Dutch populist Geert Wilders acquitted of hate speech (Reuters)

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders was acquitted of inciting hatred of Muslims in a court ruling on Thursday that may strengthen his political influence and exacerbate tensions over immigration policy.

The case was seen by some as a test of free speech in a country which has a long tradition of tolerance and blunt talk, but where opposition to immigration, particularly from Muslim or predominantly Muslim countries, is on the rise.

Instantly recognizable by his mane of dyed blond hair, Wilders, 47, is one of the most outspoken critics of Islam and immigration in the Netherlands.

His Freedom Party is now the third-largest in parliament, a measure of support for its anti-immigrant stance, and is the minority government's chief ally. But many of Wilders' comments -- such as likening Islam to Nazism -- are socially divisive.

The presiding judge said Wilders' remarks were sometimes "hurtful," "shocking" or "offensive," but that they were made in the context of a public debate about Muslim integration and multi-culturalism, and therefore not a criminal act.

"I am extremely pleased and happy," Wilders told reporters after the ruling. "This is not so much a win for myself, but a victory for freedom of speech. Fortunately you can criticize Islam and not be gagged in public debate."

The ruling could embolden Wilders further. He has already won concessions from the government on cutting immigration and introducing a ban on Muslim face veils and burqas.

"This means that his political views are condoned by law, his political rhetoric has been legalized," said Andre Krouwel, a political scientist at Amsterdam's Free University.

"This has made him stronger politically. He is needed for a political majority, he is basically vice prime minister without even being in the government."

Some Dutch citizens have started to question their country's traditionally generous immigration and aid policies, worried by the deteriorating economic climate, higher unemployment, incidence of ethnic crime and signs that Muslim immigrants have not fully integrated into Dutch society.

Similar concerns have helped far-right parties to gain traction elsewhere in Europe, from France to Scandinavia.

Farid Azarkan of the SMN association of Moroccans in the Netherlands said he feared the acquittal could further split Dutch society and encourage others to repeat Wilders' comments.

"You see that people feel more and more supported in saying that minorities are good for nothing," Azarkan said.

"Wilders has said very extreme things about Muslims and Moroccans, so when will it ever stop? Some will feel this as a sort of support for what they feel and as justification."

Minorities groups said they would now take the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, arguing the ruling meant the Netherlands had failed to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination.

"The acquittal means that the right of minorities to remain free of hate speech has been breached. We are going to claim our rights at the U.N.," said Mohamed Rabbae of the National Council for Moroccans.

Wilders, who has received numerous death threats and has to live under 24-hour guard, argued that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech when criticizing Islam.

The Amsterdam court had used a Supreme Court ruling -- that an offensive statement about someone's religion was not a criminal offence -- as the basis of its decision, leading to acquittal, the judge said.

Unusually, the prosecution team had also asked for an acquittal, arguing that politicians have the right to comment on problem issues and that Wilders was not trying to foment violence or division.

"I think it is good that he has been acquitted," said Elsbeth Kalff, an 83-year-old retired sociologist in Amsterdam.

"He has been told that he has been rude and offensive but it is on the border of what the criminal law allows. It is good, the Netherlands is, after all, a tolerant country and we should keep it that way."

(Editing by Sara Webb and Mark Trevelyan)

Yahoo! News

Obama to give speech on Afghan pullout

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will deliver a highly anticipated speech Wednesday evening about troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.

The address is scheduled for 8 p.m. ET.

On Tuesday, an administration official told CNN that Obama will announce this week that 30,000 U.S. "surge" forces will be fully withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2012.

Members of Congress are being informed that 10,000 troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, followed by another 20,000 next year, a congressional source said.

The time frame would give U.S. commanders another two "fighting" seasons with the bulk of U.S. forces still available for combat operations.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has pushed for additional time to roll back Taliban gains in the country before starting any significant withdrawal -- a position at odds with a majority of Americans, according to recent public opinion surveys.

Gates -- along with Afghan war commander Gen. David Petraeus -- had pushed for an initial drawdown of between 3,000 and 5,000 troops this year, the congressional source said. The secretary also urged the president to withdraw support troops only -- not combat troops.

