Bernanke urges Congress to lift debt ceiling

WASHINGTON: US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday urged Congress to raise the nation's borrowing limit as Democrats and Republicans battle over the federal budget.

"It's very, very important that Congress take the necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid the situation where the government doesn't pay its bills," Bernanke said at a University of Michigan forum.

The United States ran up against its current borrowing limit of US$16.4 trillion at the end of 2012, but the Treasury says it is using "extraordinary measures" to extend the limit until late February.

"The right way to deal with this problem... is for Congress to do what it needs to do," Bernanke said.

"The way to address it is to have a sensible plan for spending and a sensible plan for revenue."

Earlier on Monday US President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to rival Republicans against using the debt ceiling as leverage to get more spending cuts, saying the failure to raise it would sew financial chaos.

Congress's refusal to raise the debt limit beyond its current level of US$16.4 trillion could delay key government payments.

Obama warned that this could include Social Security checks and veterans benefits, paychecks to troops, air traffic controllers, and the honouring of contracts with small businesses.

- AFP/jc

Read More..

Armstrong apologizes to staff, doesn't mention steroids

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

Lance Armstrong over the years

<<

<

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

>

>>

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Armstrong didn't address steroids during tearful apology, spokeswoman says


• Disgraced cyclist is sorry work is stressful for those at Livestrong, she says


• Armstrong has agreed to 90-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey


• Armstrong is expected to talk about doping allegations, her network says

(CNN) -- Just hours before he was to tape an interview expected to address allegations of performance-enhancing drug use, disgraced cycling legend Lance Armstrong apologized to the staff of the cancer charity he started, a publicist for the charity -- Livestrong -- said.

Armstrong was tearful during the 15-minute meeting and didn't address the issue of steroid use in cycling, Rae Bazzarre, director of communications for the Livestrong Foundation, said.

Bazzarre added that Armstrong offered a "sincere and heartfelt apology for the stress they've endured because of him."

He urged them to keep working hard to help cancer survivors and their families.

Armstrong is scheduled to sit down in his hometown of Austin, Texas, with talk show queen Oprah Winfrey on Monday for his first interview since he was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles in a blood-doping scandal.

Read more: Oprah interview with Lance Armstrong airs January 17

For decades Armstrong has denied he used performance-enhancing drugs or doped, but he was linked to a doping scandal by nearly a dozen other former cyclists who have admitted to doping.

What Armstrong says or does not say to Winfrey can have ramifications.

Some media outlets have reported that Armstrong has been strongly considering the possibility of a confession, possibly as a way to stem the tide of fleeing sponsors and as part of a long-term redemptive comeback plan.

But such a confession might lend weight to the lawsuits that could await him.

The interview will not air until 9 p.m. ET Thursday on the Oprah Winfrey Network. But the speculations swirled Monday.

"I don't think we're going to get an out-and-out confession," says CNN sports anchor Patrick Snell. "I think we're going to get something like, 'This is what went on during this era of trying to compete at the highest level.'"

Snell cautions, though, that a confession may not come at all.

Armstrong, 41, has repeatedly and vehemently denied that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs as well as illegal blood transfusions during his cycling career.

Winfrey will ask Armstrong to address the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's October report, which said there was overwhelming evidence he was directly involved in a sophisticated doping program, a statement from her network said last week.

The International Cycling Union, which chose not to appeal the USADA's lifetime ban, stripped Armstrong of his record seven Tour victories.

The World Anti-Doping Agency also agreed with the sanctions, which means Armstrong may not compete in sports governed by that agency's code.

Before the ban, he was competing in Ironman triathlons and had won two of the five events he had entered.

Since the ban he has entered two non-sanctioned events.

Report: Armstrong offered to donate $250,000 to anti-doping agency

Why now?

So, why might Armstrong choose to make a confession now?

"I would suspect that he sees this as certainly his best way forward," Snell says. "He would have taken strong legal advice, of course. When you look at the kind of stuff that Oprah's done over the years, it's a chance to get ... heartfelt emotions across."

The New York Times has reported that Armstrong was contemplating publicly admitting he used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Such an admission might lead toward Armstrong regaining his eligibility.

One of his attorneys denied Armstrong was in discussion with the two anti-doping agencies.

Attorney Tim Herman, in a recent e-mail to CNN Sports, did not address whether Armstrong told associates -- as reported by the newspaper -- that he was considering an admission.

But such an admission could open him up to lawsuits, something Armstrong is likely well aware of.

