Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
3/21/2013 10:34:40 AM

Senate vote: OK $85 billion cuts, avert shutdown

Senate votes to avert government shutdown, lock in $85 billion in cuts _ with some flexibility

10 hrs ago

Associated Press -

FILE - In this March 18, 2013 file photo, House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Senate pressed ahead Wednesday on a huge, bipartisan spending bill aimed at keeping the government running through September and ruling out the chance of a government shutdown later this month. The developments in the Senate come as the House resumed debate on the budget for next year and beyond. Republicans are pushing a plan that promises sharp cuts to federal health care programs and domestic agency operating budgets as the price for balancing the budget in a decade. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate approved legislation Wednesday to lock in $85 billion in widely decried spending cuts aimed at restraining soaring federal deficits — and to avoid a government shutdown just a week away. President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats rejected a call to reopenWhite House tours scrapped because of the tightened spending.

Federal meat inspectors were spared furloughs, but more than 100 small and medium air traffic facilities were left exposed to possible closure as the two parties alternately clashed and cooperated over proposals to take the edge off across-the-board spending cuts that took effect on March 1.

Final House approval of the measure is likely as early as Thursday. Obama's signature is a certainty, meaning the cuts will remain in place at least through the end of the budget year on Sept. 30 — even though he and lawmakers in both parties have criticized them as random rather than targeted. Obama argued strongly against them in campaign-style appearances, predicting painful consequences, before they began taking effect, and Republicans objected to impacts on Pentagon spending.

Without changes, the $85 billion in cuts for the current year will swell to nearly $1 trillion over a decade, enough to make at least a small dent in economy-threatening federal deficits but requiring program cuts that lawmakers in both parties say are unsustainable politically. As a result, negotiations are possible later in the year to replace the reductions with different savings.

The administration as well as Republicans picked and chose its spots in arguing for flexibility in this year's cuts.

"My hope is that gets done," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said earlier in the week of the effort to prevent layoffs among inspectors that could disrupt the nation's food supply chain. "If it does not, come mid-July we will furlough meat inspectors," he added, departing from the administration's general position that flexibility should ease all the cuts or none at all.

Nor did the White House resist a bipartisan plan to prevent any cut in tuition assistance programs for members of military.

The final vote was 73-26, with 51 Democrats, 20 Republicans and two independents in favor and 25 Republicans and Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana opposed.

Political considerations were on ample display in both houses as lawmakers labored over measures relating to spending priorities, both for this year and a decade into the future.

Rep. Mark Mulvaney, R-S.C., said he had wanted the House to vote on Obama's own budget, but he noted the president hadn't yet released one. "It's with great regret ... that I'm not able to offer" a presidential budget for a vote, he said. He added he had wanted to vote on a placeholder — "34 pages full of question marks" — but House rules prevented it.

Minority Democrats advanced a plan that calls for $1 trillion in higher taxes, $500 billion in spending cuts over a decade and a $200 billion economic stimulus package. Republicans voted it down, 253-165.

They are expected to approve their own very different blueprint on Thursday.

It calls for $4.6 trillion in spending cuts over a decade and no tax increases, a combination that projects to a balanced budget in 10 years' time. That spending plan would indeed be simply a blueprint, lacking any actual control over federal spending.

The issues were grittier in the Senate, where lawmakers grappled with the immediate impact of across-the-board cuts on individual programs.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a deficit hawk, said he wanted to reopen the White House tours, shut down since earlier in the month. He said his proposal would take about $8 million from the National Heritage Partnership Program and apply it toward "opening up the tours at the White House, opening up Yellowstone National Park and the rest of the national parks."

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters previously the decision the cancel the White House tours was made by the Secret Service because "it would be, in their view, impossible to staff those tours; that they would have to withdraw staff from those tours in order to avoid more furloughs and overtime pay cuts."

But in remarks on the Senate floor, Coburn said, "This is a Park Service issue, not a Secret Service issue."

