Ok , I am going to hawaii , however I have to push back my vaction. I already called the Hotl and the Airline .
The reason why i am pushing it back by a couple a mouths , ia my mom . My mom's house needs to have work done . A lot of work , like the plummimg , Water and Gas .
And I am trying to get her bathroom and kitchen , worked on aswell. I am the only son , and I have to try to take care of my mom , before I pack my bags and go on vaction .
So have you ever had to put off , your plans for your mom and dad ?
AdBrite
AdBrite
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Pirates attack French military flagship
NAIROBI (AFP) – Somali pirates attempted to storm the French navy's 18,000 tonne flagship in the Indian Ocean after mistaking it for a cargo vessel, the French military said on Wednesday.
The crew of La Somme, a 160-metre (525-foot) command vessel and fuel tanker, easily saw off the brazen night-time assault by lightly armed fighters on two lightweight skiffs and captured five pirates, a spokesman said.
"The pirates, who because of the darkness took the French ship for a commercial vessel, were on board two vessels and opened fire with Kalashnikovs," Admiral Christophe Prazuck said in Paris.
La Somme is the French command vessel in the Indian Ocean, overseeing French air, sea and land forces fighting Somali pirates and hunting terrorists under the banner of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom.
Officers on the ship have directed commando operations to free French hostages in the hands of Somali pirates.
The pirates tried to flee when they realised their mistake but were pursued by French forces who, after an hour-long chase, caught one of the skiffs, Prazuck said.
On it they found five men but no weapons, water or food as the pirates had apparently thrown all of the boat's contents overboard, the spokesman said.
A Western official at sea in the area, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said that there had been an exchange of fire between the warship and the pirate launches.
"One of the skiffs managed to get away in the night because La Somme was busy with the first pirate boat," he said.
"Despite the arrival of other vessels, they haven't yet managed to find the second boat," he said, adding that many warships in the area were busy hunting another group which attacked a cargo ship off the Seychelles on Sunday.
The world's naval powers have deployed dozens of warships to the lawless waters off Somalia over the past year to curb attacks by pirates in one of the world's busiest maritime trade routes.
La Somme was operating 250 nautical miles (460 kilometres) off the Somali coast, on its way to resupply fuel to frigates patrolling shipping lanes as part of the European Union's Operation Atalanta anti-piracy mission.
This was not the first time that Somali pirates have mistakenly attacked a French naval vessel. Several pirates were captured in May when they attempted to board a frigate in the area.
Somalia has had no proper government since it plunged into lawlessness after President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991.
The country is riven by factional fighting and pirate gangs operate freely from several ports along its Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden coasts.
According to the environmental watchdog Ecoterra International, at least 163 attacks have been carried out by Somali pirates since the start of 2009 alone, 47 of them successful hijackings.
Last year, more than 130 merchant ships were attacked, an increase of more than 200 percent on 2007, according to the International Maritime Bureau's Piracy Reporting Centre in Kuala Lumpur.
Pirates have in recent weeks resumed attacks with the end of the monsoon season. Last week Somali gunmen captured Spanish fishing boat The Alakrana with 36 crew members in the Indian Ocean.
The US Maritime Administration warned last month that the end of the monsoon season was likely to bring an increase in piracy off Somalia and urged shipping companies to be vigilant.
Calmer waters allow pirates, who often operate in small fibreglass skiffs towed out to sea by captured fishing vessels, to hijack freighters, trawlers and private yachts. Cruise vessels have also been attacked.
from yahoo news
The crew of La Somme, a 160-metre (525-foot) command vessel and fuel tanker, easily saw off the brazen night-time assault by lightly armed fighters on two lightweight skiffs and captured five pirates, a spokesman said.
"The pirates, who because of the darkness took the French ship for a commercial vessel, were on board two vessels and opened fire with Kalashnikovs," Admiral Christophe Prazuck said in Paris.
La Somme is the French command vessel in the Indian Ocean, overseeing French air, sea and land forces fighting Somali pirates and hunting terrorists under the banner of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom.
Officers on the ship have directed commando operations to free French hostages in the hands of Somali pirates.
The pirates tried to flee when they realised their mistake but were pursued by French forces who, after an hour-long chase, caught one of the skiffs, Prazuck said.