"He is surrounded by the best legal advice, the best legal team," Snell says. "It's very hard for anyone to imagine him going into this without having been fully briefed, made aware of absolutely every scenario."

Winfrey has promised a "no-holds-barred" interview, with no conditions and no payment made to Armstrong.

Drug tests

In the past, Armstrong has argued that he took more than 500 drug tests and never failed.

In its 202-page report that detailed Armstrong's alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions, the USADA said it had tested Armstrong less than 60 times and the International Cycling Union conducted about 215 tests.

The agency did not say that Armstrong ever failed a test, but his former teammates testified as to how they beat tests or avoided the tests altogether.

The New York Times, citing unnamed associates and anti-doping officials, said Armstrong has been in discussions with USADA officials and hopes to meet with David Howman, chief of the World Anti-Doping Agency. The newspaper said none of the people with knowledge of Armstrong's situation wanted to be identified because it would jeopardize their access to information on the matter.

Under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, an athlete who confesses to using performance-enhancing drugs may be eligible for a reinstatement.

Awaiting Armstrong's 'last word'

Armstrong: The legend and the fall

Armstrong has been an icon for his cycling feats and celebrity, bringing more status to a sport wildly popular in some nations but lacking big-name recognition, big money and mass appeal in the United States.

He fought back from testicular cancer to win the Tour from 1999 to 2005. He raised millions via his Lance Armstrong Foundation to help cancer victims and survivors, an effort illustrated by trendy yellow "LiveSTRONG" wristbands that helped bring in the money.

But Armstrong has long been dogged by doping allegations, with compatriot Floyd Landis -- who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after failing a drug test -- making a series of claims in 2011.

Armstrong sued the USADA last year to stop its investigation of him, arguing it did not have the right to prosecute him. But after a federal judge dismissed the case, Armstrong said he would no longer participate in the investigation.

In October 2012, Armstrong was stripped of his titles and banned from cycling. Weeks later, he stepped down from the board of his foundation, Livestrong.

It is unclear whether Armstrong would face criminal prosecution for perjury should he confess. Armstrong was involved in several cases where he gave sworn testimony that he never used banned drugs.

Kurtz: Can even Oprah save Lance Armstrong?

CNN's Ed Lavandera, Steve Almasy Jillian Martin and Chelsea J. Carter contributed to this report.

Read More..

AP: Armstrong gives tearful apology to Livestrong

AUSTIN, Texas Lance Armstrong apologized to the staff at his Livestrong cancer foundation before heading to an interview with Oprah Winfrey, a person with direct knowledge of the meeting told The Associated Press.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussion was private.

Play Video

Lance Armstrong to "speak candidly" to Oprah Winfrey

38 Photos

Lance Armstrong

Stripped last year of his seven Tour de France titles because of doping charges, Armstrong addressed the staff Monday and said, "I'm sorry." The person said the disgraced cyclist choked up and several employees cried during the session.

The person also said Armstrong apologized for letting the staff down and putting Livestrong at risk but he did not make a direct confession to the group about using banned drugs. He said he would try to restore the foundation's reputation, and urged the group to continue fighting for the charity's mission of helping cancer patients and their families.

After the meeting, Armstrong, his legal team and close advisers gathered at a downtown Austin hotel for the interview.

The cyclist will make a limited confession to Winfrey about his role as the head of a long-running scheme to dominate the Tour with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs, a person with knowledge of the situation has told the AP.

Winfrey and her crew had earlier said they would film the interview, to be broadcast Thursday, at his home but the location apparently changed to a hotel. Local and international news crews staked out positions in front of the cyclist's Spanish-style villa before dawn, hoping to catch a glimpse of Winfrey or Armstrong.

Armstrong still managed to slip away for a run Monday morning despite the crowds gathering outside his house. He returned home by cutting through a neighbor's yard and hopping a fence.

During a jog on Sunday, Armstrong talked to the AP for a few minutes saying, "I'm calm, I'm at ease and ready to speak candidly." He declined to go into specifics.

Armstrong lost all seven Tour titles following a voluminous U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report that portrayed him as a ruthless competitor, willing to go to any lengths to win the prestigious race. USADA chief executive Travis Tygart labeled the doping regimen allegedly carried out by the U.S. Postal Service team that Armstrong once led, "The most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

Play Video

Anti-doping chief: Armstrong bullied witnesses

In a recent "60 Minutes Sports" interview, Tygart described Armstrong and his team of doctors, coaches and riders as similar to a "Mafia" that kept their secret for years and intimidated riders into silently following their illegal methods.

