Exclusive: British commander voices fears that Taliban will exploit power vacuum in Afghanistan after west quits The west must state clearly that it will not abandon Afghanistan after the handover of security to local forces in 2014 or risk further fighting in the region from an emboldened Taliban, the commander of British forces in the country has warned. In his first interview since becoming second in command of the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf), General James Bucknall told the Guardian “now is not the time to blink”, and pleaded for more patience in the decade-long campaign because progress was being made. Bucknall spoke amid growing unease in Kabul about what will happen once Nato troops start to be drawn down later this year – an anxiety that has become acute since the death of Osama bin Laden – and the potential effect this may have on US policy. The US has been bankrolling the effort with up to $100bn (£61bn) a year and is negotiating a new strategic partnership with President Hamid Karzai. One diplomatic source, who asked not to be named, said: “Afghanistan has been the centre of the world for the past 10 years. It isn’t anymore and the purse strings from donors will soon tighten. The international military drawdown will begin. There will then be a limited period where there is some money available for non-military efforts. “After this, many Afghans fear they will then be abandoned again. The international community will say ‘job done’ and it will be case of presenting it as “Afghan-good enough.” Bucknall warned that the Taliban would “come back at us as hard as they can” this summer and that the insurgency would not have ended by the end of 2014, when Afghan forces take over full responsibility for security. That underlined the importance of committing to the country, and looking beyond last year’s Lisbon summit which set out an agreement for the transition of power. Bucknall said: “This long-term commitment is absolutely key to our short-term progress. Why? Because until we have made it clear that the international community is not going to abandon Afghanistan in the near term, until that time, the insurgents will think that they can wait out the campaign. “The Afghan people will not necessarily have the confidence to back their own government. And it is important that the regional players understand that the international community is going to be here for some time to come. “December [2014] is not a campaign end date but a waypoint – a point at which the coalition security posture changes from one that is in the lead to one that is mentoring and advising, but is still here.” Bucknall conceded that the military had been guilty of “overpromising and underdelivering”, but said the campaign against the insurgency was working, with nightly special forces operations against mid-level Taliban commanders. “It is important we send that message because until we [do] there is going to be tendency to think we can wait this out and start again, and this it not in any of our interests. There are no silver bullets in this campaign. We are fooling ourselves if we think there are. There are no short cuts for getting to where we need to get to. Long-term commitment is important for short-term success.” Reflecting on the military operation in Afghanistan, he said: “We have only really been playing this sensibly, or properly, with the right resources from last year. “We expect violence to increase but I would make the point strongly that this should not be taken as a signal of a faltering campaign but one that is contesting the insurgents more broadly than we have done before.” Bucknall said British forces were likely to remain in Afghanistan for many years after 2014, albeit in a different role. One piece of encouragement for the military has been the number of insurgents who have joined the reconciliation and rehabilitation process, which allows them to rejoin their villages with honour if they give up fighting. In the last six weeks, the number of registrations has doubled to 1,300, and another 2,000 are beginning the process. Diplomats admit they are sensing Afghan anxiety about the future and see the need to provide reassurances. Simon Gass, Nato’s senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, told the Guardian there was a need for the US, Nato and other countries to “define the post-2014 relationship with Afghanistan”. He said: “We need to give Afghans the assurances that they are after. We need to create a framework and confidence that they are not being abandoned.” Sir William Patey, Britain’s ambassador to Kabul, added: “In the gap between what they can afford, and what they need, we will have to help them. That is part of the commitment beyond 2015.” He said real transformation would take two generations “of kids that have been educated”. “The first lot to graduate into the workforce and the civil service to be followed up by another generation. Over 10 to 15 years [it will] have a huge impact. We are essentially buying time for Afghanistan to educate its people.” He also cautioned about what the new Afghanistan may look like. “The Afghans will be in charge. And that will be frustrating for some people in Europe because things will happen [here] that they won’t like. “This is an Islamically conservative country and will remain Islamically