On it they found five men but no weapons, water or food as the pirates had apparently thrown all of the boat's contents overboard, the spokesman said.
A Western official at sea in the area, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said that there had been an exchange of fire between the warship and the pirate launches.
"One of the skiffs managed to get away in the night because La Somme was busy with the first pirate boat," he said.
"Despite the arrival of other vessels, they haven't yet managed to find the second boat," he said, adding that many warships in the area were busy hunting another group which attacked a cargo ship off the Seychelles on Sunday.
The world's naval powers have deployed dozens of warships to the lawless waters off Somalia over the past year to curb attacks by pirates in one of the world's busiest maritime trade routes.
La Somme was operating 250 nautical miles (460 kilometres) off the Somali coast, on its way to resupply fuel to frigates patrolling shipping lanes as part of the European Union's Operation Atalanta anti-piracy mission.
This was not the first time that Somali pirates have mistakenly attacked a French naval vessel. Several pirates were captured in May when they attempted to board a frigate in the area.
Somalia has had no proper government since it plunged into lawlessness after President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991.
The country is riven by factional fighting and pirate gangs operate freely from several ports along its Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden coasts.
According to the environmental watchdog Ecoterra International, at least 163 attacks have been carried out by Somali pirates since the start of 2009 alone, 47 of them successful hijackings.
Last year, more than 130 merchant ships were attacked, an increase of more than 200 percent on 2007, according to the International Maritime Bureau's Piracy Reporting Centre in Kuala Lumpur.
Pirates have in recent weeks resumed attacks with the end of the monsoon season. Last week Somali gunmen captured Spanish fishing boat The Alakrana with 36 crew members in the Indian Ocean.
The US Maritime Administration warned last month that the end of the monsoon season was likely to bring an increase in piracy off Somalia and urged shipping companies to be vigilant.
Calmer waters allow pirates, who often operate in small fibreglass skiffs towed out to sea by captured fishing vessels, to hijack freighters, trawlers and private yachts. Cruise vessels have also been attacked.
from yahoo news
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Feds limit Arizona sheriff's immigration powers
PHOENIX — An Arizona sheriff known for aggressively cracking down on illegal immigration has been stripped of some of his special power to enforce federal immigration law, and he claims the Obama administration is taking away his authority for political reasons.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose office faces racial profiling allegations over crime and immigration sweeps in some heavily Latino areas of metro Phoenix, said officials from Washington won't let him renew a deal that let his deputies make federal immigration arrests.
"Let them all go brag that they took away the sheriff's authority. Let them all do that. That doesn't bother me. I don't have an ego. I will continue doing the same thing," the Republican sheriff said, noting he can still enforce state immigration laws. "What has changed, other than the politics and the perception emanating from Washington?"
The U.S. government, which does most of the nation's immigration enforcement, is changing its rules for allowing local police to enforce more expansive federal immigration laws. Nationally, more than 1,000 local police and jail officers have been granted the power since 2002 to make immigration requests and speed up deportations.
Arpaio has more officers with the special powers than any other local police agency in the country. For more than two years, 100 of his deputies have made immigration arrests and another 60 jail officers have identified inmates who are illegal immigrants.
Even though federal officials declined to let the sheriff keep making immigration arrests, Arpaio last week renewed a deal that will let his jail officers determine inmates' immigration status.
Arpaio said federal officials offered no explanation of why his powers were cut in half.
Vinnie Picard, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which grants the special powers, declined to comment on the curtailment of Arpaio's powers or whether any of the other 62 participating local agencies across the country have been denied renewals.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will make no final decisions on the agreements until Oct. 14, which is the deadline for renewing the agreements. So far, at least three agencies have dropped out of the program.
Giving federal powers to local police helps supplement the small staff of federal agents who enforce immigration laws in the country's interior, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors tougher immigration enforcement.
He said it's hard to tell whether the limits on Arpaio's authority will extend to other agencies and would hamper the movement for local police to confront illegal immigration.
"I suspect there is some effort there to send a warning to other police departments: Don't get too aggressive with this, because we will yank it out from under you," Mehlman said.
Joan Friedland, immigration policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, said the federal government wasn't making a serious attempt to rein in Arpaio, because his jail officers still have the power to question jailed people about their immigration status.