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said the funds involved in Coburn's amendment would not go to the Secret Service, and as a result the tours "would not be affected." He also said the Heritage program, a public-private partnership, helps produce economic development and should not be cut.

The vote was 54-45 against the proposal. Montana Sen. Max Baucus, whose state borders on Yellowstone National Park, was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans.

The Park Service has announced some parks may open late to automobile traffic this spring becausebudget cuts have reduced funds available to clear roads of winter snow.

The overall legislation locks in the $85 billion in spending cuts through the end of the budget year, yet provides several departments and agencies with flexibility in coping with them. It extends flexibility to the Pentagon, the departments of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Justice, State and Commerce and the Food and Drug Administration.

But bipartisanship has its limits, and in private negotiations Republicans rejected Democratic attempts to provide flexibility for the rest of the government.

That set off a scramble among lawmakers to round up support for changes on a case-by-case basis.

The provision to prevent furloughs for federal meat inspectors had the support of industry as well as from both sides of the political aisle and cleared without a vote. It was supported by Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, a Democrat seeking re-election next year, and Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, who quietly helped Democrats round up the votes they needed to clear the legislation over a procedural hurdle.

The effect was to transfer $55 million to the Agriculture Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service from other accounts within the department, including deferred maintenance.

"Without this funding, every meat, poultry, and egg processing facility in the country would be forced to shut down for up to two weeks," said Blunt. "That means high food prices and less work for the hardworking Americans who work in these facilities nationwide."

In contrast to Blunt, Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, opposed Democrats when they sought to overcome procedural hurdles earlier in the week.

In the days since, he repeatedly refused to let the bill advance unless he was given a chance to cancel about $50 million in cuts aimed at contract employees at more than 170 air traffic facilities around the country. In the end, his amendment was jettisoned without a vote.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
3/21/2013 4:46:58 PM

Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood says it rejects violence

Associated Press/Nasser Nasser, File - FILE - In this Sunday, March 17, 2013 file photo, An Egyptian activist walks past burning tires during an anti Muslim Brotherhood protest in front of the Brotherhood's headquarters, in Cairo, Egypt. A panel of judges on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 has recommended the dissolution of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group from which President Mohammed Morsi hails. The recommendation is not binding, but is significant given charges by the opposition that the Brotherhood’s leadership is the real power behind Morsi. The president and Brotherhood have repeatedly denied the charge. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser, File)

CAIRO (AP) — A senior Muslim Brotherhood leader said Thursday that the group was prepared, if asked, to hand over to authorities members for questioning over a recent assault on activists and reporters.

Mahmoud Hussein told reporters that the Brotherhood, of which President Mohammed Morsi is a longtime leader, rejects violence and will hold its members accountable if they are found guilty of beating protesters who were spray-painting graffiti and trying to plaster posters on the walls of the group's headquarters in Cairo.

However, he refused to apologize for the March 16 assault, saying the building's guards were provoked by the protesters and alleging that local reporters at the scene were involved in the demonstration.

The fundamentalist movement that has become Egypt's most powerful political force after the ouster of authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak has frequently been criticized for what is seen as heavy-handed behavior against secular and liberal protesters who accuse it of trying to usurp too much power.

The skirmishes began when the Brotherhood supporters tried to stop the protesters, who responded with taunts and hostile chants, according to videos posted on social networks.

Other clips show the Brotherhood's members, mostly bearded with a heavy build, punching and slapping the protesters, and hitting them with sticks. Those assaulted included a woman, who was slapped to the ground.

Diaa Rashwan, the newly elected head of the journalists' union, has lodged a complaint over the assault on the reporters with the attorney general, the country's top prosecutor.

Activists plan a protest Friday outside the Brotherhood headquarters over the assault.

Hussein said the guards' actions were in defense of the building and the group would only apologize if the courts convict its members of assault.

