By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 26, 2009; 6:46 PM
At talks scheduled for Thursday in Geneva with Iran, the United States and five other major powers will demand immediate and unfettered access to the newly exposed nuclear facility in Iran, including people and documents involved in its construction, and insist that Tehran abide by international rules to reveal such projects before construction begins, administration officials said Saturday.
Diplomats will also insist that Iran undertake confidence-building measures, including answering questions about suspected efforts to develop nuclear weapons and accepting a timetable for serious negotiations. Officials said there is no stated deadline, but there will be the implied threat that if Iran fails to respond seriously by year's end, the United States and its partners will begin to push for crippling sanctions that could target Iran's economic and financial links to the world.
In the wake of the discovery of the facility near the holy city of Qom, "it is now a choice for Iran, and the choice became starker," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. As an inducement for cooperation, the United States and other powers have offered economic and diplomatic incentives if Iran reins in its nuclear ambitions.
Iranian officials insisted Saturday that they notified the International Atomic Energy Agency about the facility in a timely fashion and that IAEA inspectors are welcome to visit it, though they did not say when, or whether they will be able to set up monitoring equipment. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, denounced the reaction from the United States and other Western powers. "Their embarrassing reaction and their unbalanced response has shocked us," he told state television.
In his weekly radio address, President Obama emphasized the importance of the showdown at Geneva's historic Hotel-de-Ville, which will also include diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- and will mark the first diplomatic encounter between Iran and the Obama administration.
"This is a serious challenge to the global nonproliferation regime and continues a disturbing pattern of Iranian evasion," he said. "That is why international negotiations with Iran scheduled for October 1st now take on added urgency."
"We are hopeful that, in preparing for the meeting on October 1st, Iran comes and shares with all of us what they are willing to do, and gives us a timetable on which they are willing to proceed," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters Saturday after meeting with Arab foreign ministers on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Why Obama dropped European missile defense shield
By Howard LaFranchi Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 17, 2009 edition
Administration cites technological advances and a shifting threat from Iran. But many in Eastern Europe worry the US is simply appeasing Russia.
Washington - President Obama's decision to abandon a planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe reflects a cost-benefit analysis by an administration that was skeptical of the program from the start, concluding the system posed more hurdles – both diplomatically and in implementation – than it resolved.
In a Thursday morning announcement at the White House, Mr. Obama said a careful review of the proposed system, which would have placed fixed missile interceptors and radar stations in Poland and the Czech Republic, resulted in a unanimous recommendation from the secretary of Defense and other top military advisers to scrap the plan.
In its place, Obama said a new system would be implemented – one taking into account both recent technology advancements but also assessments showing that the potential threat from Iran has shifted. Those assessments conclude that Tehran has refocused its ballistic efforts on short- and medium-range missiles instead of on long-range missiles that could have threatened more distant allies and US forces.
The decision reflects not only the administration's policy review but also consultations with European allies since Obama took office.
An ongoing discussion among NATO allies on how the objectives of such a system could be achieved at a lower cost was stepped up under the Obama team, a senior European diplomat in Washington says.
"There were long discussions about how it could be done less expensively and more efficiently," he says. "I think this decision reflects that."
The decision has potentially far-reaching diplomatic impact.
Much of the snap reaction to Obama's announcement interpreted it as reflective of the administration's desire to pursue less confrontational and more productive relations with Russia on issues ranging from stopping Iran's nuclear program to disarmament.
Some observers caution that it would be a mistake to view the decision primarily as a bow to Russia.
"This is not really a concession [to Russia]," the senior European official says. It's "really [the result of] a technical assessment of the pros and cons of such a system."
But others worry that the decision could pose problems for the US, especially in Eastern Europe, if it is not fully explained to all partners.
"There are a couple of key risks in this: One, the idea that America is unpredictable, that what one administration signs on to is easily abandoned by another," says Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The other is that this is seen as appeasing Russia, and that leads to fears that America is willing to sacrifice [other partners] to further its desire for cooperation with Russia."
The core motivation of countries like Poland and the Czech Republic in considering the missile defense program was never a fear of Iran, says Mr. Bugajski, but rather cementing a US commitment to their own defense, especially in the context of a resurgent and aggressive Russia.
"All those questions were always more important than missile defense itself," he says.