"All he has to do is get people to the jail, rather than being able to question them about their immigration status on the street," said Friedland, whose group advocates for low-income immigrants.
For his part, Arpaio said he plans to continue cracking down illegal immigration by enforcing state laws that prohibit immigrant smuggling and ban employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Arpaio said his deputies can still detain suspected illegal immigrants who haven't committed state crimes, as long as his officers call Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick them up.
Critics say some of Arpaio's deputies racially profiled people during immigration sweeps. Arpaio maintains that people pulled over in the sweeps were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes.
His office is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.
A September 2008 audit by Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the relationship between that agency and the sheriff's office was good, but noted that most rank-and-file patrol deputies who had the special training and who weren't part of a special smuggling unit had rarely used their federal powers, because they didn't have the experience — or didn't want to take the time — to process illegal immigrants.
The review also noted that the local FBI office received no complaints against officers with the special training.
Arpaio's approach to immigration has frustrated other public officials.
The mayor of Mesa complained in 2008 that Arpaio didn't warn his city of raids by deputies who were looking for illegal immigrants working at his city's library and City Hall.
And as Arpaio's sweeps began to draw heavy criticism in 2008, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, cut off immigration enforcement dollars to his office.
Napolitano, who as the country's homeland security secretary now oversees the federal government's immigration agencies, had said it wasn't an attempt to change Arpaio's approach to cracking down on illegal immigration. Rather, she said the funding was reallocated to try to clear a backlog of thousands of outstanding felony warrants across the state.
by the associated press
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose office faces racial profiling allegations over crime and immigration sweeps in some heavily Latino areas of metro Phoenix, said officials from Washington won't let him renew a deal that let his deputies make federal immigration arrests.
"Let them all go brag that they took away the sheriff's authority. Let them all do that. That doesn't bother me. I don't have an ego. I will continue doing the same thing," the Republican sheriff said, noting he can still enforce state immigration laws. "What has changed, other than the politics and the perception emanating from Washington?"
The U.S. government, which does most of the nation's immigration enforcement, is changing its rules for allowing local police to enforce more expansive federal immigration laws. Nationally, more than 1,000 local police and jail officers have been granted the power since 2002 to make immigration requests and speed up deportations.
Arpaio has more officers with the special powers than any other local police agency in the country. For more than two years, 100 of his deputies have made immigration arrests and another 60 jail officers have identified inmates who are illegal immigrants.
Even though federal officials declined to let the sheriff keep making immigration arrests, Arpaio last week renewed a deal that will let his jail officers determine inmates' immigration status.
Arpaio said federal officials offered no explanation of why his powers were cut in half.
Vinnie Picard, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which grants the special powers, declined to comment on the curtailment of Arpaio's powers or whether any of the other 62 participating local agencies across the country have been denied renewals.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will make no final decisions on the agreements until Oct. 14, which is the deadline for renewing the agreements. So far, at least three agencies have dropped out of the program.
Giving federal powers to local police helps supplement the small staff of federal agents who enforce immigration laws in the country's interior, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors tougher immigration enforcement.
He said it's hard to tell whether the limits on Arpaio's authority will extend to other agencies and would hamper the movement for local police to confront illegal immigration.
"I suspect there is some effort there to send a warning to other police departments: Don't get too aggressive with this, because we will yank it out from under you," Mehlman said.
Joan Friedland, immigration policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, said the federal government wasn't making a serious attempt to rein in Arpaio, because his jail officers still have the power to question jailed people about their immigration status.
"All he has to do is get people to the jail, rather than being able to question them about their immigration status on the street," said Friedland, whose group advocates for low-income immigrants.
For his part, Arpaio said he plans to continue cracking down illegal immigration by enforcing state laws that prohibit immigrant smuggling and ban employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Arpaio said his deputies can still detain suspected illegal immigrants who haven't committed state crimes, as long as his officers call Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick them up.
Critics say some of Arpaio's deputies racially profiled people during immigration sweeps. Arpaio maintains that people pulled over in the sweeps were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes.
His office is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.
A September 2008 audit by Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the relationship between that agency and the sheriff's office was good, but noted that most rank-and-file patrol deputies who had the special training and who weren't part of a special smuggling unit had rarely used their federal powers, because they didn't have the experience — or didn't want to take the time — to process illegal immigrants.