Hussein said the police bore the primary responsibility for protecting public and private properties, but vowed the Brotherhood will use all means to defend against attacks on its offices. At least a dozen offices belonging to the group were attacked late last year at the height of the latest bout of political crisis.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
3/21/2013 4:53:05 PM

US, Karzai deal leaves most US commandos in Wardak


Associated Press/Ahmad Jamshid - An Afghan Army soldier secures the hill overlooking the Kart-e Sakhi mosque in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, March 20, 2013. Thousands of Afghans will celebrate on Thursday, March 21, 2013, the Iranian New Year Nowruz, marking the first day of spring and the beginning of the year on the Iranian calendar. (AP Photo/Ahmad Jamshid)

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan's president on Wednesday relented in his demand for all U.S. special operations forces to withdraw from a strategic province east of the capital, agreeing to a compromise calling for the pullout of one team implicated in abuse allegations that the Americans have rejected.

The dispute underscores the fragile negotiations under way asHamid Karzai seeks to redefine and expand control of his country and the United States and its allies prepare to end their combat missions by the end of 2014.

Wardak province is viewed as a gateway to Kabul and has been the focus of counterinsurgency efforts in recent years. But Karzai last month ordered all U.S. special operations forces out after local villagers accused Afghan troops working with the Americans there of torture, illegal detentions and other abuses.

The U.S.-led coalition denied the allegations. But NATO said Karzai and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the U.S. commander of all allied forces, had agreed Wednesday to remove a team of commandos and turn over security to government forces in Wardak's Nirkh district, the center of the allegations.

British Army Lt. Gen. Nick Carter, deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, said it will be "business as usual" for U.S. special operations forces elsewhere in the restive province.

In an interview from Kabul with Pentagon reporters, Carter also described a somewhat vague timeline for the Nirkh transition, saying it will come "once the plan has been put together and there is confidence on all sides that it is possible" for the Afghans to take over security there.

Clarifying an earlier statement from NATO, Carter said the Afghan local police who work with U.S. special operation forces could stay on in some form, possibly paired with elite Afghan troops in place of the Americans — or they might be replaced by conventional Afghan forces, but that would be up to the Afghan security chiefs to determine.

The deal took more than three weeks for U.S. and Afghan security officials to craft and was reached more than a week after the expiration of the deadline for the U.S. pullout initially set by Karzai.

The compromise came after a string of anti-American rhetoric from the Afghan leader that appears aimed at gaining favor with the Afghan public as he nears the end of his second and final term.

Karzai has long complained the U.S. special operations forces and their Afghan partners have operated outside his control, but he must tread a delicate balance between his calls for a faster withdrawal and the continued need for foreign protection.

His demand that U.S. commandos withdraw from Wardak province, for example, raised fears that the move would leave the area and the neighboring capital of Kabul more vulnerable to al-Qaida and other insurgents who are active there.

The agreement will speed up the handover of security in the troubled province, faster than U.S. officials and some members of Karzai's own government had recommended or planned.

Carter suggested that the shift in Nirkh will serve as a test for the broad NATO plans to gradually shift security control of the country to the Afghans and withdraw U.S. and NATO combat forces by the end of 2014.

"This is a very interesting pilot, if you like, in terms of how transition will occur over the course of the next year or so," he said. "Wardak is probably one of most complicated provinces that we have had to deal with, and how this goes, I think, will be a good bellwether of how the overall transition process works."

Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Zahir Azimi said Afghan forces were ready to fill the gap.

"The international forces are ready to withdraw the special forces from Nirkh district of MaidanWardak province, and Afghan army units are going to replace them in the coming days," Azimi said at a news conference Wednesday in Kabul.

Speaking ahead of the announcement of the deal, Karzai's spokesman Aimal Faizi said Afghan security forces would take control of the entire province eventually, so the gradual transfer "can be a testing period."