Obama, however, ultimately decided to adopt a more aggressive withdrawal plan.

Gates acknowledged Tuesday that the president must take into account public opinion and congressional support for further military engagement.

"Sustainability here at home" is an important consideration, Gates said, noting that people are "tired of a decade of war."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, repeated his call Tuesday for a withdrawal of 15,000 troops this year.

"The level of U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan needs to be significant to achieve its purpose --- letting the Afghan government know we are determined to shift primary responsibility for their security to the Afghan security forces," Levin said in a written statement.

An estimated 100,000 U.S. troops are serving in Afghanistan, some 30,000 of which are part of the so-called surge ordered in 2009 in a bid to control the rising violence.

Obama has been mulling how many troops should be withdrawn this summer and by the end of the year.

The president is expected, in his remarks Wednesday, to stress the importance of preserving flexibility in force levels on the ground so commanders can adjust as conditions warrant, the official said.

The drawdown will be accomplished by troops returning home and not being replaced as well as canceling some proposed deployments.

So far, Obama has only said publicly that troops will begin coming home in July, and he recently indicated the number would be "significant."

The president has repeatedly said he is confident the United States can meet the self-imposed deadline to begin bringing troops back from Afghanistan without compromising Afghan security, though military commanders and government officials have raised concern about the readiness of Afghan security forces.

"We have made great strides toward achieving the objectives laid out in the mission that the president articulated in December of 2009," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

Obama "will make his decision based on the need to succeed further in achieving those objectives and to transfer authority gradually, security authority, over to the Afghan national security forces, with an eye to the fact that, as agreed to by NATO in Lisbon, we will eventually transfer full security lead over to the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces) in 2014," Carney said.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans polled this month said they support the United States pulling some or all of its forces from Afghanistan.

That figure jumped 10 percentage points since May, likely as a result of the death of Osama bin Laden, pollsters said.

The deployment of U.S. forces also hasn't been popular with many Afghan leaders, who openly criticize the presence of the Americans in their country.

It's a message that's not lost on U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.

"When we hear ourselves being called occupiers and worse, our pride is offended and we begin to lose our inspiration to carry on," Eikenberry said during a Sunday speech at Herat University in western Afghanistan.

"At the point your leaders believe that we are doing more harm than good, when we reach a point that we feel our soldiers and civilians are being asked to sacrifice without a just cause ... the American people will ask for our forces to come home."

Republicans -- who have been the strongest supporters of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan -- appear to be shifting their opinion on the conflict. Forty-seven percent of Republicans said in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll in May that they favored a partial or full withdrawal of American troops. Sixty percent of Republicans favored a withdrawal when asked this month.

The most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted June 3 through 7, with 1,015 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

CNN's Aliza Kassim, Barbara Starr, Ted Barrett and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.

CNN

Obama to deliver speech on Afghanistan troop pullout

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will deliver a highly anticipated speech Wednesday evening about troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.

The address is scheduled for 8 p.m. ET.

On Tuesday, an administration official told CNN that Obama will announce this week that 30,000 U.S. "surge" forces will be fully withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2012.

Members of Congress are being informed that 10,000 troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, followed by another 20,000 next year, a congressional source said.

The time frame would give U.S. commanders another two "fighting" seasons with the bulk of U.S. forces still available for combat operations.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has pushed for additional time to roll back Taliban gains in the country before starting any significant withdrawal -- a position at odds with a majority of Americans, according to recent public opinion surveys.

Gates -- along with Afghan war commander Gen. David Petraeus -- had pushed for an initial drawdown of between 3,000 and 5,000 troops this year, the congressional source said. The secretary also urged the president to withdraw support troops only -- not combat troops.

Obama, however, ultimately decided to adopt a more aggressive withdrawal plan.

Gates acknowledged Tuesday that the president must take into account public opinion and congressional support for further military engagement.

"Sustainability here at home" is an important consideration, Gates said, noting that people are "tired of a decade of war."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, repeated his call Tuesday for a withdrawal of 15,000 troops this year.

"The level of U.S. troop reductions in Afghanistan needs to be significant to achieve its purpose --- letting the Afghan government know we are determined to shift primary responsibility for their security to the Afghan security forces," Levin said in a written statement.

