Syria After Assad

White House petition hits 35,000 signatures

The US presidential hopefuls' health policies

Time for a new approach to the cancer research funding gap

Since his inauguration on 20 January 2009, US President Barack Obama has been busy reversing and dismantling many of his predecessor's decisions and policies. Seven weeks into his presidency, he finally lifted the controversial restraints on embryonic‐stem‐cell research that had barred the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD, USA) from funding projects beyond using the 60 extant cell lines—only 21 of which were viable. From the moment former President George W. Bush introduced this legislation in August 2001, embryonic‐stem‐cell researchers had to find other sources of funding to develop new lines. > …the pro‐life movement, which had kept a relatively low profile during the 2008 political season, attacked the president's policy… President Obama, who was delivering on a campaign promise, said: “At this moment, the full promise of stem‐cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions: to regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair; to spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles; to treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.” The president also called on Congress to provide legislative backing and funding for the research, for which public support has grown in recent years. President Obama emphasized that his order did not open “the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.” Even before President Obama announced his decision, two members of Congress—Democrat Diana DeGette, representing the First District of Colorado, and Republican Mike Castle, Representative for Delaware—had re‐introduced legislation to the House of Representatives on 4 February 2009 that would legally support federal funding for embryonic‐stem‐cell research; similar legislation was introduced …

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Ivo H. Daalder and I.M. Destler, In the Shadow of the Oval Office (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), p. 18. The quote is from John F. Kennedy's first State of the Union message to Congress on January 30, 1961. 2. See Zbigniew Brzezinski, Second Chance (New York: Basic Books, 2007), p. 216. 3. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Remarks by President Obama,” Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/ 4. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Remarks by President Obama,” Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/ 5. American Presidency Project, “Barack Obama, Inaugural Address,” January 20, 2009, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44 (hereinafter Obama's Inaugural Speech). 6. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Remarks by the President on a New Beginning,” Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/ (hereinafter Obama's Cairo Speech). 7. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Remarks by the President at the U.S./China Strategic and Economic Dialogue,” Washington, D.C., July 27, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-US/China-Strategic-and-Economic-Dialogue/. 8. Obama's Cairo Speech. 9. Obama's Inaugural Speech 10. See Bruce Stokes, “Obama's Not So Popular Where It Counts,” The National Journal, July 25, 2009, p. 2. 11. Paul Starobin, “When Love Is Not Enough,” The National Journal, July 25, 2009, p. 25; Hugo Chávez, address to the UN General Assembly, New York, September 24, 2009 (link to full text is unavailable). 12. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Remarks by the President at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention,” Phoenix, Arizona, August 17, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-Veterans-of-Foreign-Wars-convention/. 13. Richard N. Haass, “In Afghanistan The Choice Is Ours,” New York Times, August 21, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21haass.html. 14. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Remarks by the President on a New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Washington, D.C., May 27, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-a-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/. 15. Robert B. Asprey, War in the Shadows: The Guerilla in History (New York: William Marrow, 1994), p. 190. 16. “Still Necessary?” Economist, September 22, 2009, http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14489971. 17. Peter Baker and Elisabeth Bumiller, “Advisors to Obama Divided on Size of Afghan Force,” New York Times, September 3, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/politics/04military.html. 18. “The system worked,” wrote Leslie Gelb with specific reference to the Vietnam War, “yet produced a bad policy because it was a bad system.” See Leslie A. Gelb and Richard K. Betts, The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1979), p. 2. 19. Johnson's first State of Union speech in 1964 included two passing references to Vietnam. Public opinion polls commissioned by the Democratic Party in the 1964 elections showed limited interest in the war in many significant states. Following the election, and six months away from sending the nation to “major combat” in Vietnam, Johnson's second State of the Union speech covered the war in 126 words. See Norman Podhoretz, Why We Are in Vietnam (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982), pp. 71, 137. 20. See Jonathan Rausch, “Bush's Legacy: Small Ball After All?,” The National Journal, September 20, 2008, p.6, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20080920_4430.php; David Frum, “Think Again Bush's Legacy,” Foreign Policy (September/ October 2009), pp. 32–38. 21. Thomas E. Ricks, The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008 (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), p. 157. 22. Jim Hoagland, “Is He Weak?” Washington Post, August 23, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082102309.html. 23. Thomas Erdbrink, “Ahmadinejad Vows New Start as Clashes Flare,” Washington Post, June 14, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061300627.html; “Tehran Drama: The U.S. Stake in Iran's Political Crisis,” Washington Post, June 17, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061602822.html. 24. George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (New York: Vintage Books, 1999), pp. 156–158. 25. “Putin Deplores Collapse of USSR,” BBC World, April 25, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4480745.stm. 26. As noted by President Dmitry Medvedev, with surprising candor, “An ineffective economy, semi-Soviet social sphere, weak democracy, negative demographic trends and an unstable Caucasus … are very big problems even for a state like Russia.” See Stefan Wagstyl, “Putin Drops Hint That He Will Seek Another Term as President,” Financial Times, September 12, 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01ec1c00-9f35-11de-8013-00144feabdc0.html. 27. See Charles Clover, Daniel Dombey, and James Blitz, “U.S. Missile Rethink Welcomed by Putin,” Financial Times, September 19, 2009, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0a50eb2-a4b2-11de-92d4-00144feabdc0.html. 28. See Simon Serfaty, “Russia: Neither Indulge Nor Provoke,” The Banker, August 4, 2008, p. 8. 29. “Obama: Economy won't Produce Jobs till 2010,” CNN.com, September 20, 2009, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/20/obama.king/index.html. 30. George Santayana, Skepticism and Abnormal Faith (New York: Scribner, 1923), p. 69. 31. Paul Wolfowitz, “Realism,” Foreign Policy (September/October 2009), pp. 66–72; Stephen M. Walt, David J. Rothkopff, Daniel W. Drezner, and Steve Clemons, “Is Paul Wolfowitz for Real?” Foreign Policy, August 27, 2009, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/27/why_paul_wolfowitz_should_get_real?page=full. 32. Hans J. Morgenthau, Scientific Man Versus Power Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948), p. 207. Additional informationNotes on contributorsSimon SerfatySimon Serfaty is the first holder of the Zbigniew Brzezinski chair in Global Security and Geostrategy at CSIS, and is also an eminent scholar and professor of U.S. foreign policy at Old Dominion University. He is a member of The Washington Quarterly's editorial board