Yet Armstrong looked like just another runner getting in his roadwork when he talked to the AP, wearing a red jersey and black shorts, sunglasses and a white baseball cap pulled down to his eyes. Leaning into a reporter's car on the shoulder of a busy Austin road, he seemed unfazed by the attention and the news crews that made stops at his home. He cracked a few jokes about all the reporters vying for his attention, then added, "but now I want to finish my run," and took off down the road.

The interview with Winfrey will be Armstrong's first public response to the USADA report. Armstrong is not expected to provide a detailed account about his involvement, nor address in depth many of the specific allegations in the more than 1,000-page USADA report.

In a text to the AP on Saturday, Armstrong said: "I told her (Winfrey) to go wherever she wants and I'll answer the questions directly, honestly and candidly. That's all I can say."

After a federal investigation of the cyclist was dropped without charges being brought last year, USADA stepped in with an investigation of its own. The agency deposed 11 former teammates and accused Armstrong of masterminding a complex and brazen drug program that included steroids, blood boosters and a range of other performance-enhancers.

Play Video

Lance Armstrong offered donation to USADA during investigation

Once all the information was out and his reputation shattered, Armstrong defiantly tweeted a picture of himself on a couch at home with all seven of the yellow leader's jerseys on display in frames behind him. But the preponderance of evidence in the USADA report and pending legal challenges on several fronts apparently forced him to change tactics after more a decade of denials.

He still faces legal problems.

Former teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping, has filed a federal whistle-blower lawsuit that accused Armstrong of defrauding the U.S. Postal Service. The Justice Department has yet to decide whether it will join the suit as a plaintiff.

The London-based Sunday Times also is suing Armstrong to recover about $500,000 it paid him to settle a libel lawsuit. On Sunday, the newspaper took out a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune, offering Winfrey suggestions for what questions to ask Armstrong. Dallas-based SCA Promotions, which tried to deny Armstrong a promised bonus for a Tour de France win, has threatened to bring yet another lawsuit seeking to recover more than $7.5 million an arbitration panel awarded the cyclist in that dispute.

The lawsuit most likely to be influenced by a confession might be the Sunday Times case. Potential perjury charges stemming from Armstrong's sworn testimony in the 2005 arbitration fight would not apply because of the statute of limitations. Armstrong was not deposed during the federal investigation that was closed last year.

Many of his sponsors dropped Armstrong after the damning USADA report — at the cost of tens of millions of dollars — and soon after, he left the board of Livestrong, which he founded in 1997. Armstrong is still said to be worth about $100 million.

Livestrong might be one reason Armstrong has decided to come forward with an apology and limited confession. The charity supports cancer patients and still faces an image problem because of its association with Armstrong. He also may be hoping a confession would allow him to return to competition in the elite triathlon or running events he participated in after his cycling career.

World Anti-Doping Code rules state his lifetime ban cannot be reduced to less than eight years. WADA and U.S. Anti-Doping officials could agree to reduce the ban further depending on what information Armstrong provides and his level of cooperation.

Read More..

Poll: After Newtown, Most Back Some Gun Controls

Getty Images

A majority of Americans favor such gun control measures as banning assault weapons and expanding background checks on those who buy guns and ammunition, with support for banning high-capacity ammunition magazines at a new high in ABC News/Washington Post polls.

With Vice President Joe Biden set to present recommendations that were prompted by the Newtown, Conn., school shootings last month, this latest poll shows overwhelming support for certain moves: Eighty-eight percent favor background checks on firearms buyers at gun shows; 76 percent support checks on buyers of ammunition and 71 percent back a new federal database that would track all gun sales.

For full results, charts and tables, CLICK HERE

Sixty-five percent also support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, a high in three ABC/Post polls to test the idea since early 2011, and up by 6 percentage points since just after the Newtown shootings. Among other suggestions, 58 percent favor banning the sale of so-called assault weapons, 55 percent support the National Rifle Association’s call for armed guards in schools and 51 percent would ban semi-automatic handguns.

Notably, support for the most popular of these measures – expanded background checks, a gun database and banning high-capacity magazines – includes a majority of people who live in gun-owning households, a group that accounts for 44 percent of all adults in this country.

The intensity of support for all these proposals is also notable; “strong” support for each measure outstrips strong opposition, in most cases by overwhelming margins (save the two less-popular items, armed school guards and a semi-automatic handgun ban). For instance, 50 percent “strongly” favor banning assault weapons, twice the number who strongly opposes it. And 76 percent strongly support background checks at gun shows, while only 8 percent say they’re are strongly opposed.