An estimated 100,000 U.S. troops are serving in Afghanistan, some 30,000 of which are part of the so-called surge ordered in 2009 in a bid to control the rising violence.

Obama has been mulling how many troops should be withdrawn this summer and by the end of the year.

The president is expected, in his remarks Wednesday, to stress the importance of preserving flexibility in force levels on the ground so commanders can adjust as conditions warrant, the official said.

The drawdown will be accomplished by troops returning home and not being replaced as well as canceling some proposed deployments.

So far, Obama has only said publicly that troops will begin coming home in July, and he recently indicated the number would be "significant."

The president has repeatedly said he is confident the United States can meet the self-imposed deadline to begin bringing troops back from Afghanistan without compromising Afghan security, though military commanders and government officials have raised concern about the readiness of Afghan security forces.

"We have made great strides toward achieving the objectives laid out in the mission that the president articulated in December of 2009," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

Obama "will make his decision based on the need to succeed further in achieving those objectives and to transfer authority gradually, security authority, over to the Afghan national security forces, with an eye to the fact that, as agreed to by NATO in Lisbon, we will eventually transfer full security lead over to the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces) in 2014," Carney said.

Nearly three-quarters of Americans polled this month said they support the United States pulling some or all of its forces from Afghanistan.

That figure jumped 10 percentage points since May, likely as a result of the death of Osama bin Laden, pollsters said.

The deployment of U.S. forces also hasn't been popular with many Afghan leaders, who openly criticize the presence of the Americans in their country.

It's a message that's not lost on U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.

"When we hear ourselves being called occupiers and worse, our pride is offended and we begin to lose our inspiration to carry on," Eikenberry said during a Sunday speech at Herat University in western Afghanistan.

"At the point your leaders believe that we are doing more harm than good, when we reach a point that we feel our soldiers and civilians are being asked to sacrifice without a just cause ... the American people will ask for our forces to come home."

Republicans -- who have been the strongest supporters of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan -- appear to be shifting their opinion on the conflict. Forty-seven percent of Republicans said in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll in May that they favored a partial or full withdrawal of American troops. Sixty percent of Republicans favored a withdrawal when asked this month.

The most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted June 3 through 7, with 1,015 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

CNN's Aliza Kassim, Barbara Starr, Ted Barrett and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.

CNN

FACT CHECK: Netanyahu speech ignores rival claims (AP)

JERUSALEM – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave an impassioned defense of his approach to peace during a speech to Congress on Tuesday. But the address reflected the world view of Israel's nationalistic right wing, one of several conflicting narratives that divide Israelis and Palestinians.

Here is a sampling of Netanyahu's claims along with what he did not mention.

___

NETANYAHU: "You don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves."

THE FACTS: Israel is a leading recipient of American foreign aid, including more than $1 billion in military assistance each year.

____

NETANYAHU: "In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo."

THE FACTS: While the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, is promised to the Jewish people in the Bible, the international community considers the West Bank occupied territory. Israel captured the area in the 1967 Mideast war but has never annexed it. Its occupied status is underscored by the presence of tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers who protect Israeli settlements and control the movement of Palestinian residents in the name of security.

___

NETANYAHU: "You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it."

THE FACTS: Israel does give its Arab minority full civil rights, including participation in elections. But Israeli Arabs suffer from systematic discrimination in housing and the workplace. Also, more than 2 million Palestinians living in the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship and therefore cannot vote in Israeli elections.

___

NETANYAHU: "The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv."

THE FACTS: Nearly all of these communities were built in the face of overwhelming international opposition and are considered illegal settlements by the world, including the U.S. There are 300,000 Israelis living in the West Bank and 200,000 in east Jerusalem, making a total of 500,000.

___

NETANYAHU: "The Palestinian economy is booming. It's growing by more than 10 percent a year."

THE FACTS: The West Bank economy is indeed growing rapidly. But the World Bank has noted that the growth comes after years of contraction during fighting with Israel and has been fueled by huge amounts of foreign aid. It warns the growth is unsustainable unless Israel does more to encourage the Palestinian private sector.

____

NETANYAHU: "Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaida."