Supporters of the system envisioned under the Bush administration were swift to criticize Obama's decision. In an interview with Reuters, John Bolton, a Bush administration diplomat, called the decision "a near catastrophe for American relations with Eastern European countries and many in NATO."
But Bugajski says the Obama administration can act to reassure its allies by sending an envoy to Eastern Europe to explain the decision and to reaffirm the American commitment to the region's security. Vice President Joe Biden, who was closely involved in the missile defense review and who is known and respected in Eastern Europe for his understanding of Russia, would be the right emissary, Bugajski says.
Still, he notes, Obama picked perhaps the worst day possible to make this announcement.
"The timing couldn't have been worse, since Sept. 17 is the anniversary of the Soviet invasion" of Eastern Poland in 1939, he says. "It brings up all kinds of memories and sensitivities about invasion, partition, and abandonment."
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
from the September 17, 2009 edition
Administration cites technological advances and a shifting threat from Iran. But many in Eastern Europe worry the US is simply appeasing Russia.
Washington - President Obama's decision to abandon a planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe reflects a cost-benefit analysis by an administration that was skeptical of the program from the start, concluding the system posed more hurdles – both diplomatically and in implementation – than it resolved.
In a Thursday morning announcement at the White House, Mr. Obama said a careful review of the proposed system, which would have placed fixed missile interceptors and radar stations in Poland and the Czech Republic, resulted in a unanimous recommendation from the secretary of Defense and other top military advisers to scrap the plan.
In its place, Obama said a new system would be implemented – one taking into account both recent technology advancements but also assessments showing that the potential threat from Iran has shifted. Those assessments conclude that Tehran has refocused its ballistic efforts on short- and medium-range missiles instead of on long-range missiles that could have threatened more distant allies and US forces.
The decision reflects not only the administration's policy review but also consultations with European allies since Obama took office.
An ongoing discussion among NATO allies on how the objectives of such a system could be achieved at a lower cost was stepped up under the Obama team, a senior European diplomat in Washington says.
"There were long discussions about how it could be done less expensively and more efficiently," he says. "I think this decision reflects that."
The decision has potentially far-reaching diplomatic impact.
Much of the snap reaction to Obama's announcement interpreted it as reflective of the administration's desire to pursue less confrontational and more productive relations with Russia on issues ranging from stopping Iran's nuclear program to disarmament.
Some observers caution that it would be a mistake to view the decision primarily as a bow to Russia.
"This is not really a concession [to Russia]," the senior European official says. It's "really [the result of] a technical assessment of the pros and cons of such a system."
But others worry that the decision could pose problems for the US, especially in Eastern Europe, if it is not fully explained to all partners.
"There are a couple of key risks in this: One, the idea that America is unpredictable, that what one administration signs on to is easily abandoned by another," says Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The other is that this is seen as appeasing Russia, and that leads to fears that America is willing to sacrifice [other partners] to further its desire for cooperation with Russia."
The core motivation of countries like Poland and the Czech Republic in considering the missile defense program was never a fear of Iran, says Mr. Bugajski, but rather cementing a US commitment to their own defense, especially in the context of a resurgent and aggressive Russia.
"All those questions were always more important than missile defense itself," he says.
Supporters of the system envisioned under the Bush administration were swift to criticize Obama's decision. In an interview with Reuters, John Bolton, a Bush administration diplomat, called the decision "a near catastrophe for American relations with Eastern European countries and many in NATO."
But Bugajski says the Obama administration can act to reassure its allies by sending an envoy to Eastern Europe to explain the decision and to reaffirm the American commitment to the region's security. Vice President Joe Biden, who was closely involved in the missile defense review and who is known and respected in Eastern Europe for his understanding of Russia, would be the right emissary, Bugajski says.
Still, he notes, Obama picked perhaps the worst day possible to make this announcement.
"The timing couldn't have been worse, since Sept. 17 is the anniversary of the Soviet invasion" of Eastern Poland in 1939, he says. "It brings up all kinds of memories and sensitivities about invasion, partition, and abandonment."
---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Serena Williams' exit from U.S. Open semifinal match is nothing to cheer about
Filip Bondy
Sunday, September 13th 2009, 4:00 AM
So we are all supposed to rejoice today because Kim Clijsters, nice person and new mother, defeated Serena Williams, dilettante and tantrum thrower. It happened Saturday night at Ashe Stadium, 6-4, 7-5, in a circus finish to a semifinal that really didn't represent closure at all.