Fifty-five percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, express worry about a mass shooting in their own communities, and 52 percent say the Newtown shootings have made them more likely to support some forms of gun control.

As noted, support for banning high-capacity magazines is at a new high in polling since 2011. But there’s no consistent change on other proposals. Support for background checks on gun show buyers is essentially the same as it was in the late 1990s; support for banning assault weapons is numerically up from its low in 2009  but still well below its levels in the mid- to late 1990s; and support for banning semi-automatic handguns has been essentially steady in recent years.

ACTION – Looking ahead to the possibility of legislative action, most Americans give the issue at least a high priority for the president and Congress to address, but not “the highest,” and more give greater priority to  ”addressing gun violence” (68 percent) than specifically “enacting stricter gun control laws” (59 percent).

While they reach majorities, both of these are lower on the list than other top-shelf issues, including the economy, cutting federal spending, restructuring the tax system and slowing the rate of growth in spending on Social Security and Medicare.

The higher priority for “addressing gun violence” versus “enacting stricter gun control laws” (in a split-sample test) likely reflects some compunctions about whether gun control measures will work. The public, for instance, divides on whether stricter gun laws or armed guards in schools would be more effective (43-41 percent), and as many or more blame gun violence on inadequate treatment of the mentally ill, and on irresponsibility among gun owners, as on other causes.

FACTORS – Many factors receive broad blame for gun crimes. Leading the list, more than eight in 10 see inadequate treatment of the mentally ill, inadequate background checks and lack of individual responsibility by gun owners as contributors to gun violence, and more than half, in each case, say these contribute “a great deal” to the problem.

Sixty-nine to 73 percent also see the availability of semi-automatic handguns, high-capacity ammunition clips and assault weapons as contributors – yet as many say the same about the prevalence of violence in TV programs, movies and video games. The fewest numerically, 38 percent, believe violence in the media contributes “a great deal” to gun violence.

There are three items on which more people say the issue contributes to gun violence than favor legislative action: Sixty-nine percent see access to semi-automatic handguns as a contributor, versus 51 percent who favor banning such weapons; 73 percent say assault weapons are a contributor, versus 58 percent who favor banning those; and 70 percent see high-capacity magazines as a factor in gun violence, while slightly fewer, 65 percent, would ban them. The gaps apparently exist at least in part because support for action is lower among those who see these as contributing “somewhat” but not a great deal to gun violence – a group that includes more pro-gun individuals, such as people in gun-owning households, men and political conservatives.

GROUPS – There are striking differences among groups on some, but not all, gun control issues. Support for gun control measures generally is higher among women than men, with the gap peaking on a ban on semi-automatic handguns, supported by 60 percent of women versus 40 percent of men.

In addition to the expected partisan and ideological divisions, support for gun control also is higher in several cases among senior citizens vs. the youngest adults, among city dwellers vs. those in suburbs or rural areas, in Democratic-voting blue states vs. more-Republican red states, and in non-gun households vs. those in which someone owns a firearm. There also are regional divisions, with support for gun control typically highest in the Northeast and lowest in the South.

These differences, however, generally fade on the issues on which agreement is most broad – background checks, a gun database and banning high-capacity magazines.

Patterns are different in support for armed guards in schools; this idea is more popular with conservatives versus liberals (63 versus 44 percent), in red versus blue states (67 versus 49 percent) and among Republicans versus Democrats and independents (65 versus 52 percent). It also gets more support from parents with minor children, 62 percent, versus 51 percent among other adults. In the biggest gap, the proposal for armed school guards is nearly 30 points more popular with people who see the NRA’s leadership favorably than among those who see it unfavorably, 69 versus 40 percent.

There are other differences among groups that inform views on gun control. Women, for instance, are 13 points more apt than men to say the Newtown shootings have made them more likely to support some forms of gun control, and 16 points more likely to be worried that a mass shooting could occur in their own area. That worry is a prime factor in support for stricter gun laws.

THE NRA – While recent polls have found the NRA to be popular overall with a majority of Americans, this survey finds a less positive assessment of the association’s leadership -  more see it unfavorably than favorably by an 8-point margin, 44 versus 36 percent, although many don’t know enough to say.

There’s a mixed result on the NRA’s influence on gun policy; on the one hand more, 38 percent, say it has too much influence versus too little (24 percent) or about the right amount (30 percent). At the same time, that makes a majority, netted, saying its influence is too little or about right.

