Monday, December 14, 2009

War On Christmas Escalates

YOU ARE DONE!

This is the last current event for you.

What falls below is an original masterpiece from your beloved AP Govt teacher.

I hope you all the best and I hope you have learned and enjoyed our whirlwind semester!





A sudden spark in hostilities as thrown the world into conflict this week. A Declaration of War was delivered to St. Nicholas by the Foreign Minister of Nunavut laying out the intentions of several hostile Inuet tribes to war against Christmas. Inuet tribes are accusing the jolly elf of over aggressive border movements by reindeer in the area. It is unknown whether or not these movements are tantamount to war by the international community but violence has erupted along a 2,000 mile border between the state of Nunavut and the North Pole.

St. Nicholas, Prime Minister of the North Pole has asked for the United Nations to send in peace keeping forces to the region but it is doubtful that the Security Council will make a decision before the the New Year. Most ambassadors have been implicated in a scandal involving the promises to be good and bribing of cookies and milk for presents from Santa. With the UN in an uneasy situation and most ambassadors already out of New York for the Christmas holiday, it is unlikely they will be able to return before the upcoming deadline for hostilities.

The United States is debating the possibility of unilaterally intervening in the conflict. Members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations met in a closed door meeting on Tuesday to discuss it's options. Ranking members were rumored to be discussing the use US veterans from the Iraqi war to save Christmas. With continued pressure mounting by business leaders and religious interests in certain swing states, it is likely that a joint resolution to use military force will be announced by the end of the week.

Friday, December 11, 2009

TXTNG WHLE DRVNG


The Arizona teenager knows it's illegal in Phoenix and dangerous. She once almost drifted into oncoming traffic while looking at her phone.

But would a nationwide ban stop Cordova and her friends from texting in their cars? No way, she said.

"Nobody is going to listen," Cordova said.

With momentum building in Washington for all 50 U.S. states to outlaw text messaging behind the wheel, there is evidence that the key demographic targeted by such legislation, teen drivers, will not pay much attention.

At least one major study has found that, with mobile devices now central to their lives, young people often ignore laws against using cell phones or texting in the car.

The number of text messages is up tenfold in the past three years and Americans sent an estimated 1 trillion in 2009.

Some police agencies, while strongly in favor of such mandates, say its tough for officers to enforce them.

The California Highway Patrol has handed out nearly 163,000 tickets to drivers talking on hand-held phones since mid-2008. But it has issued only 1,400 texting citations since January in a state of 23 million drivers -- not for lack of trying.

"The handheld cell phone is relatively easy for us to spot, we can see when somebody has their phone up to their ear," CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader said.

"But with the texting it's a little bit more of a challenge to catch them in the act, because we have to see it and if they are holding it down in their lap it's going to be harder for us to see."
Already 19 states and the District of Columbia ban texting by all drivers, while 9 others prohibit it by young drivers.

TEXTING CAUSES ACCIDENTS

In July, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, citing a study that found texting drivers were 23 times more likely to be in an accident, introduced a bill requiring states to prohibit the practice or risk losing federal highway funds.

Since then, Senator Jay Rockefeller has offered his own bill that would achieve the ban through grants to states.

In October, during a three-day conference in Washington on distracted driving, President Barack Obama signed an executive order barring federal employees from texting behind the wheel.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he would seek to expand that rule to bus drivers and truckers who cross state lines and called the conference "probably the most important meeting in the history of the Department of Transportation."

But a much-cited study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that usage of cell phones for calls and texting in North Carolina actually ticked up slightly after the state banned them for drivers under the age of 18.

A study by the Automobile Club of Southern California found that texting by drivers dropped after the state's law took effect, but it did not break down the data by age.

"What I would say is that texting and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens and for young people that it's hard for them to differentiate between doing something normal and doing something wrong," said Steven Bloch, senior research associate for the Automobile Club.

The problem is not unique to the United States. In Britain, a public service announcement on texting while driving drew worldwide attention for its extremely graphic imagery.

The spot shows three texting teen girls in a horrific head-on collision with another car, and lingers on shots of their bloodied faces shattering the windshield as a child whose parents have been killed cries for her dead mother to wake up.

In 2007, Phoenix became one of the first U.S. cities to ban texting while driving, although Arizona still has no statewide law.

Out of a group of four high school students interviewed by Reuters in Phoenix, three admitted texting while driving and a fourth said he had stopped only after his cousin caused a serious traffic accident while sending a message.

Cordova's classmate, 17-year-old Anna Hauer, says she often texts her boyfriend when she drives and doubts she or her friends would stop because of new legislation.

"By the time they pull you over, the chances are you are going to be done with your text anyway so they can't exactly prove that you were texting," she said.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Saving Ourselves...From Ourselves


Copenhagen offers the prospect of a robust political deal, endorsed by the world's leaders and witnessed by the world's people, that sets out clear targets and a timeline for translating it into law. To be a truly historic achievement, such a deal must do two things.
First, it must lay the basis for a global regime and subsequent agreements that limit global temperature rise in accordance with the scientific evidence. Second, it must provide clarity on the mobilization and volume of financial resources to support developing countries to adapt to climate change.

The stakes are enormous. Economic growth has been achieved at great environmental and social cost, aggravating inequality and human vulnerability. The irreparable damage that is being inflicted on ecosystems, agricultural productivity, forests and water systems is accelerating. Threats to health, life and livelihoods are growing. Disasters are also increasing in scale and frequency.

But despite the mounting evidence of negative impacts, reaching a deal will not be easy. It will require extraordinary political courage -- both to cut the deal and to communicate its necessity to the public.

A mindset shift is required. Distrust and competition persist between regions and nations, manifest in a 'no, you must show your cards first' attitude that has dogged the negotiations leading up to Copenhagen. This has to be overcome.

A deal that is not based on the best scientific evidence will be nothing better than a line in the sand as the tide comes in. But short term considerations, including from special interest groups and electoral demands, are working against long term solutions.