Faizi insisted earlier this week that an Afghan-American man working for the U.S. special operations forces was filmed abusing a suspect, on U.S. orders. The spokesman said the video was obtained during an Afghan defense ministry investigation, which was completed over the weekend.

Dunford rejected the abuse charge in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. He said a recently completed U.S. investigation found the interpreter in question was not working with U.S. forces at the time of the incident.

"We've investigated this three times, so I'm confident," Dunford said. "There were no U.S. forces in or around that incident, and the interpreter was not in our employ at the time of the incident."

The U.S. maintains dozens of small special operations posts across Afghanistan intended to help extend security and Afghan government influence to more remote, Taliban strongholds that are beyond the geographic range of the Afghan army or police. American commandos partner with small bands of Afghan Local Police or "ALP," a force roughly 20,000 strong that was created by the U.S., and later incorporated into the Afghan Interior Ministry. While the units work with Americans, they answer to the local district police chief, according to an Afghan security official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the program.

But Karzai's national security council has delayed an Interior Ministry request to recruit and train another 45,000 local police. Karzai believes the units are "outside his control," Faizi said, adding that some members have been caught preying on locals with impromptu checkpoints, or abusing the civilians under their care.

U.S. and Afghan officials point out the Afghan Interior Ministry handed over five local police accused of rape for prosecution last year. The men were given lengthy jail sentences. But the United Nations mission to Afghanistan says accountability among the units is uneven, varying from province to province.

With the Wardak disagreement resolved, U.S. and Afghan officials can now work on the delayed transfer of the Parwan Detention Center to the Afghans. Dunford told the AP that the two sides still had to come up with an acceptable way to allow the U.S. to check that the detainees they hand over are being treated humanely, as well as a way to cement Karzai's assurances that 30-40 detainees the U.S. considers dangerous will not be released.

"It's my expectation that Gen. Dunford is making good progress in terms of his discussions with the president on all of this, and that we will be working towards a resolution to the problem during the course of the next week or so," said deputy commander Carter.

___

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor in Washington, Rahim Faiez in Kabul and Mirwais Khan in Kandahar, Afghanistan, contributed.

___

Dozier can be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/KimberlyDozier.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
3/21/2013 5:00:44 PM
I don't know what a pledge like this can be worth at this point

Obama pledges resolve against Iran's nuclear aims

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
3/21/2013 5:10:07 PM

Analysis: Israeli settlements at core of conflict

2 hrs 14 mins ago

Associated Press/Carolyn Kaster - President Barack Obama, right, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, front left, walk along to red carpet for a troop review during an arrival ceremony as Obama arrives at the Muqata Presidential Compound Thursday, March 21, 2013, in the West Bank town of Ramallah. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

President Barack Obama waves to media as he walks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, right, as he arrives at the Muqata Presidential Compound Thursday, March 21, 2013, in the West Bank town of Ramallah. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

JERUSALEM (AP) — The sprawling Jewish settlements built on war-won land in defiance of much of the world emerged Thursday as the key friction point in President Barack Obama's talks with thePalestinians.

The Palestinians argue that they can't return to talks on drawing a border between Israel and a future Palestine while Israel unilaterally shapes that line through accelerated settlement expansion.

Obama, meanwhile, made clear that he's not willing to pressure Israel to halt construction — something he briefly tried at the beginning of his first term, before backing down when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resisted.

Asked about a possible freeze Thursday, Obama said that "if the only way to even begin the conversations is that we get everything right at the outside, or at least each party is constantly negotiating about what's required to get in the talks in the first place, then we are never going to get to the broader issue" of achieving sovereignty for the Palestinians and security for Israelis.

Abbas openly disagreed with the U.S. president, saying the Palestinians are sticking to their position. He noted that it's the view of the international community, not just the Palestinians, that settlements are illegal.

With the road to negotiations apparently blocked and settlements growing steadily, time for a partition deal may be running out, Israeli settlement monitors and European diplomats have warned.

"We are reaching the tipping point," said settlement watcher and Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli lawyer.