The NRA’s leadership, naturally, has far more support among people in gun-owning versus non-gun-owning households – a 52 percent versus 22 percent favorable rating. Similarly, 49 percent in non-gun households say the NRA has too much influence over gun laws. In gun households 27 percent, agree.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 10-13, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-24-37 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

Read More..

Quest: U.S. economy to dominate Davos

The United States and the sorry state of its political and budgetary process will be the center of attention at Davos, writes Quest

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Quest: Davos is a chance to see where the political and economic landmines are in 2013


• Quest: People will be speculating about how dysfunctional the U.S. political process has become


• Quest: Davos has been consumed by eurozone sovereign debt crises for three years

Editor's note: Watch Quest Means Business on CNN International, 1900pm GMT weekdays. Quest Means Business is presented by CNN's foremost international business correspondent Richard Quest. Follow him on Twitter.

(CNN) -- It is that time of the year, again. Come January no sooner have the Christmas trees been taken down, as the winter sales are in full vicious flood the world of business start thinking about going to the world economic forum, better known as Davos.

For the past three years Davos has been consumed by the eurozone sovereign debt crises.

As it worsened the speculation became ever more frantic.....Will Greece leave the euro? Will the eurozone even survive? Was this all just a big German trick to run Europe? More extreme, more dramatic, more nonsense.

Can China be the biggest engine of growth for the global economy. Round and round in circles we have gone on these subjects until frankly I did wonder if there was anything else to say short of it's a horrible mess!

This year there is a new bogey man. The US and in particular the sorry state of the country's political and budgetary process will, I have little doubt, be the center of attention.

Read more: More 'cliffs' to come in new Congress

Not just because Congress fluffed its big test on the fiscal cliff, but because in doing so it created many more deadlines, any one of which could be deeply unsettling to global markets... There is the $100 billion budget cutbacks postponed for two months by the recent agreement; postponed to the end of February.

At exactly the same time as the US Treasury's ability to rob Peter to pay Paul on the debt ceiling crises comes to a head.

Read more: Both Obama, GOP set for tough talks ahead

The Treasury's "debt suspension period" is an extraordinary piece of financial chicanery that if we tried it with our credit cards would get us locked up!! Then there is the expiration of the latest continuing resolution, the authority by which congress is spending money.

There is the terrifying prospect that all these budget woes will conflate into one big political fist fight as the US faces cutbacks, default or shutdown!!

I am being alarmist. Most rational people believe that the worst sting will be taken out of this tail....not before we have all been to the edge...and back. And that is what Davos will have on its mind.

People will be speculating about how dysfunctional the US political process has become and is it broken beyond repair (if they are not asking that then they should be...)

They will be pondering which is more serious for risk...the US budget and debt crises or the Eurozone sovereign debt debacle. A classic case of between the devil and the deep blue sea.

The official topic this year is Resilient Dynamism. I have absolutely no idea what this means. None whatsoever. It is another of WEF's ersatz themes dreamt up to stimulate debate in what Martin Sorrell has beautifully terms "davosian language" In short everyone interprets it as they will.

What I will enjoy, as I do every year, is the chance to hear the global players speak and the brightest and best thinkers give us their take on the global problems the atmosphere becomes febrile as the rock-stars of finance and economics give speeches, talk on panels and give insight.

Of course comes of these musings, it never does at Davos. That's not the point. This is a chance to take stock and see where the political and economic landmines are in 2013. I like to think of Davos as the equivalent of Control/Alt/Delete. It allows us to reboot.

We leave at least having an idea of where people stand on the big issues provided you can see through the panegyrics of self congratulatory back slapping that always takes place whenever you get like minded people in one place... And this year, I predict the big issue being discussed in coffee bars, salons and fondue houses will be the United States and its budgetary woes.

Read More..

Pakistan sacks provincial government after Shiite killings

QUETTA: Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf on Monday sacked the provincial government in Baluchistan after meeting Shiite Muslim protesters demanding protection after a massive bomb attack.

Members of the minority community have refused to bury those killed on Thursday in Pakistan's worst sectarian bombings when suicide attackers killed 92 people at a crowded snooker hall in the provincial capital Quetta.

More than 120 were wounded in the attacks claimed by Sunni Muslim militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi in an area dominated by Shiites from the Hazara ethnic minority.

Shiite leaders said protesters would not call off their sit-in and bury their dead until they see official notification about steps announced by Ashraf after day break. Local TV stations showed footage of them still protesting.

The families have refused to bury loved ones until the authorities agree to put the security and administration of the city under army control.

The prime minister flew to Quetta on Sunday to listen to their grievances and announced live on television that he had accepted all their demands, including the sacking of the provincial government and the suspension of its legislature.