Success in reaching a deal will require leaders to think for future generations, and for citizens other than their own. It will require them to think about inclusive and comprehensive arrangements, not just a patched up compilation of national or regional interests.

A deal that stops at rhetoric and does not actually meet the needs of the poorest and most climate vulnerable countries simply will not work. The climate cannot be 'fixed' in one continent and not another. Climate change does not respect national borders. We are all in the same boat; a hole at one end will sink us all.

For it to work, climate justice must be at the heart of the agreement. An unfair deal will come unstuck.

Industrialized countries such as the United States must naturally take the lead in reducing emissions and supporting others to follow suit, but developing countries like India or China also have an increasing responsibility to do so as their economies continue to grow.

Tragically, it is the poorest and least responsible who are having to bear the brunt of the climate challenge as rising temperatures exacerbate poverty, hunger and vulnerability to disease for billions of people. They need both immediate help to strengthen their climate resilience as well as long-term support to enable them to adapt to changing weather patterns, reduce deforestation, and pursue low-emissions, clean energy growth strategies. The deal must include a package of commitments in line with the science and the imperative of reducing global emissions by 50-85 percent relative to 2000 levels by 2050.

This requires a schedule for richer countries to move to 25-40 percent emission cuts by 2020 from 1990 baselines; clear measures for emerging economies to cut emissions intensity; and clarity about both immediate and longer term finance and technical support for developing countries, notably the poorest and most vulnerable among them.

Will we get there? The targets that have been proposed for emission reductions by many industrialized countries such as the EU, Japan and Norway are encouraging, as are those being made by the big emerging economies including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Korea.

Recent announcements by the US on emission targets represent a significant shift and provide a basis for scaling up commitments in the coming years. So does the recognition by emerging economies that they also have a role in supporting the most vulnerable countries.

Welcome too are the proposals for financial support to LDCs and small island states made at the Commonwealth Summit in Trinidad, as well as proposals by the Netherlands, France, and the UK, among others.

But much greater specificity on finance is needed. Existing ODA commitments to help the poorest countries meet the Millennium Development Goals need to be met. And significant additional finance that is separate from and additional to ODA needs to be mobilized to support them meet the incremental costs generated by climate change.

A deal which is not clear on the finance will be both unacceptable to developing countries, and unworkable. Finding the additional resources and communicating its necessity will not be easy, particularly in the current economic climate, but it must be done.

A successful deal could incentivize not only good stewardship of forests and more sustainable land use, but also massive investment into low carbon growth and a healthier planet, including in sectors such as energy generation, construction and transportation.

And it could usher in an era of qualitatively new international cooperation based upon common but differentiated responsibilities - not just for managing climate change, but for human development, social justice and global security.

Ultimately, at stake is whether our leaders can work to help us save ourselves from ... well, from ourselves. The legacy of today's politicians will be determined in the weeks to come.

Kofi A. Annan is Former UN Secretary-General, Chairman of the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Africa Progress Panel, President of the Global Humanitarian Forum.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Virgin Galactic Unveils Commercial Spacecraft



MOJAVE, Calif. (AP) - The sleek, bullet-shaped spacecraft is about the size of a large business jet - with wide windows and seats for six well-heeled passengers to take a thrill ride into space.
It's billed as the world's first commercial spaceship, designed to be carried aloft by an exotic jet before firing its rocket engine to climb beyond the Earth's atmosphere.

In a Hollywood-style rollout, Virgin Galactic on Monday took the cloak off SpaceShipTwo, which had been under secret development for two years in the Mojave Desert. The company plans to sell suborbital space rides for $200,000 a ticket, offering passengers 2 1/2-hour flights that include about five minutes of weightlessness.

Blaring music and a laser show heralded the rollout of SpaceShipTwo as it glided down a runway mated to its mothership and came to a stop before a throng of wannabe astronauts, dignitaries and VIPs who shivered in the desert cold for the splashy unveil.

"Isn't this the sexist spaceship ever?" said British billionaire and Virgin Galactic founder Sir Richard Branson, who partnered with famed aviation designer Burt Rutan on the venture.
The stubby-winged spaceship possesses a slender fuselage that narrows at the nose and tail. Once in space, its unique twin tail booms can pivot upward to increase drag and allow the spaceship to plunge like a shuttlecock back into the atmosphere.

SpaceShipTwo's debut marks the first public appearance of a commercial passenger spacecraft. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson were on hand to christen it "VSS Enterprise" by breaking champagne bottles on the craft's nose.

Branson hopes to begin passenger flights out of New Mexico sometime in 2011 after a series of rigorous safety tests. The entrepreneur said he, his family and Rutan will be the first to fly on SpaceShipTwo.

SpaceShipTwo is based on Rutan's design of a prototype called SpaceShipOne. In 2004, SpaceShipOne captured the $10 million Ansari X Prize by becoming the first privately manned craft to reach space.

Since that historic feat, engineers from Rutan's Scaled Composites LLC have been laboring in the Mojave Desert on a larger design suitable for commercial use.

Rutan, who has always stressed safety, said his goal is to make his private spaceflight venture safer than government space programs and on par with the early commercial airliners.
Some 300 clients have paid the $200,000 ticket or placed a deposit, according to Virgin Galactic.
The last time there was this level of hoopla in the high desert was a little more than a year ago when Branson and Rutan trotted out to great fanfare the twin-fuselage mothership, White Knight Two, that will carry SpaceShipTwo.

This latest affair was far more elaborate. Two tent complexes were custom-built for the occasion. Virgin Galactic also handed out free black windbreakers and hats with its logo. Servers passed around pastries and finger food before the unveiling and champagne afterward.

The one thing Virgin Galactic failed to choreograph was the weather. Branson and his deputies repeatedly apologized to guests for the howling winds that shook the see-through tent.
Despite the hype, hard work lies ahead before space journeys could become as routine as air travel.

Flight testing of White Knight Two has been ongoing for the past year. The first SpaceShipTwo test flights are expected to start next year, with full-fledged space launches to its maximum altitude in 2011.