conservative and it will have a value system that is different from ours.” However, Patey said there was an opportunity now for the Taliban to talk peace “and come in from the cold”. Afghanistan Taliban Military US foreign policy US military Nato Foreign policy United States Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Bodies found on Gilgo beach indicate secluded shoreline has been used as a dumping ground for human remains Detectives investigating the discovery of eight bodies along a beach on Long Island are working on the presumption that as many as four separate killers may have been involved. The Suffolk County district attorney, Thomas Spota, revealed that the eight deaths appeared to divide into four seemingly unrelated groups. His disclosure raises the bewildering prospect that a stretch of secluded shoreline used by 6 million beachgoers each summer has been used as a dumping ground for human remains. Spota said many of the victims had yet to be identified and the precise nature of their killing was not yet known. “But what we do know for certain and what is now very clear is that the area in and around Gilgo beach has been used to discard human remains for some period of time,” he said. “As distasteful and disturbing as that is, there is no evidence that all these remains are those of a single killer.” The investigation has involved hundreds of officers from Long Island and New York. Four bodies found in December wrapped in hessian were those of women in their 20s who had worked as prostitutes and picked up clients through Craigslist. Police are convinced that all four were the victims of a serial killer, but can find no evidence that the murders were related in any way to the other cases. The other four bodies or parts of bodies were discovered about a mile away last month. Police believe these fall under three separate groups. Two of the four remains were the head and hands of women. One of the victims has been identified as Jessica Taylor, 20, who worked as prostitute in Washington and New York; the other is being referred to as Jane Doe no 6. Detectives have matched the parts to torsos found in 2000 and 2003 respectively in Manorville, about 45 miles east of Gilgo beach. The nature of their dismemberment, and the proximity of the remains in two locations, suggests to police that these killings were related. They have reopened two other cold cases, dating from 1997 and 2007, in which a similar form of dismemberment took place, on the assumption that another serial killer might have been at work. The third, potentially separate discovery was of an Asian man, referred to as John Doe no 8, who met a “violent” death. His body was found close to that of the dismembered women, but there is no evidence to connect them. The fourth body was of a toddler, aged between 18 and 24 months, probably a girl, wrapped in a blanket. The body displayed no signs of trauma and police have not yet declared it a murder case. Detectives have been struck by the difference in technique of the disposal of the child and the dismembered women. “It does not make sense to us that the person would go to such great lengths to prevent Jane Doe no 6 from being identified, then lay the body of a related toddler so close by. There is no evidence at all of any attempt to conceal the identity of the child,” Spota said. Joseph Pollini, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York and a former New York homicide detective, said the possibility that the shoreline had been used as a dumping ground for human remains would fit the secluded nature of the area. “This is the optimal place to dump a body,” he said. “There are no cameras or surveillance of any kind and you can see people coming in either direction along the long straight road.” United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Activists dressed as doctors and nurses plan to occupy banks in action against public sector cuts Anti-cuts campaigners who have closed scores of high street stores with a string of direct action demonstrations are launching a new campaign against the government’s proposed shakeup of the NHS. Hundreds of activists dressed as doctors and nurses are planning to occupy banks around the country on 28 May, transforming them into mocked-up hospitals, GPs’ surgeries and operating theatres. The campaign – described as the “emergency operation” – is being organised by UK Uncut and aims to highlight the banks’ role in the financial crisis and the impact of the government’s NHS plans on patient care. “The banks are back paying lavish bonuses and raking in billions in profit, yet the government tells us there is no alternative to unprecedented public sector cuts,” a UK Uncut supporter, who gave his name as Jack Davies, said. The day of action, which activists hope will close down scores of high street banks across the UK, is the first major protest UK Uncut has called since 145 of its supporters were arrested for occupying the Fortnum & Mason food store during the TUC’s anti-cuts rally in March . Campaigners claim senior police “tricked” them into a mass arrest after an entirely peaceful protest. Earlier this week, supporters held a demonstration outside Westminster magistrates court, where the cases against 138 people – mostly charged with criminal trespass – were adjourned. A spokesman for UK Uncut