Really, it was all just very sad, lamentable. First there was the absurd foot-fault call by an overzealous lineswoman on an extremely critical point in that last game, on Williams' second serve at 15-30. Replays indicated it wasn't a foot fault at all. Then Williams was storming around, getting nailed with a second warning and losing match point, for threatening the lineswoman over the call.
It wasn't pretty, for sure. In a profane tirade, Williams threatened to shove a ball down the throat of the lineswoman. The lineswoman then relayed that unpleasantry to the chair umpire, Louise Engzell, and to tournament referee Brian Earley, who told Serena she was done for the night.
Such a shame, for a ton of reasons. The moment cheated Clijsters of a clean victory, one she had otherwise earned over more than an hour and a half of baseline battling. It was no fluke. Clijsters beat Serena soundly at her own, powerful groundstroke game. She knocked off her second Williams sister in a week, fed off the pace again and always made Serena hit one more shot, then one more shot after that.
Serena hates to lose, and fought to the last drizzle out there. She threw her racket after the first set, which earned her the first code violation. But lose she did. As resolute and powerful as she is, there remains something lacking in Serena's game: variety of shotmaking. Against a quick-footed automaton like Clijsters, it would help to throw a slice or a volley into the mix.
That wasn't going to happen, and so Serena Williams will not tie Billie Jean King quite yet at 12 major titles.
"She could have kept her cool," said her mother, Oracene.
Instead what we get is this prime-time final tonight between Clijsters of Belgium and Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark, which will be watched by only the biggest tennis fans and is precisely what the USTA deserves for its absurd scheduling this whole week.
Here's the trouble with rooting against Serena, which was not an uncommon occurrence Saturday night at the National Tennis Center: You end up with two women in the final who must be explained to the American public, at the biggest U.S. tournament.
And you get Serena being treated as a villain by commentators like Dick Enberg, who on CBS said, "That's not what champions do."- from nydailynews
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Sunday, September 13th 2009, 4:00 AM
So we are all supposed to rejoice today because Kim Clijsters, nice person and new mother, defeated Serena Williams, dilettante and tantrum thrower. It happened Saturday night at Ashe Stadium, 6-4, 7-5, in a circus finish to a semifinal that really didn't represent closure at all.
Really, it was all just very sad, lamentable. First there was the absurd foot-fault call by an overzealous lineswoman on an extremely critical point in that last game, on Williams' second serve at 15-30. Replays indicated it wasn't a foot fault at all. Then Williams was storming around, getting nailed with a second warning and losing match point, for threatening the lineswoman over the call.
It wasn't pretty, for sure. In a profane tirade, Williams threatened to shove a ball down the throat of the lineswoman. The lineswoman then relayed that unpleasantry to the chair umpire, Louise Engzell, and to tournament referee Brian Earley, who told Serena she was done for the night.
Such a shame, for a ton of reasons. The moment cheated Clijsters of a clean victory, one she had otherwise earned over more than an hour and a half of baseline battling. It was no fluke. Clijsters beat Serena soundly at her own, powerful groundstroke game. She knocked off her second Williams sister in a week, fed off the pace again and always made Serena hit one more shot, then one more shot after that.
Serena hates to lose, and fought to the last drizzle out there. She threw her racket after the first set, which earned her the first code violation. But lose she did. As resolute and powerful as she is, there remains something lacking in Serena's game: variety of shotmaking. Against a quick-footed automaton like Clijsters, it would help to throw a slice or a volley into the mix.
That wasn't going to happen, and so Serena Williams will not tie Billie Jean King quite yet at 12 major titles.
"She could have kept her cool," said her mother, Oracene.
Instead what we get is this prime-time final tonight between Clijsters of Belgium and Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark, which will be watched by only the biggest tennis fans and is precisely what the USTA deserves for its absurd scheduling this whole week.
Here's the trouble with rooting against Serena, which was not an uncommon occurrence Saturday night at the National Tennis Center: You end up with two women in the final who must be explained to the American public, at the biggest U.S. tournament.
And you get Serena being treated as a villain by commentators like Dick Enberg, who on CBS said, "That's not what champions do."- from nydailynews
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Vaccines could halve sickle-cell deaths in Africa
Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:21pm
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - Vaccination against bacterial infections using vaccines readily available in developed countries could save the lives of thousands of children with sickle-cell anemia in Africa, researchers said on Thursday.