THE FACTS: While Hamas and al-Qaida have killed hundreds of people in religious holy wars, they have no connection, and Hamas has in fact come under criticism from the global terror network for being too moderate. Al-Qaida preaches global jihad. Hamas says its struggle is solely against Israel, not the West at large. In its Gaza stronghold, Hamas has violently clashed with smaller armed groups that claim inspiration from al-Qaida.

___

Josef Federman can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/joseffederman

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Can Obama's Middle East Speech Aid Reform in Bahrain? (Time.com)

For weeks, Bahrain's Shi'ite-dominated opposition movement felt it had been suffering in a bubble. The occasional condemnation of the Sunni monarchy's repression would emerge from Washington, but little else. But as the regime began razing more Shi'ite mosques (more than 30 in the past three months), thundering words of support came from the very top of the American government. On Thursday, May 19, Barack Obama took on the rulers of the longtime U.S. ally (which plays host to the Fifth Fleet in the gulf), saying, "The only real way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail."

Opposition leaders have criticized the U.S. for what they feel is a soft stance on violence perpetrated by the Bahraini government against activists. "Will the U.S. stop turning a blind eye to repression?" officials of the embattled opposition party al-Wefaq asked in a statement released earlier on Thursday. "Will the U.S. be more assertive in telling its friends the time has come to end repression? Will the U.S. encourage allies in the region to respond to genuine reform calls?" (See the new Tehran-Riyadh rivalry.)

Obama's remarks heartened opponents of the regime. "Democracy is democracy, and it has to apply to all countries, even those you consider as an ally or friend," says Nabeel Rajab, head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights. He and other activists applauded the President's reminder that though Bahrain's government has said it is open to dialogue, it has also arrested most of the key opposition leaders who would act as intermediaries. An al-Wefaq official said he was "pleased" that the President had addressed the ongoing violence and hoped it would pave the way for talks between Shi'ite opposition officials and the ruling Sunni government.

Obama's calls for dialogue could strengthen the position of Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, a reformist who has consistently encouraged talks with antigovernment groups. Al-Khalifa is battling an internal split, with his reformists who call for dialogue losing out to extremists who have backed the vicious crackdowns that have left at least 25 Shi'ite protesters dead and more than 500 missing or in jail. "The Bahrain government's not presenting a united front at present," says Jane Kinninmont, a senior research fellow for the Middle East and North Africa at Chatham House. "It's clear that there are internal divisions. You can see Obama's speech as trying to strengthen the Crown Prince and the reformists in the government against the hard-liners." (See more on Obama's struggle to keep pace with situations in the Middle East.)

For the past few months, Bahrain's government has tried to pass itself off as a reformist party. However, its actions are far from conciliatory toward the opposition. The editor of the chief opposition newspaper, al-Wasat, is due to stand trial in a closed court. Ibrahim Sharif, the president of Bahrain's largest leftist party, has not been seen since a predawn arrest in March.

Meanwhile, Obama's condemnation of the destruction of Shi'ite mosques has left the regime feeling even more isolated. In a statement, Bahrain's Cabinet said it "welcomed" the principles contained in the speech and that the "door for dialogue was open ... and would remain so and hopes that the dialogue witnesses the participation of all to achieve a national consensus through constitutional establishments." Observers believe, however, that the divisions within the Sunni ruling class are likely to harden.

The only comfort the hard-liners in Bahrain can take is that, in his speech, the U.S. President very loudly left one country unmentioned: Saudi Arabia. Saudi troops have been helping Bahrain's security forces crack down on Shi'ite antigovernment activists since mid-March. That may be a way for them to rationalize continued repression.

See pictures of demonstrators in the Middle East.

See photos of Bahraini protesters in Pearl Square.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Obama's Middle East speech missed 'historic opportunity,' say many Arabs (The Christian Science Monitor)

Cairo – President Obama pledged American support for pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East Thursday, trying to put the US on the right side of history as he laid out his vision for US involvement in the region after the Arab Spring.

Those from nations where opposition movements are fighting brutal crackdowns welcomed the president’s messages of support. But what was billed as a major speech left some in the region nonplussed. They said that the speech didn’t cover new ground, was short on policy prescriptions, and that the president missed a chance to apologize for America’s history of supporting the dictators people revolted against.