said it had been a difficult time for the organisation, with several of its key activists arrested and widespread criticism of the group. “A lot of people who have been involved wanted to take stock, especially in regard to the legal implications, and there was a lot of firefighting to do because there was a lot of mud being thrown at us,” he said. “But now we are back on course and determined to continue our campaign.” UK Uncut started in October when a group of friends decided to target Vodafone, claiming it had avoided £6bn in tax – an allegation denied by the mobile phone company. The protest, organised through Twitter, went viral and, since then, hundreds of protests have been organised, targeting a range of high street names accused of tax avoidance, from Topshop and Boots to Tesco. The campaign saw UK Uncut activists force the issue of corporate tax avoidance into the mainstream political debate, with its members appearing on BBC2′s Newsnight, before the group widened its focus to become an “anti-cuts” campaign. Its success has inspired the creation of similar organisations in countries around the world, from the US to Portugal, France and Ireland . Last month, US Uncut staged hundreds of occupations against corporations accused of avoiding tax. Portugal Uncut is due to hold its first demonstrations later this month. UK Uncut’s last nationwide day of action, at the end of February, saw more than 40 high street bank branches turned into creches, libraries and hospitals. Organisers say they have worked closely with local anti-cuts groups and trade unions ahead of the next set of protests to ensure that they are a success. “The government should be cutting subsidies to banks, not the NHS and other essential public services. The £100bn claimed in benefits by banks could pay for the entire NHS budget,” said UK Uncut supporter Sophie Healey. “And if they want to introduce far-reaching reform, how about starting with our broken banking system? Whilst the government is busy privatising the NHS, we still have a banking sector that’s ‘too big to fail’.” NHS UK Uncut Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance Banking Economic policy Health policy Health Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Breitbart gets pwned by ‘Pigford’ attorney, targeted in his latest smear campaign
May 10, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media John Stossel devoted his show this past weekend to an attempt to defend his report on “freeloaders” — which not only was riddled throughout with false “facts,” outright falsehoods, gross distortions, and misleading sound bytes, it was nakedly racist in its depiction of minorities who are the beneficiaries of government largesse as cheaters and chiselers. So who did he invite on to help make this case? Why, Andrew Breitbart — liar, prevaricator, and misleader extraordinaire — of course. Breitbart, you see, was Stossel’s chief source for the segment on black farmers who are supposedly ripping off the government in the Pigford case — the non-story that Breitbart has been assiduously, obsessively pursuing as a way of trying to cover his tracks for his grotesque performance in the Shirley Sherrod matter . He also invited on Al Pires, one of the lead attorneys for those same farmers, to serve as their pinata for the segment. Except it turned out that this pinata had his own big stick — and went right after Breitbart for the fact that his reportage on the Pigford case has been a wanton exercise in legal (and agricultural ignorance: PIRES: I don’t know who Mr. Breitbart is. He’s obviously not a farmer and he’s not a journalist — none of that’s even remotely true. … Who are you? Making fun of people who have the guts to take cases against the government. You don’t know anything about farming and litigation. You’re some gadfly from Hollywood. I looked you up. You’re some guy who didn’t have a job for ten years. … Yeah, I know who you are. You’re some gadfly from Hollywood. You’re the son of a rich family, you never worked for a living in your life. You go around making fun of poor people, you go making fun of Indians and Blacks and Hispanics and women and I’m not putting up with it. I feel bad for you. You’re a sad, sad person. Why don’t you go get a job? I especially got a kick out of Stossel trying to pretend that no, really, Breitbart is a journalist! Sorry, dude — you actually have to practice journalism — which entails a balanced search of facts and truth — and not thesis-driven propaganda to earn that title. Mind you, Pires could have been far more effective if he had just started listing the times Breitbart and Co. have been caught deceptively editing videos and lying about their subjects. But that’s OK. Sometimes it’s satisfying to just see guys like Breitbart get slapped down on every imaginable basis — and with this particular lying liar, even personal rips like these are fully deserved. Especially when the entire segment is devoted to an ad-hominem smear of their victim as a rich conniver. Can’t blame him for tossing the same game back in their faces.
Continue reading …