The review also noted that the local FBI office received no complaints against officers with the special training.
Arpaio's approach to immigration has frustrated other public officials.
The mayor of Mesa complained in 2008 that Arpaio didn't warn his city of raids by deputies who were looking for illegal immigrants working at his city's library and City Hall.
And as Arpaio's sweeps began to draw heavy criticism in 2008, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, cut off immigration enforcement dollars to his office.
Napolitano, who as the country's homeland security secretary now oversees the federal government's immigration agencies, had said it wasn't an attempt to change Arpaio's approach to cracking down on illegal immigration. Rather, she said the funding was reallocated to try to clear a backlog of thousands of outstanding felony warrants across the state.
by the associated press
AP Top News
WASHINGTON — The fever has broken. The patient is out of intensive care. But if you're President Barack Obama, you can't stop pacing the waiting room. Health care overhaul is still in guarded condition. The latest Associated Press-GfK poll has found that opposition to Obama's health care remake dropped dramatically in just a matter of weeks. Still, Americans remain divided over complex legislation that Democrats are advancing in Congress.
by the associated press
by the associated press
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss teen violence
CHICAGO — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan are set to discuss youth violence in Chicago in the wake of the beating death of a 16-year-old honor student whose attack was caught on cell phone video.
Holder and Duncan plan to meet privately Wednesday with students, parents and school officials. They'll hold a news conference later with Ron Huberman, who replaced Duncan as chief executive officer of Chicago Public Schools.
President Barack Obama sent the two federal officials to Chicago after images emerged of the fatal beating of high school sophomore Derrion Albert. Four teenagers have been charged in his death.
by the associted press
Holder and Duncan plan to meet privately Wednesday with students, parents and school officials. They'll hold a news conference later with Ron Huberman, who replaced Duncan as chief executive officer of Chicago Public Schools.
President Barack Obama sent the two federal officials to Chicago after images emerged of the fatal beating of high school sophomore Derrion Albert. Four teenagers have been charged in his death.
by the associted press
Court hears arguments on cross on park land
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is taking up a long-running legal fight over a cross honoring World War I soldiers that has stood for 75 years on public land in a remote part of California.
The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
The justices were to hear arguments Wednesday in a case the court could use to make an important statement about its view of the separation of church and state. The Obama administration is defending the presence of the cross, which court papers describe as being 5 feet to 8 feet tall.
A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.
Easter Sunrise services have been held at the site for decades.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has repeatedly ruled in Buono's favor. Congress has intervened on behalf of the cross, prohibiting the Park Service from spending money to remove the cross, designating it a national memorial and ultimately transferring the land to private ownership.
The appeals court invalidated the 2004 land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve — like a doughnut hole with the cross atop it — will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.
Veterans groups are on both sides of the case, with some worrying that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials could be threatened by a ruling in Buono's favor. Jewish and Muslim veterans, by contrast, object that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans and excludes others.
The administration wants the court to rule that Buono had no right to file his lawsuit because, as a Christian, he suffers no harm from the cross. His main complaint is that others may feel excluded, the government says.
Alternatively, the administration says the land transfer took care of any First Amendment problem.
The case is Salazar v. Buono, 08-472.
by the asssociated press
The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
The justices were to hear arguments Wednesday in a case the court could use to make an important statement about its view of the separation of church and state. The Obama administration is defending the presence of the cross, which court papers describe as being 5 feet to 8 feet tall.
A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.
Easter Sunrise services have been held at the site for decades.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has repeatedly ruled in Buono's favor. Congress has intervened on behalf of the cross, prohibiting the Park Service from spending money to remove the cross, designating it a national memorial and ultimately transferring the land to private ownership.
The appeals court invalidated the 2004 land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve — like a doughnut hole with the cross atop it — will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.
Veterans groups are on both sides of the case, with some worrying that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials could be threatened by a ruling in Buono's favor. Jewish and Muslim veterans, by contrast, object that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans and excludes others.
The administration wants the court to rule that Buono had no right to file his lawsuit because, as a Christian, he suffers no harm from the cross. His main complaint is that others may feel excluded, the government says.
Alternatively, the administration says the land transfer took care of any First Amendment problem.