Obama Signs Act to Make More Federally Funded Research Open Access: NIH Requirement Extended to Other Agencies

As President Barack Obama and his family settle into life at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, one thing is certain: they will have plenty of opportunities for parties and celebrations at home. Based on the experiences of previous White House occupants, there will frequent birthday parties for family and friends, holiday parties for many festive occasions, private dinners with trusted advisors, and numerous receptions for visitors from around the world. But the hottest party invitation at the White House during the years of the Obama administration is likely to the formal state dinner, which has been a staple of the president's social, diplomatic, and political life since the founding of the republic. spite of constant political and social over the past two hundred years, and spite of occasional criticism for their undemocratic lavishness, the ways which state dinners have been planned and produced have remained remarkably consistent. No matter whether there is economic recession or prosperity, no matter which political party or presidential personality occupies the office, the consensus inside the White House is that the parties and celebrations inside America's most famous residence not only must go on, but also must go on according to long-standing protocol and tradition. Several factors may explain this phenomenon. One is the strong sense of historical continuity that pervades the White House. Presidential candidates may campaign on slogans of change we can believe in or for change. But by the time they are ready to take possession of the residence on January 20, they are much more respectful of the dignified traditions that are part and parcel of the White House. The new brooms that sweep clean may used occasionally the corridors of Congress, but when it comes to actually sweeping or cleaning the White House, the tools are generally the same they have always been. Perhaps even more importantly, the person holding the broom- as a member of the White House residence staff- is likely to have held the job during several different presidential administrations. Moreover, there is usually something ineffable about the experience of a White House state dinner- even among members of the First Families themselves. Lady Bird Johnson, for instance, was the wife of a powerful senator, vice president, and eventually president, and therefore attended many state dinners. But the thrill for her was never gone - as at a state dinner for Pakistan President Muhammad Ayub Khan on December 14, 1965: We went downstairs to Hail to the Chief. And then- I shall always impressed by it- the entrance to the great East Room, the moment of expectation as the President, the First Lady, and the visiting Chief of State arrive to meet the guests. I always feel a little detached, like a spectator, surprised that I am there. (I. B. Johnson 338) This palpable - and seemingly immutable-sense of excitement at attending a White House state dinner begins with the invitation itself. Calligraphers have worked at the White House since the early nineteenth century order to painstakingly address each invitation by hand; and when these invitations fall into the hands of the invitees, they are held the highest regard. For instance, an anonymous social correspondent for the Harper's Bazaar observed 1877 that an invitation to a state dinner should never be refused, obliging one, as it does, to cancel any other engagement already formed .... [W]hen private people are called to the state dinners the compliment is rare and highly prized (Social Usages at 658). Almost one hundred years later, two reporters for the Washington Post expressed nearly identical sentiments. The first wrote, In the United States, where royalty cannot command and a court does not exist, only one invitation serves as a summons that must obeyed ... a state dinner given by the President on behalf of a distinguished foreign guest (H. …