SpaceShipTwo, built from lightweight composite materials and powered by a rocket engine, is similar to its prototype cousin with three exceptions. It's twice as large, measuring 60 feet long with a roomy cabin about the size of a Falcon 900 executive jet. It also has more windows including overhead portholes. And while SpaceShipOne was designed for three people, SpaceShipTwo can carry six passengers and two pilots.

"It's a big and beautiful vehicle," said X Prize founder Peter Diamandis, who has seen SpaceShipTwo during various stages of development.

Space travel has been limited so far to astronauts and a handful of wealthy people who have shelled out millions to ride Russian rockets to the international space station.

The debut of Branson's craft could not come sooner for the scores of wannabe astronauts eager to pay big money to experience zero gravity.

Rene Kaerskov, a 43-year-old would-be space tourist who splits his time between Los Angeles and Hong Kong, said he choked up at the sight and could not wait to climb aboard.
"It will be a top-of-the-line adventure," he said.

After SpaceShipOne's history-making flights, many space advocates believed private companies would offer suborbital space joyrides before the end of this decade. Virgin Galactic once predicted passengers could fly into space by 2007.

George Washington University space policy scholar John Logsdon called the milestones "measured progress." He was not surprised the commercial space industry is still in its infancy.
"Their business will collapse if they had an accident in one of the early flights. I'm sure they're being cautious," he said.

Tragedy struck in 2007 when an explosion killed three of Rutan's engineers during a routine test of SpaceShipTwo's propellant system. The accident delayed the engine's development.
Virgin Galactic plans to operate commercial space flights out of a taxpayer-funded spaceport under construction in New Mexico.

SpaceShipTwo will be carried aloft by White Knight Two and released at 50,000 feet. The craft's rocket engine then burns a combination of nitrous oxide and a rubber-based solid fuel to climb more than 65 miles above the Earth's surface.

After reaching the top of its trajectory, the craft will fall back into the atmosphere and glide to a landing like an airplane. Its descent is controlled by "feathering" its wings to maximize aerodynamic drag.

Virgin Galactic expects to spend more than $400 million for a fleet of five commercial spaceships and launch vehicles.

It's not the only player in the commercial space race. A handful of entrepreneurs including Amazon.com Inc. Chief Executive Jeff Bezos, computer game programmer John Carmack and rocketeer Jeff Greason are building their own suborbital rockets.

Chavez: We Have Missiles


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez said Monday that Venezuela has received thousands of Russian-made missiles and rocket launchers as part of his government's military preparations for a possible armed conflict with neighboring Colombia.

"They are preparing a war against us," Chavez said during a televised address, repeating a charge he has been making for months. "Preparing is one of the best ways to neutralize it."
Both Colombia and Washington deny having any plans to attack Venezuela, but Chavez argues they are plotting together a military offensive against Venezuela. Chavez says his government is acquiring more weapons as a precaution.

"Thousands of missiles are arriving," Chavez said. The former paratrooper-turned-president did not specify what type of missiles, but said Venezuela's growing arsenal includes Russian-made Igla-1S surface-to-air missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

Chavez, who has been feuding with Colombia for months, claims an agreement between Bogota and Washington allowing the U.S. military to increase its presence at seven Colombian military bases poses a threat to his country. Colombia says the deal is only to help it fight the war on drugs and insurgents inside its territory.

Chavez also said Monday that Russian tanks, including T-72s, will be arriving "to strengthen our armored divisions."

Venezuela has bought more than $4 billion worth of Russian arms since 2005, including 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, dozens of attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. In September, Russia opened a $2.2 billion line of credit for Venezuela to purchase more weapons.

Friday, December 4, 2009

What Obama Said


Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan - the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here - at West Point - where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention - and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and - although it was marred by fraud - that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and Constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan - General McChrystal - has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you - a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So no - I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas - such as agriculture - that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation - by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect - to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort - one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who - in discussing our national security - said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold - whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere - they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons - true security will come for those who reject them.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values - for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home - which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions - from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank - that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

As a country, we are not as young - and perhaps not as innocent - as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people - from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue - nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united - bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we - as Americans - can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment - they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

America - we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

10%


The rate unexpectedly fell to 10 percent, from 10.2 percent in October, as employers cut the fewest number of jobs since the recession began. The government also said 159,000 fewer jobs were lost in September and October than first reported.

If part-time workers who want full time jobs and laid-off workers who have given up looking for jobs are included, the so-called underemployment rate also fell, to 17.2 percent from 17.5 percent in October.

The better-than-expected figures provided a rare dose of good news for a labor market that's lost 7.2 million jobs in two years. Still, the respite may be temporary.

Job creation is expected to remain far too weak in coming months to absorb the 15.4 million unemployed people who are seeking work -- and the 11.5 million others who are underemployed. As more people begin seeking work, the jobless rate is likely to resume rising.

The report offered evidence of how hard it remains to find work: The number of people jobless for at least six months rose last month to 5.9 million. And the average length of unemployment has risen to more than 28 weeks.

Even counting last month's decline, the unemployment rate has more than doubled since the recession began in December 2007, when it stood at 4.9 percent. And the underemployment rate has jumped to 17.2 percent from 8.7 percent.

"We will need very substantial job growth to get unemployment lower, especially when the labor force ... starts growing again," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

Still, economists and investors drew hope from the Labor Department report. It said the economy shed 11,000 jobs last month -- a sharp improvement from October's revised total of 111,000. And it was much better than the 130,000 Wall Street economists had expected.

The average work week also rose to 33.2 hours, from a record low of 33 hours, along with average earnings. Economists expect employers will increase hours for their current workers before hiring new ones.

The stock market jumped and Treasurys fell in response to the reports. In midmorning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average surged 110.94, or 1.1 percent. Broader stock averages also rose.

"We've still got a long way to go, but the good news in this report provides important positive momentum," said Carl Riccadonna, senior U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank.

The increase in hours worked means employees are earning more income, Riccadonna said, which could help boost consumer spending and enable Americans to pay down more debt.
Average weekly earnings jumped $4.08 to $622.17, the report said.