"A year from now, if the current trends continue, the two-state solution will not be possible. The map will be so balkanized that it will not be possible to create a credible border between Israel and Palestine," he said.

Palestinians also argue that after two decades of intermittent negotiations, the contours of an agreement have widely been established and it's time for decisions, not endless rounds of diplomacy. They suspect Netanyahu is seeking open-ended negotiations to give him diplomatic cover for more settlement-building, while being unwilling to make the needed concessions.

Netanyahu has said he is willing to negotiate the terms of a Palestinian state. He reiterated Wednesday, with Obama by his side, that he is ready to return to talks but also said there should be no "preconditions" — his term for the Palestinians' insistence on a settlement freeze.

The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem — territories Israel captured in the 1967 war — but are ready for minor adjustments to accommodate some settlements closest to Israel.

The parameters of a deal outlined by then-President Bill Clinton in 2000 envisioned a partition of Jerusalem along ethnic lines and an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank.

Since 1967, Israel has built dozens of settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem that are now home to 560,000 Israelis — an increase of 60,000 since Obama became president four years ago, settler officials say.

In Gaza, Israel dismantled nearly two dozen settlements ahead of its pullout in 2005. The Islamic militant group Hamas then seized the territory, and Gaza militants have fired hundreds of rockets on Israeli towns, including two on Thursday. Such attacks have given rise to a widespread belief among Israelis that withdrawing from more territory will not bring peace.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has adopted a tougher starting position for negotiations than his predecessors. He refuses to accept the 1967 frontier as a baseline for border talks and says he will not relinquish east Jerusalem, an area Israel expanded into the West Bank and annexed immediately after the 1967 war.

Since that war, Israeli governments have built homes for Jews in east Jerusalem, creating a ring of settlements that increasingly disconnects its Arab-populated core from the rest of the West Bank. Some 200,000 Jews now live in east Jerusalem, almost even with the Palestinian population in the city, which overall has about 800,000 residents.

In recent months, the Netanyahu government has approved construction plans for thousands more settlement apartments on Jerusalem's southern edge that would further isolate Arab neighborhoods in the city from the West Bank, including the nearby biblical city of Bethlehem.

European diplomats warned in an internal report last month that if the current pace of settlement activity on Jerusalem's southern flank continues, "an effective buffer between east Jerusalem and Bethlehem may be in place by the end of 2013, thus making the realization of a viable two-state solution inordinately more difficult, if not impossible."

The Israeli anti-settlement group Peace Now said in a report earlier this year that the government has "opened the floodgates" of planning approvals and future building in east Jerusalem.

An Israeli official said Israel is mainly building in areas it expects to keep in any future peace deal.

The Palestinians say settlements are a major obstacle. Mainly, they cannot envisage a final peace settlement while their state is cut off from Jerusalem and does not include any of the city.

It's not clear if the new Israeli government sworn in on Monday — although its makeup is more centrist — will change course from the outgoing one which was heavily stacked with settlers and their supporters.

The main coalition partner of Netanyahu's rightist Likud Party is the centrist Yesh Atid, which has called for a resumption of negotiations but whose leader, Yair Lapid, says Israel must keep all of Jerusalem.

The third largest party, the Jewish Home, opposes Palestinian statehood and wants to annex 60 percent of the West Bank.

Henry Siegman, a leading critic of Israeli policy in the American Jewish community, said he believes Obama is fully aware of the corrosive effect of settlements. Time for a deal is slipping away and Obama cannot make do with four more years of just managing the conflict, he said.

"They (U.S. officials) know that if they do nothing, they are sealing the doom of the two-state solution if it has not already been sealed," said Siegman. "It cannot survive another four years, given the rate of colonization that is taking place."

____

Laub is the AP chief correspondent in the Palestinian territories. She has covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1987.

___

Associated Press writers Daniel Estrin and Josef Federman in Jerusalem contributed to this story.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!