AAN News

Rahm Emanuel has been a controversial appointment from when he was first offered the position of White House Chief of Staff. For many progressive Obama supporters, Emanuel's appointment was the first of many decisions by the White House that were discouraging. It signaled that Obama's commitment to changing things in Washington was not as strong as might have been hoped. Nonetheless, it was generally understood that the appointment of this consummate political insider was necessary for Obama to pass his program. It was also understood by many that concerns about Emanuel's abrasive personality, strong ties to the Clinton era Democratic establishment, work in the finance sector during the years of the Bush administration and general political outlook could be ignored if Emanuel helped Obama succeed in the White House.

Preface and Overview - Bert A. Rockman and Andrew Rudalevige We Can Believe In Meets Reality - Joel D. Aberbach Strategic Assessments: Evaluating Opportunities and Strategies in the Obama Presidency - George C. Edwards III Political Forces on the Obama Presidency: From Election '08 to Governing - James E. Campbell Public Opinion and the Presidency: The Obama and Anti-Obama Coalitions - Gary C. Jacobson Obama and the Public Presidency: What Got You Here Won't Get You There - Diane J. Heith The Privileges of Access: Interest Groups and the White House - Lawrence R. Jacobs Rivals, or a Team? Staff and IIssue Management in the Obama Administration - Andrew Rudalevige Obama and the 111th Congress: Doing Big Things - Barbara Sinclair Obama and the Law: Judicial Restraint at the Crossroads - David A. Yalof Ambition, Necessity, and Polarization in the Obama Domestic Agenda - Christopher H. Foreman, Jr. Continuity and Change in Obama's Foreign Policy - Robert Singh Economic Crisis and Political Change: A New New Deal? - M. Stephen Weatherford Concluding Thoughts: President, Person, and System - Bert A. Rockman, Colin Campbell and Eric N. Waltenburg

US President's science panel advises on antibiotic resistance

Comparative effectiveness research stalls in the USA

President Obama's time in the White House is now more than half over. Presidential aspirants from both major parties are beginning to think more seriously about the 2016 campaign. Soon speculation about what Obama will do after leaving the White House will commence. Given his temperament, intellect and background, academia might be a good fit for Obama when he is no longer president. It is not hard to imagine Obama holding a position, and occasionally teaching at a prominent law school. For young law students, taking a course from Obama would be an extraordinary opportunity. However, if he offers a course on negotiating, students might be wiser to take that particular course from another instructor.

President Donald J. Trump's first war seemed a short one. To many, it commenced on April 7, 2017 (local time) and, after fifty-nine cruise missiles struck, seemingly ended the same day. The president received good marks for the stunning strike against the Syrian air base, with many members of the foreign policy establishment applauding his attack as a means of punishing Bashar al-Assad's regime for its use of chemical weapons. Even some Obama administration veterans were full of praise for the president, apparently drawing a contrast between President Donald J. Trump's strike and President Barack Obama's unwillingness to enforce his chemical weapons “red line.”

У статті досліджено основні принципи та концептуальні підходи Б. Обами щодо формування зовнішньополітичного курсу, проаналізовано «російський контекст» основних нормативно-правових актів, заяв та декларації адміністрації США, висвітлено еволюції підходів Білого дому щодо Російської Федерації упродовж 2009–2016 рр.