Temporary help services added 52,000 jobs, the fourth straight increase. That's also positive news, because companies are likely to hire temporary workers before adding permanent ones. Total employment usually starts to increase between three and six months after temporary employment, Riccadonna said.

The economy has now lost jobs for 23 straight months. But the small decline in November indicates the nation could begin generating jobs soon. Many economists think it will happen in the first quarter of next year.

David Rosenberg, chief economist for Canadian wealth management firm Gluskin Sheff, said the 7 point difference between the jobless rate and underemployment rate is almost double the usual gap. That's an indication of how many more people are likely to be looking for work in coming months.

Another worrisome sign: The National Federation of Independent Business said Thursday that a monthly survey of its small business members showed that more companies plan to reduce employment in the next three months than plan to add jobs.

And a survey by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Thursday found a sharp drop in the number of companies planning to hire workers in November, compared with the previous month.

The services sector gained 58,000 jobs last month, while manufacturing and construction shed 68,000 positions. Education and health services added 40,000 jobs, and government employment rose 7,000.

The unemployment rate fell because the number of jobless Americans dropped by 325,000 to 15.4 million. The jobless rate is calculated from a survey of households. The number of jobs lost or gained, by contrast, is calculated from a separate survey of business and government establishments. The two surveys can sometimes vary.

The unemployment rate also dropped because fewer people are looking for work. The size of the labor force, which includes the employed and those actively searching for jobs, fell by nearly 100,000, the third straight decline. That indicates more of the unemployed are giving up on looking for work.

The participation rate, or the percentage of the population employed or looking for work, fell to 65 percent, the lowest since the recession began. Once laid-off people stop hunting for jobs, they are no longer counted in the unemployment rate.

Even as layoffs are easing, the slow pace of hiring is causing headaches for political leaders. The employment report comes a day after President Barack Obama hosted a "jobs summit" at the White House, where he told economists, business executives and union leaders that he is "open to every demonstrably good idea" to create jobs.

Christina Romer, the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, called the jobs report "unquestionably good news." She cautioned into reading too much into one month's number, noting that the data can be "volatile."

"We have seen the economic recovery in the sense of GDP growing again, we have seen stabilization in our financial markets," she said in an interview with the Associated Press. "I think this could be a sign that that is finally getting to the job market."

Democrats in Congress are considering legislation that would extend jobless benefits for those who have run out and help the unemployed pay for health care coverage. Those measures could cost up to $100 billion.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

What Obama Needs to Say at West Point


By David Paul Kuhn
Barack Obama has to show his heart is in the fight. Tonight's Afghan address must explain but also inspire. The professor-in-chief must now preach to the public about why Afghanistan is still the "good war." Why it is still worth the cost. Why the long war must be longer. Why we can win - and what exactly is to be won. The public will be listening to Obama's explanations but, perhaps more importantly, it will also be searching for the passion beneath his prose. Spock must find his inner Kirk.

"Once more unto the breach" is a difficult sell after so much deliberation. This three-month public review comes less than a half-year after his last policy review. Obama first told the nation in March of his, "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Tuesday, Obama will tell Americans of his newest strategy. The prolonged consideration, and reconsideration of those considerations, is vintage Obama. The dispassionate realism. The cold logic. The cost benefit analysis. We know the character and see it in this president.
But this is war. It's the solemn and earnest province of the presidency. Obama gets the solemn. But does he understand the earnest?

Obama's torment is transparent. He wants out of the fight, or so it seems. But he is resigned to the need to still fight. He does not want to be Lyndon Johnson but sees no way to govern as George McGovern. Obama has concluded that the costs of pulling out outweigh the costs of pushing on. Few believe he would continue this war if he had his druthers. We know he made a hard call. Now he must explain his call. Then he must convince skeptics it's the right call.

The political left is the hardest sell. Six in 10 Republicans support sending more troops into Afghanistan. Six in 10 Democrats oppose. But independents reflect Democrats views. And therefore, Obama must do more than ask an antiwar base to reconcile with this war.

Like Obama's health care legislation, the cost will come before benefits. Obama reportedly plans to increase troop levels by at least 30,000. Next year, American casualties will rise. But the benefits of this Afghan-surge may be unclear until 2011.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly spoke last week of Democrats' "serious unrest" over Obama's decision to escalate the war. Pelosi used words like "opportunity costs." She knows that war has killed so many reformers--from Wilson to Truman to Johnson. The guns and butter scale surely worries Obama too.

We have seen this movie before: with Johnson, W. and Obama. Obama's March address spoke of how, "Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He said, "The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan." And the American future was inextricably linked to Pakistan and Afghanistan, or so he effectively argued.

He must now make much the same argument. That Americans must die not for an immediate threat but an abstraction of what could be. As Obama knows well, the "terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks" are almost entirely in Pakistan. And we are mostly in Afghanistan. Like W, Obama is a prisoner of an unstable Pakistan that he dare not further destabilize. He is facing the same whack-a-mole enemy that allows no clear sense of victory. It's a war of discordance.

The once antiwar candidate must now rally his nation in war. The man who opposed George W. Bush's "surge" in Iraq must now explain his surge. "America's commitment is not open ended," W. said in his 2007 address on Iraq. Obama must say no less. And he may go further. Obama might detail the way out of this war. But how does he say this war is worth more American lives to win, while inferring that, at some point, it could be worth losing as well?

Obama will face an ambivalent and war weary public. Eight years on, Americans have turned against this war. He must turn Americans back.

The president has other occasions to speak to the Pakistanis or to the Karzai government. He has surrogates to explain the minutia of his policy. This address regards sending more young Americans to war. He must rouse the public. The candidate who favors the subtle shades should reach for some black and white tones. It need not be good versus evil. But if Afghanistan still is the "good war," he should say so. And he should say so passionately.

David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter.

Some Dems Upset Over Afghan Policy


The chief architect of a bill to increase taxes to pay for the Afghanistan war said he didn't believe adding troops would yield much benefit.