Tom Williams, an expert in tropical diseases from the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), said 90 percent of children born with sickle-cell anemia in Africa die before they are diagnosed and can get treatment, and half of those lives could be saved if sufferers were protected from bacterial infections.
"The problem here in Africa is that there is hardly anyone doing any screening," Williams said. "So, as a result, most of the children in Africa who are born with sickle-cell anemia are dead before they are even diagnosed."
Experts estimate that sickle-cell anemia kills more children in Africa than HIV, Williams said, but while HIV commands vast attention from the international community sickle-cell anemia is "virtually invisible."
In a study conducted in rural Kenya and published in the Lancet medical journal, Williams and colleagues at the KEMRI/Wellcome Trust program in Kilifi screened almost 40,000 admissions to hospital and identified 2,000 cases of bacterial infection.
While in the general population fewer than three in 1,000 children were found to have sickle cell anemia, this figure increased more than 20-fold -- to more than 60 per 1,000 -- for children admitted to hospital with bacterial infections.
Sickle-cell anemia affects millions of people worldwide, but more than 80 percent of cases are in Africa, where around 200,000 children are born with the disease every year.
It is a genetic disease in which red blood cells deform into a sickle shape and cluster, blocking blood flow and causing pain, vulnerability to infections and organ damage.
The findings confirm that, just as in richer nations, African children with sickle-cell anemia are at huge risk of bacterial infections because the disease hampers blood flow and causes episodes of acute anemia, Williams said.
The most common causes of bacterial infection among children with sickle-cell were Streptococcus pneumoniae (41 percent of cases) and Haemophilus influenzae type b (12 percent of cases).
Vaccines against both -- a pneumococcal vaccine and another called Hib -- are given routinely in the United States and Europe, but have been slow getting to Africa because funds have largely been focused on other priorities.
Dan Thomas of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva, said his group provides the Hib vaccine, which is made by a range of drug companies, to 35 African nations as part of a 5-in-1 shot.
GAVI has also introduced a pneumococcal vaccine made by Wyeth, a U.S. drug company which is being bought by Pfizer, to Rwanda and Gambia, and is "working on rolling an improved pneumococcal vaccine out across Africa in the next few years," he said.---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - Vaccination against bacterial infections using vaccines readily available in developed countries could save the lives of thousands of children with sickle-cell anemia in Africa, researchers said on Thursday.
Tom Williams, an expert in tropical diseases from the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), said 90 percent of children born with sickle-cell anemia in Africa die before they are diagnosed and can get treatment, and half of those lives could be saved if sufferers were protected from bacterial infections.
"The problem here in Africa is that there is hardly anyone doing any screening," Williams said. "So, as a result, most of the children in Africa who are born with sickle-cell anemia are dead before they are even diagnosed."
Experts estimate that sickle-cell anemia kills more children in Africa than HIV, Williams said, but while HIV commands vast attention from the international community sickle-cell anemia is "virtually invisible."
In a study conducted in rural Kenya and published in the Lancet medical journal, Williams and colleagues at the KEMRI/Wellcome Trust program in Kilifi screened almost 40,000 admissions to hospital and identified 2,000 cases of bacterial infection.
While in the general population fewer than three in 1,000 children were found to have sickle cell anemia, this figure increased more than 20-fold -- to more than 60 per 1,000 -- for children admitted to hospital with bacterial infections.
Sickle-cell anemia affects millions of people worldwide, but more than 80 percent of cases are in Africa, where around 200,000 children are born with the disease every year.
It is a genetic disease in which red blood cells deform into a sickle shape and cluster, blocking blood flow and causing pain, vulnerability to infections and organ damage.
The findings confirm that, just as in richer nations, African children with sickle-cell anemia are at huge risk of bacterial infections because the disease hampers blood flow and causes episodes of acute anemia, Williams said.
The most common causes of bacterial infection among children with sickle-cell were Streptococcus pneumoniae (41 percent of cases) and Haemophilus influenzae type b (12 percent of cases).
Vaccines against both -- a pneumococcal vaccine and another called Hib -- are given routinely in the United States and Europe, but have been slow getting to Africa because funds have largely been focused on other priorities.