"We have decided to impose governor's rule in Baluchistan for two months, the provincial government will be sacked," Ashraf said after offering his condolences to grieved families.

"It is a national tragedy and the entire nation is saddened over it."

The governor can call on the army to help control the law and order situation whenever needed, the prime minister said.

He also directed the authorities to arrest the culprits behind attacks against the Shiite community and urged the families to bury their dead.

Refusing to bury the dead is an extreme protest in Islamic society, where the deceased are normally buried the same day or the next day.

The provincial government has been widely criticised in Baluchistan for being unable to control not just sectarian violence, but other attacks linked to a nearly nine-year separatist insurgency and to Islamist militants.

The sacked chief minister, Aslam Raisani, was criticised for making a trip to London while security deteriorated.

Shiites, who account for around 20 per cent of Pakistan's 180 million people, last year suffered record levels of violence according to Human Rights Watch.

- AFP/jc

Read More..

Hagel is wrong about Israel support

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel was nominated by President Obama for defense secretary.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• In 2006, Hagel said 'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'


• Ari Fleischer: The support for Israel isn't because of 'intimidation,' but merit


• Polls show most Americans view Israel favorably, but don't support Iran or Palestinians


• Fleischer: Israel is a steady friend of the U.S. and a tolerant democracy

Editor's note: Ari Fleischer, a CNN contributor, was White House press secretary in the George W. Bush administration from 2001 to 2003 and is the president of Ari Fleischer Sports Communications Inc. He is a paid consultant and board member for the Republican Jewish Coalition, which opposes the Hagel nomination. Follow him on Twitter: @AriFleischer

(CNN) -- "The political reality is ... that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." -- Senator Chuck Hagel, 2006

As a result of those words and his voting record, former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination has turned a decades-long, bipartisan confirmation process for secretary of defense into an acrimonious one.

While some leading figures such as the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman and the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Abraham Cooper say Hagel's words are borderline anti-Semitism, I'm less worried about anti-Semitism and more worried about the judgment of a potential defense secretary who thinks Israel has won support because of "intimidation," not merit.

Ari Fleischer

Israel is widely supported by the American people because Israel deserves to be supported. Israel is a lonely democratic ally and a steady friend of the United States in a dangerous and tumultuous region. Their people are like the American people -- free, independent, capitalistic and tolerant.

A Gallup poll taken last year showed 71% of the American people view Israel favorably while only 19% view the Palestinian Authority favorably and just 10% view Iran favorably.

In a Pew Research Center study last month, 50% of adults said they sympathize more with Israel in its dispute than with the Palestinians. Just 10% sympathize more with the Palestinians, while about as many (13%) volunteered that they sympathize with neither side.

Contrary to Hagel's logic, Israel doesn't enjoy widespread American support because anyone -- from any faith -- intimidated someone else; Israel earned the support of the American people because of its people's values.

Opinion: Hagel is a friend to Israel

The danger in what Hagel said is if he thinks Israel is supported on Capitol Hill because of intimidation, then it's not hard to see why Hagel is so soft in his support for our ally. He sees himself as an independent voice willing to stand up to intimidation, and he wears his anti-Israel votes as badges of honor.

But Hagel isn't independent. He's alone.

His position on Middle Eastern matters is so outside the mainstream of both parties that almost no one agrees with him.

In 2000, Hagel was one of only four senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

Peter Beinart: What's behind Hagel nomination fight

The following year Hagel was one of only 11 senators who refused to sign a letter urging President George W. Bush to continue his policy of not meeting with Yasser Arafat until the Palestinian leader took steps to end the violence against Israel.

John Cornyn: Why I can't support Hagel

Contrary to America's longstanding bipartisan position, Hagel has called for direct talks with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. In 2007, Hagel voted against labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the group responsible for the death of many American servicemen in Iraq, a terrorist organization.

And in 2008, he was one of two senators on the banking committee to oppose a bill putting sanctions on Iran. One of the measure's biggest backers was an Illinois senator named Barack Obama.

I'm a New Yorker and neither of my senators -- Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand -- supports Israel because someone muscled them into that position through intimidation. They both support Israel because the lobby that wants them to support Israel is an American lobby, made up of people from both parties and all religions and from people with no religion or political party at all.

But if Chuck Hagel believes that it's intimidation and not sound judgment that has caused his colleagues to support Israel, then Chuck Hagel should not be confirmed as our next secretary of defense.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ari Fleischer.

Read More..