"The problem is you can have the best policy in the world but if you don't have the tools to implement it it isn't worth a bean bag,"Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), the House Appropriations Committee chairman, told CNN on Sunday.

President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Tuesday he will add 30,000 troops to the war effort in Afghanistan to stem the rise of Taliban and to pursue al-Qaeda. But Obey said supporting a corrupt Afghan government by adding troops amounted to a "fool's errand."

If policymakers believe continuing the war effort in Afghanistan was an important public policy, Obey added, then they should be willing to pay for it by raising taxes on higher income levels.

The war would likely cost as much over the next decade as the effort to reforming the healthcare system, Obey said. "If we're being told we have to pay for healthcare we certainly pay for this effort as well," Obey said.

Otherwise, Congress would eventually have to raid other parts of the budget targeted at education or the economy to fund the war effort. Using deficit spending to pay for the operations has also removed most Americans from any burden in the war effort. "In this war, we have not had any sense of shared sacrifice," Obey said.

Obey's bill would increase taxes by 1 percent on incomes over $150,000. Tax rates would increase further at higher income levels. The financial cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan was a central theme on Sunday talk shows.

Earlier on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said a surtax should be part of the debate about how to pay for the war. "We're going to have to have a serious talk about budget and about the $1 trillion deficit we are in now and will continue to be in," Lugar said.

But his colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told ABC's "This Week" that Congress should cut spending to pay for the additional troops.

Marines Will Be in First Wave


WASHINGTON (AP) - New infusions of U.S. Marines will begin moving into Afghanistan almost as soon as President Barack Obama announces a redrawn battle strategy, a plan widely expected to include more than 30,000 additional U.S. forces.

Obama will try to sell a skeptical public on his bigger, costlier war plan Tuesday by coupling the large new troop infusion with an emphasis on stepped-up training for Afghan forces that he says will allow the U.S. to leave.

Obama formally ends a 92-day review of the war in Afghanistan Tuesday night with a nationally broadcast address in which he will lay out his revamped strategy from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He began rolling out his decision Sunday night, informing key administration officials, military advisers and foreign allies in a series of private meetings and phone calls that stretched into Monday.

Military officials said at least one group of Marines is expected to deploy within two or three weeks of Obama's announcement, and would be in Afghanistan by Christmas. Larger deployments wouldn't be able to follow until early in 2010.

The initial infusion is a recognition by the administration that something tangible needs to happen quickly, officials said. The quick addition of Marines would provide badly needed reinforcements to those fighting against Taliban gains in the southern Helmand province, and could lend reassurance to both Afghans and a war-weary U.S. public.

The war escalation includes sending 30,000 to 35,000 more American forces into Afghanistan in a graduated deployment over the next year, on top of the 71,000 already there. Obama's announcement is the culmination of more than three months of debate over whether and how to expand U.S. military involvement in a war that has turned worse this year despite Obama's previous infusion of 21,000 forces.

But the numbers of fresh troops don't tell the whole story, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. "It's what their mission is," he told ABC's "Good Morning America.""We're going to accelerate going after al-Qaida and its extremist allies. We'll accelerate the training of an Afghan national security force, a police and an army."

Obama also will deliver a deeper explanation of why the U.S. must continue to fight more than eight years after the war's start, emphasizing that Afghan security forces need more time, more schooling and more U.S. combat backup to be up to the job on their own. He will make tougher demands on the governments of Pakistan and, especially, Afghanistan, and will provide a fresh path toward disengagement.

Gibbs also promised that Obama would lay out an end-game scenario for U.S. involvement. "We want to - as quickly as possible - transition the security of the Afghan people over to those national security forces in Afghanistan," he said Tuesday. "This can't be nation-building. It can't be an open-ended forever commitment."

With U.S. casualties in Afghanistan sharply increasing and little sign of progress, the war Obama once liked to call one "of necessity," not choice, has grown less popular with the public and within his own Democratic party. In recent days, leading Democrats have talked of setting tough conditions on deeper U.S. involvement, or even staging outright opposition.

The displeasure on both sides of the aisle was likely to be on display when congressional hearings on Obama's strategy get under way later in the week on Capitol Hill.

Obama was spending much of Monday and Tuesday on the phone, outlining his plan - minus many specifics - for the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China, India, Denmark, Poland and others. He also met in person at the White House with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

A briefing for dozens of key lawmakers was planned for Tuesday afternoon, just before Obama was set to leave the White House for the speech against a military backdrop at West Point.
The Afghan government said Tuesday that President Hamid Karzai and Obama had an hourlong video conference. Obama was also going to speak with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

In Afghanistan, rampant government corruption and inefficiency have made U.S. success much harder. Obama was expected to place tough conditions on Karzai's government, along with endorsing a stepped-up training program for the Afghan armed forces along the outline recommended this fall by U.S. trainers.

That schedule would expand the Afghan army to 134,000 troops by next fall, three years earlier than once envisioned.

Military officials said the speech is expected to include several references to Iraq, where the United States still has more than 100,000 forces. The strain of maintaining that overseas war machine has stretched the Army and Marine Corps and limited Obama's options.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Obama Closes in on Afghan Troop Increase


President Obama is expected to address the nation early next week, saying he will send a sizable force of additional troops to Afghanistan, sources tell NPR.

The tentative plan is for the president to make his announcement Dec. 1, followed shortly thereafter by testimony on Capitol Hill by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Also expected to brief Congress is the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

The central issue is how many more U.S. forces will be sent to fight a resurgent Taliban and train Afghan forces. There are now 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

McChrystal is pressing for an additional 40,000 troops. Sources say the president is expected to send a sizable force, though it's uncertain whether he will agree to the precise number McChrystal wants. If he makes a decision within the next week to send more troops, the forces likely won't arrive in Afghanistan until March.

Obama called his war council together Monday night in the White House situation room as he moved toward a decision.

The president has said he would announce his plans by year's end. He first called the high-powered national security team together in August as he began wrestling with a new plan for Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, where the al-Qaida leadership is believed to be hiding.
The White House said Obama could use Monday's session to lock in his long-awaited decision on whether to commit tens of thousands of new U.S. forces to the stalemated war.