Dan Thomas of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva, said his group provides the Hib vaccine, which is made by a range of drug companies, to 35 African nations as part of a 5-in-1 shot.
GAVI has also introduced a pneumococcal vaccine made by Wyeth, a U.S. drug company which is being bought by Pfizer, to Rwanda and Gambia, and is "working on rolling an improved pneumococcal vaccine out across Africa in the next few years," he said.---http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Barack Obama's battle to save US health care reform
Democrats are mounting a last-ditch attempt to broker a bipartisan deal to reform America's health care system as Barack Obama prepares to address Congress.
By Toby Harnden in Washington Published: 8:32PM BST 08 Sep 2009
The speech to Congress is seen as so important that it could make or break his presidency.
With Mr Obama's poll numbers slipping and public support for his health care overhaul eroding almost by the day, Senator Max Baucus, a fellow Democrat, drew up a compromise plan designed to appeal to centrists across the political divide.
Republicans have vigirously opposed a mooted extra tax burden on highers earners to pay for medical insurance for the poor. Under the new plan, non-profit co-operatives would be set up to compete with private health insurance companies.
This would replace the idea of introducing a so-called "public option" of government-run insurance, which is favoured by liberals.
The Baucus plan would cost about $900 billion (£550 billion) over 10 years - $100 billion less that the $1 trillion price tag on a previous House of Representatives proposal.
This would partly be achieved by raising $180 billion from taxing insurance companies that offer the most expensive packages.
All insurance companies would be charged an additional fee according to their market share. This is intended to help pay for the reform and exact a price from insurers, who stand to gain 46 million new customers - those who are currently uninsured.
Mr Baucus said that the plan was not a final one and that he hoped a deal might be reached before Mr Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.
Mr Obama is following in the footsteps of President Bill Clinton, who addressed Congress in 1993 with a plea for health care reform to be passed. Although public support for his plan increased, he was ultimately unsuccessful.
Acutely aware of the mistakes Mr Clinton made, Mr Obama decided to let Congress draft legislation rather than drawing up a White House bill, as Mr Clinton did. But that has led to a sense of drift with voters not sure exactly what Mr Obama supports.
Mr Obama's aides have indicated that the "public option" idea will be dropped after it became clear it was too politically contentious among the public, Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Mr Baucus's Senate Finance Committee has so far been unable to agree on legislation and he is attempting to woo three Republican senators who might be convinced.
If a deal is not reached, the Senate Finance Committee could be bypassed.
Senator Chuck Grassley, one of the Republicans being courted, told CNN that the Obama administration had been "all over the ballpark" on the health issue before Congress's summer recess and that he still wanted to find a bipartisan consensus.
Asked about the prospects of the Baucus plan being agreed, he replied: "We won't know until we meet. The good and the bad of the president speaking this week is we've had to speed up the work of our group to have something better ... and that's bad because we probably should have taken a little more time."
He added that he was concerned that any fee charged to insurance companies would end up getting passed on to other customers but was in favour of non-profit health care co-operatives.
By Toby Harnden in Washington Published: 8:32PM BST 08 Sep 2009
The speech to Congress is seen as so important that it could make or break his presidency.
With Mr Obama's poll numbers slipping and public support for his health care overhaul eroding almost by the day, Senator Max Baucus, a fellow Democrat, drew up a compromise plan designed to appeal to centrists across the political divide.
Republicans have vigirously opposed a mooted extra tax burden on highers earners to pay for medical insurance for the poor. Under the new plan, non-profit co-operatives would be set up to compete with private health insurance companies.
This would replace the idea of introducing a so-called "public option" of government-run insurance, which is favoured by liberals.
The Baucus plan would cost about $900 billion (£550 billion) over 10 years - $100 billion less that the $1 trillion price tag on a previous House of Representatives proposal.
This would partly be achieved by raising $180 billion from taxing insurance companies that offer the most expensive packages.
All insurance companies would be charged an additional fee according to their market share. This is intended to help pay for the reform and exact a price from insurers, who stand to gain 46 million new customers - those who are currently uninsured.
Mr Baucus said that the plan was not a final one and that he hoped a deal might be reached before Mr Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.
Mr Obama is following in the footsteps of President Bill Clinton, who addressed Congress in 1993 with a plea for health care reform to be passed. Although public support for his plan increased, he was ultimately unsuccessful.