John Yorke, who is in charge of the BBC1 soap, describes show as ‘very stylised’ and ‘significantly white’ It may not surprise EastEnders viewers who watched Dirty Den come back from the dead 14 years after he was shot and fell into a canal. But the executive in charge of the BBC1 soap has admitted the show is not entirely realistic in its depiction of life in east London. John Yorke, the BBC’s controller of drama production, said the 26-year-old soap was “very stylised” and “significantly white” compared with the real East End. “Real life changes much more quickly than representations of it on television. Soaps reach a point where they have a really big decision to make: do they stay true to the original vision or do they throw it away and adapt to a changing world? My own feeling is that the truth lies somewhere in between,” Yorke told the new issue of the Radio Times. “EastEnders’ East End and its version of working class life are very stylised. It’s not realistic in that respect, but you look for an emotional truthfulness.” Yorke admitted to “nerves” about introducing more black and Asian faces to the soap but said it was more diverse than it was five years ago. “EastEnders may be significantly white compared with the real East End but it’s considerably more multicultural than it was even five years ago and is easily the most multicultural show on telly now,” he added. “We may have had nerves about that at one stage, but we’re very proud of it now and you have to keep going.” Yorke said he was particularly proud of the New Year’s Day episode of the soap in which a gay Muslim came out at his own wedding. “That the British population will embrace that and aren’t scared of it is a wonderful thing,” he added. Boyd Hilton, the TV editor of Heat magazine, said viewers did not mind if the soap, BBC1′s biggest rating show, was not an authentic depiction of East End life. “EastEnders is at its most entertaining when it has a typically preposterous long-running storyline. When it attempts to be earnest and realistic and look at all sides of an issue, that is where it can go wrong,” he added. “Viewers want to be entertained by soap operas, rather than be educated by them. Every year on any soap opera there are numerous deaths, long-lost relatives turning up, people being buried under concrete, gangsters, marriages with people not turning up at the alter,” Hilton said. “That’s the lifeblood of soaps, and if they stopped doing that people would be annoyed and say it had got boring. But life isn’t like that, thank God.” • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook . BBC1 EastEnders Soap opera BBC Television industry Television Drama Race & religion London John Plunkett guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Lord Adair Turner meets cabinet ministers to help heal split over new emission targets Lord Adair Turner, the chairman of the government’s independent advisory body on climate change, has met cabinet ministers in a bid to heal a government split threatening to reject ambitious new targets for reducing carbon emissions . The chairman of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) met the business secretary, Vince Cable, seeking to break down opposition to the new budget . Cable believes the proposed target will harm prospects for jobs and growth. The cabinet is divided on whether or not to back the advice of Lord Turner’s committee and commit to a fourth carbon budget. In 2008, three consecutive carbon budgets were set, up to the year 2023, but a decision has to be made for the next period. The budgets put the government of the day on target to meet a reduction of 80% of carbon emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2050. The CCC recommended that to reach this end target, carbon should be cut by 60% by 2030. Cable’s concerns are apparently supported by the chancellor, George Osborne, and transport secretary, Philip Hammond. All are ranged against the energy secretary Chris Huhne, the cabinet office minister, Oliver Letwin, the foreign secretary, William Hague, and environment secretary, Caroline Spelman. The prime minister is expected to make a decision on Monday. The CCC is independent and the government has not previously rejected its advice. A source said the business secretary respected the work of the CCC and that progress had been made since Cable wrote to his party’s leader, Nick Clegg, and Osborne, saying he was “unable to give clearance to the proposal as it stands”. However, other ministerial sources said Cable was still opposed to supporting the fourth carbon budget. In that letter, dated 19 April, and seen by the Guardian, Cable says the proposed carbon budget is not “cost-effective” and asks for a Treasury impact analysis to be made available to all involved in the decision. He wrote: “Agreeing too aggressive a level risks burdening the UK economy, which would be detrimental to UK, undermining the UK’s competitiveness and our attractiveness as a place to do business. “I have a number of concerns about supporting the CCC’s recommended level at this time. “It is important that we strike the right balance between our pursuit to decarbonise the UK economy whilst ensuring that UK economic growth and employment is sustained.” Cable fears the energy secretary’s plan relies on securing a cap on emissions trading across Europe that may never materialise. If this were not achieved, the UK would be left cutting carbon emissions unilaterally, which would risk putting industry at a disadvantage compared with outside competitors and “could lead to significant fiscal