McChrystal has said more U.S. forces were needed to head off a U.S. failure in the fight against Taliban militants in Afghanistan.

Military officials and others told The Associated Press they expect Obama to settle on a middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces to the eight-year-old conflict.

That rough figure has stood as the most likely option since before Obama's last large war council meeting earlier this month, when he tasked military planners with rearranging the timing and makeup of some of the deployments.

The president has said with increasing frequency in recent days that a big piece of the rethinking of options that he ordered had to do with building an exit strategy into the announcement — in other words, revising the options presented to him to clarify when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government and under what conditions.

As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it to reporters on Monday, it's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out."

Monday night's meeting included a large cast of foreign policy advisers, who were to go over revised information from war planners.

In a session expected to last 90 minutes, "they'll go through some of the questions that the president had, some additional answers to what he'd asked for, and have a discussion about that," Gibbs said.

The meeting was arranged for the unusual nighttime slot to accommodate both Obama's packed public schedule on Monday and the fact that many of his top advisers were leaving town for the holiday. No more war council meetings are on the calendar.

The presidential spokesman said it was possible Obama could lock in a decision at Monday's meeting or that it could come "over the course of the next several days." In either case, it will not be announced this week, he said.

The force infusion expected by the military would represent most but not all of the troops requested by Obama's war commander, for a retailored war plan that blends elements of McChrystal's counterterrorist strategy with tactics more closely associated with the CIA's unacknowledged war to hunt down terrorists across the border in Pakistan.

McChrystal presented options ranging from about 10,000 to about 80,000 forces and told Obama he preferred an addition of about 40,000 atop the record 68,000 in the country now, officials have said.

Obama has already ordered a significant expansion of 21,000 troops since taking office. The war has worsened on his watch, and public support has dropped as U.S. combat deaths have climbed.
According to officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity:

— Additional troops would be concentrated in the south and east of Afghanistan, the areas where the U.S. already has most of its forces.

— The effort already begun to help relieve Marines stretched to the limit by far-flung postings in Helmand province would continue, while the U.S. effort would expand somewhat in Kandahar.
— The increase would include at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent.

U.S. war planners would be forgoing the option of increasing U.S. fighting power in the north, a once-quiet quadrant where insurgents have grown in strength and number in the past year. But McChrystal's recommendation never called for a quick infusion there.

In the absence of large additions of ground forces, dealing with the north would probably require relying more heavily on air power, two military officials told the AP. Any such additional airstrikes would be more successful if, as U.S. officials hope, Pakistan turns up the heat on Taliban militants on their side of the border.

As originally envisioned by McChrystal, the additional U.S. troops would begin flowing in late January or after, on a deployment calendar that would be slower and more complex than that used to build up the Iraq "surge" in 2007. McChrystal's schedule for full deployment has it taking nearly two years, military officials said.

Said Obama in a television interview last week: "At the end of this process, I'm going to be able to present to the American people in very clear terms what exactly is at stake, what we intend to do, how we're going to succeed, how much it's going to cost, how long it's going to take."
Congressional hearings would immediately follow that address, including testimony from McChrystal.

On the topic of increased costs in Afghanistan, Gibbs said that the subject of a war tax, suggested by some leading Democrats on Capitol Hill, has not come up yet in the president's extensive meetings with his war advisers.

Lieberman and the Public Policy


Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."

Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? "The answer is no," he says in an interview from his Senate office. "I feel very strongly about this." How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won't be used unless private insurance plans aren't spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.

So any version of a public option will compel Mr. Lieberman to vote against bringing a bill to a final vote? "Correct," he says.

This is, of course, more than just one senator objecting to one part of health legislation. This is the former Democratic vice presidential nominee, now an independent, Joe Lieberman, still counted on to be the 60th vote Democrats will need to force a final vote on health legislation. In opposing a public option, he is opposing the element some Democratic liberals have come to consider the cornerstone of a health-care bill.

Maybe the Lieberman stance is posturing, or a maneuver to force a watering down of the public option into something he and like-minded Democratic conservatives can swallow. In any case, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to solve the Rubik's Cube that is health legislation, Mr. Lieberman just might represent the hardest piece to flip into place.

In spite of that, Mr. Lieberman insists he wants a bill. He voted with Democrats over the weekend on a procedural motion to let debate begin on a version that definitely includes a public option, albeit one states could choose not to join. "I want to get to the health-care debate, and I want to be part of creating, working on and passing health-care reform," he says. "I've been working on it for years, so that's my goal. But I'm not going to vote for anything and everything called health-care reform."

He says he wants the government to help uninsured Americans get coverage, as the bill envisions, and likes the provisions designed to bring down overall health costs. And he favors the consumer protections it would impose on private insurers, including one that bans insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing health conditions.

But none of that trumps his opposition to a public option, Mr. Lieberman says. And he insists his objection isn't based on the oft-expressed conservative fear that a public option would lead to a government takeover of health care. He says he doubts this or any subsequent Congress would allow that.

Rather, his objection is based on fiscal risk: "Once the government creates an insurance company or plan, the government or the taxpayers are liable for any deficit that government plan runs, really without limit," he says. "With our debt heading over $21 trillion within the next 10 years...we've got to start saying no to some things like this."

Mr. Lieberman also notes that the public option wasn't a big feature of past health-overhaul plans or the campaign debate of 2008. So he says he finds it odd that it now has become a central demand -- which it has, he suspects, because some Democrats wanted a full-bore, single-payer, government-run health plan, and were offered a public option as a consolation.

Critics, of course, think Mr. Lieberman is merely protecting insurers from his home state of Connecticut. He, of course, insists otherwise, arguing that regulation and litigation are the traditional and more appropriate ways to keep the private market honest. The real risk he sees, he insists, is government debt.

Yet he still thinks that, somehow, health legislation will get done, probably not by Christmas but early next year. "At the end of the day," he says, "I feel strongly health-care reform will pass the Senate and the Congress."