RECOMMENDED: What Arabs wanted to hear (or not hear) from Obama speech

“Obama really had an opportunity to reshape and reframe the debate and ... he gave it away,” says Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center, adding that there was nothing distinctive or imaginative about the address. “This speech was an opportunity to say to Arabs, ‘We as Americans made mistakes, we did not support democratic aspirations as much as we should have, but we’re going to do better.’ Obama didn’t say that.”

Marked difference from Obama's 2009 Cairo speech

The muted response to the speech differed markedly from the widespread interest and pockets of hope generated by Obama's landmark speech to the Muslim world from Cairo two years ago. Many felt that Obama has failed to follow through on the promises he made in 2009, and declined to give him another chance.

The protests that began six months ago have imparted to Arabs a strengthened sense of independence, even as subsequent uprisings have stalled with a bloody conflict in Libya, prolonged and brutal crackdowns in Syria and Yemen, and the near-total crushing of a protest movement in Bahrain. Obama said that the US aimed to throw its full weight behind supporting those uprisings.

Sign up for our daily World Editor's Picks newsletter. Our best stories, in your inbox.

a€?It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy,a€

Still, his words rang hollow to some in the region who see that US support for uprisings is not consistent across the region. But regarding Bahrain, where US criticism of the regime's crackdown on protesters has been muted, he spoke more forcefully than any US official has since the uprising began in February. He specifically criticized mass arrests and the use of "brute force."

“The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail,” he said. Later, he added, “Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.”

“I’m shocked because this is the first time we’ve seen such clear remarks about Bahrain,” says Mohammed Al Maskati, head of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights in the country's capital, Manama.

Yet Mr. Maskati said there was much left to be desired from the speech as well. Obama did not mention Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Bahrain, where more than 1,000 Saudi troops remain who helped quell the uprising, or make clear how the government could be compelled to talk with the opposition when its actions imply that it is decidedly opposed to negotiations.

'He can't say now that he was with the revolution'

In Egypt, where the US strongly supported former President Hosni Mubarak for 30 years, and resentment of that support still runs high, relatively few people paid attention to the speech. Some who did were critical.

“He gave a speech as if he was with the revolutions from the beginning,” says Emad Gad, an analyst at the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “But we know his administration was with Mubarak totally. He can’t say now that he was with the revolution.”

Mr. Obama did say that “for decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region,” adding later, “but if America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change – with change that’s consistent with the principles that I’ve outlined today.”

But, says Mr. Hamid, “If you heard this speech in isolation, you would have thought that America had always naturally supported democracy. There was no acknowledgment of America’s very complex and sometimes tragic history in the Middle East."

Praise for economic aid to Egypt, support for Libya

On most topics, there were points that generated both criticism and praise. Some Egyptians welcomed the announcement of a multibillion-dollar economic assistance plan for Egypt, whose economy has struggled since the uprising as tourism and foreign investment have dried up. It will include up to $1 billion in debt relief, with the freed-up funds to be used for investment in growth and entrepreneurship. The US will guarantee $1 billion in borrowing for infrastructure and job creation, said Obama, and a $2 billion fund will be set up for investment in the private sector.

“That’s excellent news,” said taxi driver Mohamed Salem when he learned of the plan for debt relief. “Egypt is suffering. We welcome this. And I hope they will also bring all the money that Mubarak and his sons hid abroad.” Others were more skeptical, however, wondering about strings attached to the aid. Egypt was the No. 2 recipient of US aid for years after making peace with Israel.

On Libya, where the US along with NATO has undertaken military action, Obama made clear that he expected Col. Muammar Qaddafi to be removed from power, although he did not make clear how that would be accomplished.

"That reinforces in their mind that 'America is not going to leave you,' " says Mansour el-Kikhia, chairman of political science at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who has just returned from two weeks in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in eastern Libya. "Libyans ... know they want freedom and don't need Obama to tell them that ... [but] it is good they see that the United States is supporting what they are doing, that the US is not going to let them down with regard to Qaddafi."