costs”. Instead, Cable argues for a weaker carbon target. “This level keeps us on course to meet our 2050 target and entails a steeper reduction in emissions than the previous government set for carbon budgets, which easily justifies our position as greenest government ever.” The official evidence Cable uses to back his compromise figure is a model that assumes no new investment in low-carbon energy sources until the second half of the 2020s. They are concerned Cable’s solution would mean no new investment in the clean energy industry. Cable also proposed buying “carbon offsets” to help the UK meet its targets in the 2020s, instead of cutting emissions and boosting green industries in the UK. This is opposed by some who believe the UK should change its behaviour rather than pay China or others to cut emissions. On Monday, the CCC’s chief executive, David Kennedy, told the Guardian that a decision to embrace his committee’s fourth carbon budget would be “of crucial importance. It will be the key test of the government’s commitment to the low-carbon agenda.” In another leaked letter, dated 17 April, Hague said he “strongly supports” the fourth carbon budget. He writes: “I agree that we should not reject the fourth carbon budget recommended by the Committee on Climate Change … in order to retain public support for our climate policy at home we need to be able to point to similar effort abroad. If our domestic resolve is seen to be weakening, we will lose traction elsewhere.” John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said: “The Liberal Democrats’ leadership keep saying they will learn from their kicking in last week’s election by putting clear water between their party and the Conservatives’ rightwing on issues like protecting the environment. But this letter reveals that Vince Cable is trying to water down the measures aimed at protecting the environment and boosting a green economic recovery.” Climate change Carbon emissions Green politics Vince Cable Chris Huhne Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Lord Adair Turner meets cabinet ministers to help heal split over new emission targets Lord Adair Turner, the chairman of the government’s independent advisory body on climate change, has met cabinet ministers in a bid to heal a government split threatening to reject ambitious new targets for reducing carbon emissions . The chairman of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) met the business secretary, Vince Cable, seeking to break down opposition to the new budget . Cable believes the proposed target will harm prospects for jobs and growth. The cabinet is divided on whether or not to back the advice of Lord Turner’s committee and commit to a fourth carbon budget. In 2008, three consecutive carbon budgets were set, up to the year 2023, but a decision has to be made for the next period. The budgets put the government of the day on target to meet a reduction of 80% of carbon emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2050. The CCC recommended that to reach this end target, carbon should be cut by 60% by 2030. Cable’s concerns are apparently supported by the chancellor, George Osborne, and transport secretary, Philip Hammond. All are ranged against the energy secretary Chris Huhne, the cabinet office minister, Oliver Letwin, the foreign secretary, William Hague, and environment secretary, Caroline Spelman. The prime minister is expected to make a decision on Monday. The CCC is independent and the government has not previously rejected its advice. A source said the business secretary respected the work of the CCC and that progress had been made since Cable wrote to his party’s leader, Nick Clegg, and Osborne, saying he was “unable to give clearance to the proposal as it stands”. However, other ministerial sources said Cable was still opposed to supporting the fourth carbon budget. In that letter, dated 19 April, and seen by the Guardian, Cable says the proposed carbon budget is not “cost-effective” and asks for a Treasury impact analysis to be made available to all involved in the decision. He wrote: “Agreeing too aggressive a level risks burdening the UK economy, which would be detrimental to UK, undermining the UK’s competitiveness and our attractiveness as a place to do business. “I have a number of concerns about supporting the CCC’s recommended level at this time. “It is important that we strike the right balance between our pursuit to decarbonise the UK economy whilst ensuring that UK economic growth and employment is sustained.” Cable fears the energy secretary’s plan relies on securing a cap on emissions trading across Europe that may never materialise. If this were not achieved, the UK would be left cutting carbon emissions unilaterally, which would risk putting industry at a disadvantage compared with outside competitors and “could lead to significant fiscal costs”. Instead, Cable argues for a weaker carbon target. “This level keeps us on course to meet our 2050 target and entails a steeper reduction in emissions than the previous government set for carbon budgets, which easily justifies our position as greenest government ever.” The official evidence Cable uses to back his compromise figure is a model that assumes no new investment in low-carbon energy sources until the second half of the 2020s. They are concerned Cable’s solution