How? Mr. Lieberman says he has made his position absolutely clear to Mr. Reid. And Mr. Reid, all agree, is a wily tactician. So does he think Mr. Lieberman, and the two or three conservative Democrats who share his inclination, will give in at the end? Or is there some artful compromise that can be seen as including and not including a public option at the same time?

Here's another possibility: Maybe Mr. Reid plans to push as far as he can with a bill including a public option, to show his party he has done all humanly possible, before yanking the public option just before the whole effort goes off a cliff. We've proven that a bill is possible, he might say then, but also that a public option isn't.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Dems Split Over Healthcare Bill


President Barack Obama’s mission to reform US healthcare vaulted another legislative hurdle over the weekend, but the scramble to secure his own party’s votes sheds light on the messy compromises that may be needed to get it to the finish line.

Fissures between liberal and centrist Democrats cracked open on Sunday in the aftermath of a procedural vote, which paved the way for the estimated $848bn (€570bn, £514bn) draft Senate bill to be debated on the floor. Leaders hope there will be a vote on the bill by Christmas. If passed, the House and Senate versions will have to be mashed together.
Ben Nelson: 'When I saw the bill I said: 'This can be amended''

If this weekend is anything to go by, it will not be a pretty process. All Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents voted to push the bill forward – creating a filibuster-proof majority of 60 – but some of those votes came far from quietly. A group of centrist Democrats, unhappy about elements of the bill such as a public insurance option, managed to wring concessions from the leadership in return for their acquiescence.

In what wags have already dubbed the “Louisiana Purchase”, Mary Landrieu was offered at least $100m in extra federal money for her state. Ben Nelson won the omission of a provision that would strip health insurers of their anti-trust exemption. Blanche Lincoln won more time.
The group’s disproportionate power in the debate has antagonised some liberal Democrats. “In the end, I don’t want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it’s not going to be in it,” said Sherrod Brown of Ohio on Sunday on CNN.

“But in the end, I think that all four of our colleagues surveyed this . . . and I don’t think they want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t think they want to go back and say, ‘You know, on a procedural vote, I killed the most important bill in my political career’.”

As the debate gets going, the centrists will face increased pressure at home, where they are vulnerable to losing their seats if they are seen to let their colleagues in Washington push them too far to the left. Lobbyists on both sides of the debate are well aware of this, and are blitzing their home states with adverts.

Ms Lincoln claimed that groups had spent $3.3m on advertising in her state of Arkansas. She said she would refuse to yield to either side, but was shocked by the “unbelievable type of threats” she had received.

“These ad groups seem to think this is all about my re-election. I simply think they don’t know me very well,” she said on the Senate floor.

The group, which also includes independent senator Joe Lieberman, all said they wanted more changes made to the bill in the coming weeks.

“When I saw the bill I said, ‘This can be amended, this can be improved’,” Mr Nelson said on Sunday on ABC. He said language on federal funding for abortion, which is softer than that of the House bill, was one problem. He did signal he was willing to compromise on a public option, but said it would have to be much weaker than the current version, which has already been watered down to allow states to opt out.

“We could negotiate a public option of some sort that I might look at, but I don’t want a big government, Washington-run operation that would undermine the . . . private insurance that 200m Americans now have,” he said.

Mr Lieberman, though, was more intransigent.

“[A public option] is a radical departure from the way we’ve responded to the market in America in the past,” he told NBC. “We rely first on competition in our market economy. When the competition fails then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate.”

The weekend’s vote was a victory for Harry Reid, Senate leader, but he acknowledged that it was simply an opening skirmish in a battle that is now set to break into full force. Much of that battle will take place within his own party.

“Tonight’s vote is not the end of the debate,” he said on Saturday night. “It is only the beginning.”

Thursday, November 19, 2009

New York Prepares for Terror Trial


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Forty percent of New Yorkers believe the trial of accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed makes an attack on the city more likely, according to a new poll, while security experts say it is already the top target in America.

The planned trial of Mohammed and four accused accomplices has stoked debate in the city where nearly 3,000 people died in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor at the time of the attacks, and others say it makes the city a target, but police say they can handle such events. Some on Wall Street who lost colleagues in the attacks say they are sickened at the prospect.

A Marist College Institute for Public Opinion poll on Tuesday found 40 percent of New Yorkers say holding the trial blocks from Ground Zero, the site of the destroyed World Trade towers, increases likelihood of another attack in the city.

The telephone survey of 602 New Yorkers had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

A Daily News editorial on Tuesday called the trial, "a profoundly wrong step that will undermine the War on Terror and increase the threat to New York."

But Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief, said: "It will be an extraordinary event in terms of media coverage and the public reaction to the theater ... but in terms of physically presenting a greater threat to the city of New York, or the citizens of New York, I don't think so."

"I'm not sure it presents any greater danger to New York, which is already a symbol for terrorists," he said.

U.S. Republican Representative Peter King of New York took the opposite view.
"Detaining and trying these five terrorists only a few blocks from the World Trade Center site where, by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's design, thousands were brutally murdered puts our nation -- and New York City -- at greater risk," King said.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said last week the five men would be removed from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba ahead of their trial in a Manhattan federal court, which he called an ideal venue and the site of many successful prosecutions of accused terrorists since 2001.

POLICE SAY CITY IS PREPARED

New York City's police department said the city will handle the trial without security problems.
"There's already security improvements in the area that lend itself to providing a secure environment for a trial like this," said police spokesman Paul Browne. "We've dealt with high-profile events, including terrorism-related ones, many times. We're prepared for this one."

He declined to detail what precautions were planned or the costs for trial security, except to say that he expected Washington to reimburse the city for its costs.

Browne said eight terrorism plots against the city have been scuttled since 2001, including plots to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and the retaining wall at Ground Zero.

The five accused men could be brought to New York within weeks and will likely be held in a high-security wing of the Metropolitan Correctional Center known as "10-South," a fortress-like unit in the heart of the Chinatown neighborhood.