And on Syria, some had hoped the president would come down hard on President Bashar al-Assad for his bloody crackdown on protesters. The president did so, condemning the Syrian crackdown, but he left the door open for Assad, saying, “The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.”

'The Arab-Israeli conflict doesn't need speeches'

Obama, who is set to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tomorrow at the White House, spent a fifth of the speech discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He called for a two-phased negotiation process, in which Israeli security and Palestinian sovereignty would be agreed upon in a first round of talks using the 1967 borders as a starting point, with the stickier issues of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees to be decided later.

He criticized both Israel and the Palestinian leadership, laying out a number of issues that need to be addressed.

But more rhetoric will not be helpful in solving the impasse, says Gad. “I think the Arab-Israeli conflict doesn't need speeches. It needs steps on the ground. If Obama wants to be effective, put pressure on all sides to resume negotiations.”

Staff writer Scott Peterson contributed reporting from Istanbul, Turkey.

Sign up for our daily World Editor's Picks newsletter. Our best stories, in your inbox.

Yahoo! News

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Obama's commencement speech: More dreams from his father

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

USATODAY.com

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Top Republicans blast Obama debt speech as 'inadequate'

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters after the White House briefing that there remains "bipartisan opposition" in the Senate to raising the nation's debt limit unless there are "significant" steps to reduce the debt.

"The definition of significant is what we do is viewed as credible by the markets, by the American people, and by foreign countries. No blue smoke and mirrors, no gamesmanship," McConnell said.

Earlier in the day, Boehner and Cantor ripped Obama for being a latecomer on the debt issue. Cantor said Obama's speech was a "budget do-over," coming two months after the president submitted his 2012 proposal on federal spending and deficit reduction.

See photos of: Barack ObamaTags:Barack ObamaJohn BoehnerEric Cantor .div-wrapper

View the Original article

Likely 2012 Candidates Pile on Obama Over Budget Speech

FoxNews.com

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet

Though Republican candidates have been slow to formally enter the 2012 presidential race, the reaction to President Obama's budget speech Wednesday should leave no doubt the race for the White House is under way. 

Several likely, but undeclared, GOP candidates were swift to condemn the president's plan. Obama vowed to cut $4 trillion from the deficit over 12 years, through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes on high-income Americans. 

"Today's speech was nothing more than window dressing," former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said in a statement. 

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who just launched an exploratory committee and is positioning himself as the business-savvy alternative to Obama, went directly after the president's plan to raise taxes. 

"President Obama's proposals are too little, too late. Instead of supporting spending cuts that lead to real deficit reduction and true reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the president dug deep into his liberal playbook for 'solutions' highlighted by higher taxes," Romney said. 

Other potential candidates took to Twitter to express their outrage, mostly on taxes. 

"President Obama doesn't get it: The fear of higher taxes tomorrow hurts job creation today," Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour tweeted. 

"Unbelievable -- President Obama blaming deficit on tax cuts! We do NOT have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem," wrote Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor who is expected to soon throw his hat in the ring. 

Even the California Republican Party weighed in, accusing the president of trying to "tax our way out of deficit." 

Obama made reference to the 2012 candidates in his address at George Washington University, noting that they were championing the GOP budget proposal outlined by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. 

He challenged that proposal as unfair to seniors and the poor, and said he wanted to take a more balanced approach by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those making above $250,000. He acknowledged the political difficulty in doing so. 

"Without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political instincts tell me that almost nobody believes they should be paying higher taxes," Obama said.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article

Four Potential Pitfalls for Obama’s Debt Speech

FoxNews.com

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet

President Obama today will for the first time discuss his strategy for dealing with the nation’s $14.3 debt. It’s part of a painful negotiation with Republicans over the president’s pending request to increase the government’s borrowing limit, now less than $80 billion away.

The president needs at least $900 billion to even reach the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30, likely more since deficit spending shot up 16 percent in the first six months of the fiscal year. And in order to get through the 2012 election cycle without making another politically costly request, the president would need more than $2 trillion this time.

Obama ducked the debt and deficit issue in his annual budget proposal and has preferred for Republicans and a bipartisan coalition in the Senate to take the lead on addressing the issue. But as the White House becomes more desperate for borrowing power

View the Original article