would mean no new investment in the clean energy industry. Cable also proposed buying “carbon offsets” to help the UK meet its targets in the 2020s, instead of cutting emissions and boosting green industries in the UK. This is opposed by some who believe the UK should change its behaviour rather than pay China or others to cut emissions. On Monday, the CCC’s chief executive, David Kennedy, told the Guardian that a decision to embrace his committee’s fourth carbon budget would be “of crucial importance. It will be the key test of the government’s commitment to the low-carbon agenda.” In another leaked letter, dated 17 April, Hague said he “strongly supports” the fourth carbon budget. He writes: “I agree that we should not reject the fourth carbon budget recommended by the Committee on Climate Change … in order to retain public support for our climate policy at home we need to be able to point to similar effort abroad. If our domestic resolve is seen to be weakening, we will lose traction elsewhere.” John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said: “The Liberal Democrats’ leadership keep saying they will learn from their kicking in last week’s election by putting clear water between their party and the Conservatives’ rightwing on issues like protecting the environment. But this letter reveals that Vince Cable is trying to water down the measures aimed at protecting the environment and boosting a green economic recovery.” Climate change Carbon emissions Green politics Vince Cable Chris Huhne Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Barack Obama ordered assault team be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if necessary, newspaper reveals The strained US-Pakistan relationship has come under further pressure after it emerged that the assault team which killed Osama bin Laden was prepared to fight its way out of Pakistan if necessary. President Barack Obama ordered two helicopter-borne backup squads to shadow the main US attack force in case it came under fire from Pakistani security forces as it stormed Bin Laden’s house. The Americans had orders to avoid a firefight but to use their weapons if unavoidable, a senior White House official told the New York Times. The revelations come amid continuing furore in Pakistan over the perceived breach of sovereignty by US forces. On Monday the Guardian reported that Pakistan and the US struck a secret deal permitting US military action to capture or kill Bin Laden almost a decade ago, during the rule of President Pervez Musharraf. Responding through a spokesman and his Facebook page, Musharraf denied that any deal, written or verbal, had been struck. “The accusation of my having allowed intrusion into Pakistan by US forces chasing Osama bin Laden is absolutely baseless,” he said. “Never has this subject even been discussed between myself and President Bush leave aside allowing such freedom of action that would violate our sovereignty (sic).” In January 2002, General Tommy Franks, who headed the US Central Command at the time, told the Associated Press the US had a deal allowing US troops to cross the border in pursuit of bin Laden. Pakistan denied it. Already fragile relations between Pakistan and the US have dipped to new depths following Bin Laden’s death. The US wants to speak to the al-Qaida leader’s three widows – two from Saudi Arabia and one from Yemen, who are currently in Pakistani custody. US officials said Pakistan had agreed to grant access to the women, but in Islamabad officials insisted no decision had been taken. “It’s too early to even think about it,” one official told Reuters. At least nine children are also being held. It is not clear how many were fathered by bin Laden. Controversy also rumbled on over the naming of the CIA station chief in Islamabad in some Pakistani media last weekend, six months after a similar “outing” caused the US spy chief to leave the country. The US said the official was incorrectly named and will not be leaving Pakistan, suggesting the leak was a deliberate attempt by Pakistani officials to divert attention from international criticism. Meanwhile, in South Waziristan in the tribal belt, a US drone fired missiles that killed three alleged Arab militants close to the Afghan border – the second such strike since bin Laden’s death. As further details of the raid emerged, it emerged that Obama had readied a specialist team of lawyers, interrogators and translators aboard a US navy ship in case the al-Qaida leader was taken alive. Obama is said to have revised the original assault plan after learning that two backup helicopters would be 90 minutes away in Afghanistan if called on to aid the commandos. Overhead, US surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft monitored Pakistani police and military channels to determine how long the commandos had to gather evidence. Asked about their rules of engagement, one official said: “Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorised to do it.” Pakistan’s government is struggling to unite its civilian and military leadership while simultaneously explaining how Bin Laden managed to live in a large house near a major military centre two hours’ drive north of Islamabad. Addressing parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani rejected suggestions of complicity or incompetence as “absurd”, saying it was disingenuous to access Pakistan of being “in cahoots” with al-Qaida. In Washington, US legislators are demanding Obama slash Pakistan’s $3 billion annual aid package. But senior US officials admit privately that a strong relationship with Pakistan is crucial to continuing anti-militant operations and success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden Obama administration US foreign policy Pakistan US politics United States al-Qaida Sam Jones Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Barack Obama ordered assault team be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if necessary, newspaper reveals The strained US-Pakistan relationship has come under further pressure after it emerged that the assault team which killed Osama bin Laden was prepared to fight its way out of Pakistan if necessary. President Barack Obama ordered two helicopter-borne backup squads to shadow the main US attack force in case it came under fire from Pakistani security forces as it stormed Bin Laden’s house. The Americans had orders to avoid a firefight but to use their weapons if unavoidable, a senior White House official told the New York Times. The revelations come amid continuing furore in Pakistan over the perceived breach of sovereignty by US forces. On Monday the Guardian reported that Pakistan and the US struck a secret deal permitting US military action to capture or kill Bin Laden almost a decade ago, during the rule of President Pervez Musharraf. Responding through a spokesman and his Facebook page, Musharraf denied that any deal, written or verbal, had been struck. “The accusation of my having allowed intrusion into Pakistan by US forces chasing Osama bin Laden is absolutely baseless,” he said. “Never has this subject even been discussed between myself and President Bush leave aside allowing such freedom of action that would violate our sovereignty (sic).” In January 2002, General Tommy Franks, who headed the US Central Command at the time, told the Associated Press the US had a deal allowing US troops to cross the border in pursuit of bin Laden. Pakistan denied it. Already fragile relations between Pakistan and the US have dipped to new depths following Bin Laden’s death. The US wants to speak to the al-Qaida leader’s three widows – two from Saudi Arabia and one from Yemen, who are currently in Pakistani custody. US officials said Pakistan had agreed to grant access to the women, but in Islamabad officials insisted no decision had been taken. “It’s too early to even think about it,” one official told Reuters. At least nine children are also being held. It is not clear how many were fathered by bin Laden. Controversy also rumbled on over the naming of the CIA station chief in Islamabad in some Pakistani media last weekend, six months after a similar “outing” caused the US spy chief to leave the country. The US said the official was incorrectly named and will not be leaving Pakistan, suggesting the leak was a deliberate attempt by Pakistani officials to divert attention from international criticism. Meanwhile, in South Waziristan in the tribal belt, a US drone fired missiles that killed three alleged Arab militants close to the Afghan border – the second such strike since bin Laden’s death. As further details of the raid emerged, it emerged that Obama had readied a specialist team of lawyers, interrogators and translators aboard a US navy ship in case the al-Qaida leader was taken alive. Obama is said to have revised the original assault plan after learning that two backup helicopters would be 90 minutes away in Afghanistan if called on to aid the commandos. Overhead, US surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft monitored Pakistani police and military channels to determine how long the commandos had to gather evidence. Asked about their rules of engagement, one official said: “Their instructions were to avoid any confrontation if at all possible. But if they had to return fire to get out, they were authorised to do it.” Pakistan’s government is struggling to unite its civilian and military leadership while simultaneously explaining how Bin Laden managed to live in a large house near a major military centre two hours’ drive north of Islamabad. Addressing parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani rejected suggestions of complicity or incompetence as “absurd”, saying it was disingenuous to access Pakistan of being “in cahoots” with al-Qaida. In Washington, US legislators are demanding Obama slash Pakistan’s $3 billion annual aid package. But senior US officials admit privately that a strong relationship with Pakistan is crucial to continuing anti-militant operations and success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden Obama administration US foreign policy Pakistan US politics United States al-Qaida Sam Jones Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …(Above video is from a Cavuto appearance ) I’ve discussed Social Security with President Obama at the White House and he assured us that he wouldn’t hurt Social Security. I know many of us on the left have said this before, but I’ll say it again: Why appoint somebody like Alan Simpson to his Catfood Commission if he’s serious about saving and strengthening our social safety nets? Here’s Alan, the High Lord of Mean: Alan Simpson’s cold relationship