Acutely aware of the mistakes Mr Clinton made, Mr Obama decided to let Congress draft legislation rather than drawing up a White House bill, as Mr Clinton did. But that has led to a sense of drift with voters not sure exactly what Mr Obama supports.
Mr Obama's aides have indicated that the "public option" idea will be dropped after it became clear it was too politically contentious among the public, Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Mr Baucus's Senate Finance Committee has so far been unable to agree on legislation and he is attempting to woo three Republican senators who might be convinced.
If a deal is not reached, the Senate Finance Committee could be bypassed.
Senator Chuck Grassley, one of the Republicans being courted, told CNN that the Obama administration had been "all over the ballpark" on the health issue before Congress's summer recess and that he still wanted to find a bipartisan consensus.
Asked about the prospects of the Baucus plan being agreed, he replied: "We won't know until we meet. The good and the bad of the president speaking this week is we've had to speed up the work of our group to have something better ... and that's bad because we probably should have taken a little more time."
He added that he was concerned that any fee charged to insurance companies would end up getting passed on to other customers but was in favour of non-profit health care co-operatives.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Obama hosts dinner for Islamic holy month
By ANN SANNER (AP) – 9 hours ago
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.
The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Attendees included Congress' two Muslim members — Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Andre Carson, D-Ind., as well as ambassadors from Islamic nations and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.
Obama shared the story of Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, another invited guest, who broke a state record for most career points as a Massachusetts high school student.
"As an honor student, as an athlete on her way to Memphis, Bilqis is an inspiration not simply to Muslim girls — she's an inspiration to all of us," he said.
Obama also noted the contributions of Muhammad Ali, who was not in attendance, though the president borrowed a quote from famous boxer, explaining religion.
"A few years ago," Obama said, "he explained this view — and this is part of why he's The Greatest — saying, 'Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams — they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do — they all contain truths.'"
Ramadan, a monthlong period of prayer, reflection and sunrise-to-sunset fasts, began Aug. 22 in most of the Islamic world. It is believed that God began revealing the Quran to Muhammad during Ramadan, and the faithful are supposed to spend the month in religious reflection, prayer and remembrance of the poor.
White House dinners marking the holy month are nothing new. Former President George W. Bush held iftars during his eight years in office.
Obama has made a special effort since taking office to repair U.S. relations with the world's Muslims, including visits to Turkey and Cairo. In a June speech at the Egyptian capital, as well as in one to another important Muslim audience, in Turkey, Obama said: "America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam."
Obama also released a video message to Muslims before the start to Ramadan. In the video, he said Ramadan's rituals are a reminder of the principles Muslims and Christians have in common, including advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday praised American Muslims for enriching the nation's culture at a dinner to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
"The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country," Obama said at the iftar, the dinner that breaks the holiday's daily fast.
The president joined Cabinet secretaries, members of the diplomatic corps and lawmakers to pay tribute to what he called "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress."
Attendees included Congress' two Muslim members — Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and Andre Carson, D-Ind., as well as ambassadors from Islamic nations and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.
Obama shared the story of Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, another invited guest, who broke a state record for most career points as a Massachusetts high school student.
"As an honor student, as an athlete on her way to Memphis, Bilqis is an inspiration not simply to Muslim girls — she's an inspiration to all of us," he said.
Obama also noted the contributions of Muhammad Ali, who was not in attendance, though the president borrowed a quote from famous boxer, explaining religion.
"A few years ago," Obama said, "he explained this view — and this is part of why he's The Greatest — saying, 'Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams — they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do — they all contain truths.'"
Ramadan, a monthlong period of prayer, reflection and sunrise-to-sunset fasts, began Aug. 22 in most of the Islamic world. It is believed that God began revealing the Quran to Muhammad during Ramadan, and the faithful are supposed to spend the month in religious reflection, prayer and remembrance of the poor.
White House dinners marking the holy month are nothing new. Former President George W. Bush held iftars during his eight years in office.
Obama has made a special effort since taking office to repair U.S. relations with the world's Muslims, including visits to Turkey and Cairo. In a June speech at the Egyptian capital, as well as in one to another important Muslim audience, in Turkey, Obama said: "America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam."
Obama also released a video message to Muslims before the start to Ramadan. In the video, he said Ramadan's rituals are a reminder of the principles Muslims and Christians have in common, including advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)