks the clerk.
"That depends," says the salesman. "They run from $2 to $2,000."
"Let's see the $2 model," the customer says.
The clerk puts the device around the man's neck. "You just stick this button in your ear and run this little string down to your pocket," he says.
"How does it work?" the customer asks.
"For $2, it doesn't work," the salesman replies. "But when people see it on you, they'll talk louder."
"How much do they run?" he asks the clerk.
"That depends," says the salesman. "They run from $2 to $2,000."
"Let's see the $2 model," the customer says.
The clerk puts the device around the man's neck. "You just stick this button in your ear and run this little string down to your pocket," he says.
"How does it work?" the customer asks.
"For $2, it doesn't work," the salesman replies. "But when people see it on you, they'll talk louder."
hairstyles Nature Wallpaper
singhsa3
08-05 09:09 AM
Obviously you pissed of lot of people. So what is you plan? How would you approach this. Please explain the steps including your source of funding...
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
waitnwatch
05-24 12:03 PM
Communique,
I would like to differ on the point of keeping H1-B numbers constant. To hire a H1-B a company has to show that they didnot get a US citizen with even the minimal qualifications for that particular job. Also the salary for the job has to be certified by the Department of Labor as at least the market rate if not higher. Under this scenario why should there be this artificial and arbitrary limit. Again most of the numbers nowadays is being picked up by the consultants so if a regular company like say Caterpillar wants to hire an engineer the numbers are just not available.
While you do make a statement supporting no change in the numbers you justify your point by pointing to salary stagnation. Can you show a direct correlation between H1B and salary stagnation. I would more likely point to outsourcing as being more relevant to salary stagnation. If companies have a hard time hiring they would be more prone to outsourcing and it is always better to have a salary stagnated job in the US than not having the job at all.
Finally about Lou Dobbs..... I have much better use for my time than watching him. His journalism is worse than tabloid journalism though I have the suspicion that he may have an eye on joining the National Enquirer after immigration is done as he would have nothing more to say to his current audience.
My two cents!
I would like to differ on the point of keeping H1-B numbers constant. To hire a H1-B a company has to show that they didnot get a US citizen with even the minimal qualifications for that particular job. Also the salary for the job has to be certified by the Department of Labor as at least the market rate if not higher. Under this scenario why should there be this artificial and arbitrary limit. Again most of the numbers nowadays is being picked up by the consultants so if a regular company like say Caterpillar wants to hire an engineer the numbers are just not available.
While you do make a statement supporting no change in the numbers you justify your point by pointing to salary stagnation. Can you show a direct correlation between H1B and salary stagnation. I would more likely point to outsourcing as being more relevant to salary stagnation. If companies have a hard time hiring they would be more prone to outsourcing and it is always better to have a salary stagnated job in the US than not having the job at all.
Finally about Lou Dobbs..... I have much better use for my time than watching him. His journalism is worse than tabloid journalism though I have the suspicion that he may have an eye on joining the National Enquirer after immigration is done as he would have nothing more to say to his current audience.
My two cents!
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
No comments:
Post a Comment