with AARP is no secret, but the former Republican Senator from Wyoming took it to a new level Friday. At an event hosted by the Investment Company Institute, Simpson delighted the finance industry audience members by aiming a rude gesture at the leading lobby for senior citizens. Financial and investment interests have long been supportive of Simpson’s broad critique of Social Security, since privatizing the old-age and disability support program would be a tremendous boon for Wall Street’s financial managers. ICI represents mutual funds and other money managers who control more than $13 trillion in assets. Simpson’s forceful gesture came after an extended diatribe against Social Security, which he said is a “Ponzi” scheme, “not a retirement program.” Simpson argued that Social Security was originally intended more as a welfare program. “It was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in ‘37 and ‘38 to take care of people who were in distress — ditch diggers, wage earners — it was to give them 43 percent of the replacement rate of their wages. The [life expectancy] was 63. That’s why they set retirement age at 65” for Social Security, he said. In 2010, President Obama appointed Simpson to a deficit commission that recommended cutting taxes and reducing entitlement spending. The commission’s outline is being used as a framework for reform in Congress. This is totally insane thinking and he’s welcome to his twisted logic, but what he said and did with his Bras d’honneur was completely inappropriate as well, since he accepted a position on Obama’s commission. Sir, if you could only see my hand now. If he hates Social Security and Medicare that’s fine. Start a PAC. But when you’re in a position of trying to help the most beloved social programs America has ever had, at least show some respect. Oh, and stop lying about it. By the way, this isn’t the first time he’s stated misinformation about Social Security, either. RJ Eskow wrote a post for C&L about a Simpson exchange with Alex Lawson that was sickening because of all his lies: Digby writes : Uhm no. This life expectancy misinformation is so widespread, I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to set it straight. But I might have expected that one of President Obama’s Deficit commission appointees — the co-chairman no less — would not be among those who believe it. (Normally I would suggest that he was just a liar, but from this account it’s pretty clear to me that he really doesn’t understand it.) This is a very important point and one that everyone needs to understand if they hope to beat back the social security assault: HuffPost suggested to Simpson during a telephone interview that his claim about life expectancy was misleading because his data include people who died in childhood of diseases that are now largely preventable. Incorporating such early deaths skews the average life expectancy number downward, making it appear as if people live dramatically longer today than they did half a century ago. According to the Social Security Administration’s actuaries, women who lived to 65 in 1940 had a life expectancy of 79.7 years and men were expected to live 77.7 years. “If that is the case — and I don’t think it is — then that means they put in peanuts,” said Simpson. Simpson speculated that the data presented to him by HuffPost had been furnished by “the Catfood Commission people” — a reference to progressive critics of the deficit commission who gave president’s panel that label. Told that the data came directly from the Social Security Administration, Simpson continued to insist it was inaccurate, while misstating the nature of a statistical average: “If you’re telling me that a guy who got to be 65 in 1940 — that all of them lived to be 77 — that is just not correct. Just because a guy gets to be 65, he’s gonna live to be 77? Hell, that’s my genre. That’s not true,” said Simpson, who will turn 80 in September. Why is Dick Durbin acting like a beard for these people? Simpson is an old hack, but Durbin should be ashamed of himself because he does know the truth and the figures that we’re talking about here. Back to Digby: Simpson surely knows about the Greenspan Commission. He’s just lying about that (or he’s senile.) But what’s Erskine Bowles’ excuse? Or Dick Durbin or Saxby Chambliss or all the other politicians who parrot this misinformation all the time? Are they all senile too? The people who designed the system understood very well that if “life expectancy” went up it would mean that there were also more younger workers who hadn’t died in childbirth paying into the system. And they understood the concept of productivity gains and knew that more people would be brought into the system — paying as well as receiving benefits — over time. They weren’t cave men. It was only 70 years ago. Simpson was a teen-ager at the time. What they may not have anticipated was just how badly the political system would be distorted by corporate propaganda that made people believe that black is white and up is down. It’s the real problem and solving social security’s minor shortfall in 2038 is a piece of cake compared to solving that one. I doubt they ever imagined that our political system in seventy years would have turned out members of Congress right out of a John Birch Society hoedown.
Continue reading …