The case is Salazar v. Buono, 08-472.
by the asssociated press
Obama weighs Afghanistan options
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is gathering his national security team for another strategy session on Afghanistan after signaling that a troop withdrawal is not under consideration.
Obama's White House session Wednesday comes eight years after the war started and amid new poll statistics showing that support for the conflict in this country is waning.
Obama, who inherited the war when he took office last January, is examining how to proceed with a worsening combat situation that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience. Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defeat the Taliban and rid al-Qaida of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned.
House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged Tuesday from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening. But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.
Public support for the war now stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. A total of 69 percent of self-described Republicans in the poll favor sending more troops, while 57 percent of self-described Democrats oppose it.
Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.
The president did not show his hand on troop increases. His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more. Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.
Obama also gave no timetable for a decision, which prompted at least one pointed exchange.
Inside the State Dining Room, where the meeting was held, Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential race, Sen. John McCain, told Obama that he should not move at a "leisurely pace," according to people in the room.
That comment later drew a sharp response from Obama, they said. Obama said no one felt more urgency than he did about the war, and there would not be nothing leisurely about it.
Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops — closer to 10,000 than 40,000 — according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides. But White House aides said no such decision has been made.
The president insisted that he will make a decision on troops after settling on the strategy ahead. He told lawmakers he will be deliberate yet show urgency.
"We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision," said House Republican leader John Boehner. "Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger."
What's clear is that the mission in Afghanistan is not changing. Obama said his focus is to keep al-Qaida terrorists from having a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S or its allies. He heard from 18 lawmakers and said he would keep seeking such input even knowing his final decision would not please them all.
Obama's emphasis on building a strong strategy did not mean he shed much light on what it would be. He did, though, seek to "dispense with the more extreme options on either side of the debate," as one administration official put it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the closed-door meeting.
The president made clear he would not "double down" in Afghanistan and build up U.S forces into the hundreds of thousands, just as he ruled out withdrawing forces and focusing on a narrow counterterrorism strategy.
"Half-measures is what I worry about," McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters. He said Obama should follow recommendations from those in uniform and dispatch thousands of more troops to the country — similar to what President George W. Bush did during the 2008 troop "surge" in Iraq.
The White House said Obama won't base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.
"The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.
by the associated press
Obama's White House session Wednesday comes eight years after the war started and amid new poll statistics showing that support for the conflict in this country is waning.
Obama, who inherited the war when he took office last January, is examining how to proceed with a worsening combat situation that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience. Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defeat the Taliban and rid al-Qaida of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned.
House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged Tuesday from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening. But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.
Public support for the war now stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. A total of 69 percent of self-described Republicans in the poll favor sending more troops, while 57 percent of self-described Democrats oppose it.
Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.
The president did not show his hand on troop increases. His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more. Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.
Obama also gave no timetable for a decision, which prompted at least one pointed exchange.
Inside the State Dining Room, where the meeting was held, Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential race, Sen. John McCain, told Obama that he should not move at a "leisurely pace," according to people in the room.
That comment later drew a sharp response from Obama, they said. Obama said no one felt more urgency than he did about the war, and there would not be nothing leisurely about it.
Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops — closer to 10,000 than 40,000 — according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides. But White House aides said no such decision has been made.
The president insisted that he will make a decision on troops after settling on the strategy ahead. He told lawmakers he will be deliberate yet show urgency.
"We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision," said House Republican leader John Boehner. "Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger."
What's clear is that the mission in Afghanistan is not changing. Obama said his focus is to keep al-Qaida terrorists from having a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S or its allies. He heard from 18 lawmakers and said he would keep seeking such input even knowing his final decision would not please them all.
Obama's emphasis on building a strong strategy did not mean he shed much light on what it would be. He did, though, seek to "dispense with the more extreme options on either side of the debate," as one administration official put it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the closed-door meeting.
The president made clear he would not "double down" in Afghanistan and build up U.S forces into the hundreds of thousands, just as he ruled out withdrawing forces and focusing on a narrow counterterrorism strategy.
"Half-measures is what I worry about," McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters. He said Obama should follow recommendations from those in uniform and dispatch thousands of more troops to the country — similar to what President George W. Bush did during the 2008 troop "surge" in Iraq.
The White House said Obama won't base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.
"The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.
by the associated press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)