The lower Manhattan jail has held multiple high-profile defendants in recent years, including Omar Abdel-Rahman, known as the "Blind Sheik", who was convicted in 1995 for conspiring to blow up the United Nations building and other New York City landmarks, and admitted U.S. swindler Bernard Madoff.

"The defendants in this case (will) go from their jail to the courthouse without ever being outside," Browne said.

Giuliani said the trial would give "an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists" and pose risks to New York. "Anyone that tells you this doesn't create additional security problems, of course, isn't telling you the truth," said Giuliani, who spoke to CNN and Fox News.

Michael Bloomberg, the current mayor, said, "It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered."

As many as 7 percent of New Yorkers have some form of post-traumatic stress disorder because of the September 11 attacks, said Yuval Neria, director of the Trauma and PTSD Program at the New York State Psychiatric Institute at Columbia University. And while the trial could be cathartic for some, "for others, it will be brutally painful," Neria said.

Howard Lutnick, chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost 658 of its 960 New York employees in the September 11 attacks, said he found the planned trial distressing.

"The concept of this being a circus just nauseates me. I can't get my head around it," Lutnick told the Reuters Global Finance Summit in New York.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

A Day Without Complaining


Sure, the economy sucks. Unemployment is at least 10.2% and, yes, if you include part-time workers who would rather have full-time jobs it may be over 17%. The government is showering our cash on Wall Street and burning through piles of our children and grandchildren’s money “saving” phantom jobs in Congressional Districts that don’t exist.

Oh yeah, and Congress is planning for a government take-over of our health care system, legislating higher energy prices and raising taxes. Sheesh, no wonder we’re feeling blue.

Well, not to worry, three-term Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) has found a solution: Stop Complaining So Much. Rep. Cleaver is currently circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter, seeking co-sponsors for House Concurrent Resolution 155, designating the day before Thanksgiving as the official “Complaint Free Wednesday.”

You see, as the Congressman explains:

From time to time, we all experience anxiety, frustration, stress, and regret. And often, we respond to these feelings with a criticism or a complaint. Regrettably, complaining keeps people stuck on current problems, inhibiting them from thinking constructively to find solutions. Research has also shown that complaining can be harmful to one’s emotional and physical health; relationships; and can limit professional career success.

We will set aside the question of whether Rep. Cleaver has discovered the risk of too much complaining only because his party’s legislative proposals are tanking in the polls. We do think it is interesting that he believes we should focus on “solutions” and “look forward”, subtle prods to enact new laws and programs.

We are torn on the larger question of whether Congress should even be wasting any time on such silliness as “official” days for this or that. On the one hand, it is surely a waste of taxpayer money and a decidedly unserious response to our challenges. On the other, though, every moment spent on things like this is a moment that isn’t spent re-regulating huge swaths of the economy.

We do know one thing, though: The Age of Pericles this ain’t.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Uncle Jay Explains Congress

One of my favorite episodes!
Enjoy!

Abortion Debate in Healthcare Bill


The US Senate could start debating its final healthcare reform bill as early as Tuesday, pitting Democrat against Democrat over the controversial question of abortion coverage.


The debate puts Barack Obama, who campaigned as pro-choice, in the middle of one of the most emotional and enduring debates in US politics, potentially forcing him to take sides on an issue he has tried to avoid since becoming president.


The House of Representatives this month passed a healthcare reform bill that would sharply curtail access to abortion. Several Democrats in the Senate have said they want similar restrictions in their own bill.


Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the upper chamber, is “still consulting with members of his caucus” on the abortion issue, one aide said, and it is not yet clear whether he will include the restrictions.


“This is a horrible dilemma,” said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. “The Democrats have to pass something – they have no choice,” he said, adding that they have backed themselves into a corner by making healthcare reform a priority.


The House passed a bill including the “Stupak-Pitts” amendment, which not only prevents abortion coverage in the public health insurance option but also prohibits private health insurers that have any customers receiving federal subsidies from offering abortion coverage to anyone else.


This is sharply more restrictive than even the 1976 Hyde amendment, which banned the use of federal funds to pay for terminations, and pro-choice activists say it amounts to a de facto ban on abortion.


“It would be a great irony if we worked so hard to elect a pro-choice president and this law passed on his watch,” said Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organisation for Women, one of the pro-choice leaders who met Rahm Emmanuel, the president’s chief of staff, this week to lobby against such measures.


“This would basically sweep aside Roe v Wade. Women are calling us and they are furious,” Ms O’Neill said, referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalising first- trimester abortions.
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York senator, gathered prominent pro-choice advocates, including feminist Gloria Steinem, on Monday to protest what she called a “discriminatory and dangerous anti-choice provision”, one that would “prevent women from purchasing reproductive insurance with their own money and put the health of millions of women and young girls at grave risk”.


Mr Obama has tried to avoid talking about abortion since taking office, instead stressing the need to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but is now being drawn into the debate.


“This is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill,” Mr Obama told ABC News last week. “We’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidise abortions.”


Mr Reid, who is facing a tough re-election campaign in Nevada next year, will have a difficult balancing act as Democrats occupy 60 seats in the Senate – the exact number needed to pass a bill.


Both camps are saying they have the upper hand. Barbara Boxer, a California liberal, last week said that supporters of stronger restrictions on abortion funding would not be able to muster 60 votes. “It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time,” she told the Huffington Post.


But Ben Nelson, a moderate from Nebraska, said he would not vote for healthcare reform unless it included the abortion provisions and a handful of other “blue dog Democrats” have signalled the same.


“I think it’s extremely likely that they can get this through the Senate, with the leadership of Ben Nelson,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that seeks to elect female candidates who oppose abortion.


But can Mr Obama put his signature on a bill – the Senate and House leaders plan to have one on his desk by the end of the year – that would go against the principles he has long espoused?


“He has staked so much of his future on this healthcare bill,” said Bill Galston, a former Clinton administration adviser now at the Brookings Institution. “If it comes to his desk [with a Stupak-style clause], the president is not going to veto it for that reason. He will then have to start the task of public explanations.”