Falcons beat Seahawks with last-second field goal

ATLANTA

Matt Bryant kicked a 49-yard field goal with 8 seconds left and the Atlanta Falcons bounced back after blowing a 20-point lead in the fourth quarter, defeating Russell Wilson and the gutty Seattle Seahawks 30-28 in an NFC divisional playoff game Sunday.

31 Photos

2013 NFL Playoffs: Divisional Playoffs

The Falcons (14-3) appeared ready to allow the biggest fourth-quarter comeback in NFL playoff history when Marshawn Lynch scored on a 2-yard run with 31 seconds left.

But Matt Ryan completed two long passes after the kickoff, setting up Bryant's winning kick and sending the Falcons to the NFC championship game for only the third time in franchise history. They will host the San Francisco 49ers next Sunday.

Wilson passed for two touchdowns and ran for another, but it wasn't enough for the Seahawks (12-6).

The rookie finished with 385 yards passing and did all he could to lead the Seahawks back from a 27-7 deficit entering the fourth quarter. When Lynch powered over in the final minute, a play set up by Wilson's brilliant scramble, Seattle celebrated like it would be moving on.

Not so fast.

Ryan, who had struggled in his first three playoff appearances, had just enough time to rally the Falcons. He hooked up with Harry Douglas on a 29-yard pass in front of the Falcons bench, and coach Mike Smith quickly signaled a timeout. Then, Ryan went down the middle to his favorite target, tight end Tony Gonzalez, a Hall of Famer-to-be playing what could've been his final game.

Gonzalez hauled in the 19-yard throw, and Smith called his final timeout with 13 seconds remaining. Instead of risking another play and having the clock run out, he sent Bryant in for the field goal try.

The Seahawks called time just before the ball was snapped, and Bryant's kick sailed right of the upright. That turned out to be nothing more than practice. The next one was right down the middle, giving the Falcons a stunning victory.

Wilson's last throw, a desperation heave into the end zone, was intercepted by Falcons receiver Julio Jones.

Read More..

Dreamliner Nightmare: Another 787 Fuel Leak

Japan Airlines said a Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet leaked fuel while undergoing tests today at the airport near Tokyo, marking the latest in a string of highly-publicized problems for the jetliner as it undergoes a safety review by the U.S. government.

The Dreamliner being examined leaked around 25 gallons of fuel from a nozzle in the left wing, according to a spokesperson for Japan Airlines. It was reportedly the same aircraft that spilled fuel onto the runway at Logan International Airport in Boston earlier this week, The Associated Press reported.

On Monday, firefighters battled an electrical fire on a grounded Japan Airlines 787, also at Logan.

"We are aware of the event and are working with our customer," Boeing spokesman Marc Birtel said in an email to the Los Angeles Times.

The jetliner, which was unveiled as a luxurious and fuel-efficient way to travel, has recently been beset by problems.

Boeing Dreamliner Breaks Out in Flames in Boston Watch Video

Dreamliner Set to Change the Face of Flight Watch Video

Japan's All Nippon Airways has reported a fuel leak, a 3-foot-long crack in a cockpit window and a malfunctioning computer in its fleet of 787s.

The Federal Aviation Administration announced a comprehensive review of the carbon-fiber plane to ensure it is safe to fly, however officials did not waver in their support of the aircraft.

"I would fly on one today," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said at a joint news conference with Boeing on Friday.

The plane will not be grounded by the FAA, and will continue to fly during the review, FAA administrator Michael Huerta said.

"Nothing suggests the airplane is not safe," Huerta said. "We believe this is a safe aircraft. To validate the work during the certification process, we'll work with Boeing to check on systems design and production.

"We want to make sure that the approved quality-control process is in place. We want to see the entire picture and not focus on individual events, to determine the root causes of these events," he said.

Huerta said the review will focus on the Dreamliner's electrical system, including the battery and the power distribution panels, and how electrical and mechanical systems interact with one another.

Aviation experts say that, except for the fire, the issues have all been minor.

"If there was something seriously wrong with this plane there is no question they would ground it," ABC News aviation consultant John Nance said. "That's not the problem here, there's nothing seriously wrong with the 787."

Read More..

Abandoning Afghanistan a bad idea

U.S. Marines from the 3rd Battalion 8th Marines Regiment start their patrol in Helmand Province on June 27.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• White House aide suggested all U.S. troops could be withdrawn from Afghanistan


• Peter Bergen said the idea would be dangerous and send the wrong message


• He says U.S. has abandoned Afghanistan before and saw the rise of the Taliban


• Bergen: U.S. is seeking agreement that military will have immunity from prosecution

Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst and the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden, from 9/11 to Abbottabad."

(CNN) -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai will meet with President Barack Obama on Friday to discuss the post-2014 American presence in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has already given Obama options under which as few as 6,000 or as many as 20,000 soldiers would remain in Afghanistan after 2014. Those forces would work as advisers to the Afghan army and mount special operations raids against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Read more: U.S. may remove all troops from Afghanistan after 2014

Peter Bergen

But on Tuesday, Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, told reporters that the Obama administration is mulling the idea of removing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission finishes at the end of 2014.

This may be a negotiating ploy by the Obama administration as it gets down to some hard bargaining with Karzai, who has long criticized many aspects of the U.S. military presence and who is likely to be reluctant to accede to a key American demand: That any U.S. soldiers who remain in Afghanistan after 2014 retain immunity from prosecution in the dysfunctional Afghan court system. It was this issue that led the U.S. to pull all its troops out of Iraq in December, 2011 after failing to negotiate an agreement with the Nuri al-Maliki government.

Read more: Defense officials to press Karzai on what he needs

Or this may represent the real views of those in the Obama administration who have long called for a much-reduced U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and it is also in keeping with the emerging Obama doctrine of attacking al Qaeda and its allies with drones but no American boots on the ground. And it certainly aligns with the view of most Americans, only around a quarter of whom now support the war in Afghanistan, according to a poll taken in September.

Security Clearance: Afghanistan options emerge

In any case, zeroing out U.S. troop levels in the post-2014 Afghanistan is a bad idea on its face -- and even raising this concept publicly is maladroit strategic messaging to Afghanistan and the region writ large.

Why so? Afghans well remember something that most Americans have forgotten.

After the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, something that was accomplished at the cost of more than a million Afghan lives and billions of dollars of U.S. aid, the United States closed its embassy in Afghanistan in 1989 during the George H. W. Bush administration and then zeroed out aid to one of the poorest countries in the world under the Clinton administration. It essentially turned its back on Afghans once they had served their purpose of dealing a deathblow to the Soviets.

As a result, the United States had virtually no understanding of the subsequent vacuum in Afghanistan into which eventually stepped the Taliban, who rose to power in the mid-1990s. The Taliban granted shelter to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization from 1996 onward.

Read more: Court considers demand that U.S. release photos of bin Laden's body

After the overthrow of the Taliban, a form of this mistake was made again by the George W. Bush administration, which had an ideological disdain for nation building and was distracted by the Iraq War, so that in the first years after the fall of the Taliban, only a few thousand U.S. soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan.

The relatively small number of American boots on the ground in Afghanistan helped to create a vacuum of security in the country, which the Taliban would deftly exploit, so that by 2007, they once again posed a significant military threat in Afghanistan.

In 2009, Obama ordered a surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan to blunt the Taliban's gathering momentum, which it has certainly accomplished.

Read more: Inside the Taliban

But when Obama announced the new troops of the Afghan surge, most media accounts of the speech seized on the fact that the president also said that some of those troops would be coming home in July 2011.

This had the unintended effect of signaling to the Taliban that the U.S. was pulling out of Afghanistan reasonably soon and fit into the longstanding narrative that many Afghans have that the U.S. will abandon them again.

Similarly, the current public discussion of zero U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014 will encourage those hardliner elements of the Taliban who have no interest in a negotiated settlement and believe they can simply wait the Americans out.

It also discourages the many millions of Afghans who see a longtime U.S. presence as the best guarantor that the Taliban won't come back in any meaningful way and also an important element in dissuading powerful neighbors such as Pakistan from interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs.

Read related: Afghanistan vet finds a new way to serve

Instead of publicly discussing the zero option on troops in Afghanistan after 2014, a much smarter American messaging strategy for the country and the region would be to emphasize that the Strategic Partnership Agreement that the United States has already negotiated with Afghanistan last year guarantees that the U.S. will have some form of partnership with the Afghans until 2024.

In this messaging strategy, the point should be made that the exact size of the American troop presence after 2014 is less important than the fact that U.S. soldiers will stay in the country for many years, with Afghan consent, as a guarantor of Afghanistan's stability.

The United States continues to station thousands of troops in South Korea more than five decades after the end of the Korean War. Under this American security umbrella, South Korea has gone from being one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest.

It is this kind of model that most Afghans want and the U.S. needs to provide so Afghanistan doesn't revert to the kind of chaos that beset it in the mid-1990s and from which the Taliban first emerged.

Read more: What's at stake for Afghan women?

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

Read More..