WH, Senators to Begin Push on Immigration Reform












The White House and a bipartisan group of senators next week plan to begin their efforts to push for comprehensive immigration reform.


President Barack Obama will make an announcement on immigration during a Tuesday trip to Las Vegas, Nevada, the White House said on Friday. The Senate group is expected make their plans public around the same time, the Associated Press reported.


See Also: Where Do Labor Unions Stand on Immigration?


For Obama, immigration reform is a campaign promise that has remained unfulfilled from his first White House run in 2008. During his 2012 re-election campaign, the president vowed to renew his effort to overhaul the nation's immigration system. It has long been expected that Obama would roll out his plans shortly after his inauguration.


The president's trip to Las Vegas is designed "to redouble the administration's efforts to work with Congress to fix the broken immigration system this year," the White House said.


Ever since November's election, in which Latino voters turned out in record numbers, Republicans and Democrats have expressed a desire to work on immigration reform. Obama has long supported a bill that would make many of the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants without criminal records eligible to apply for an earned pathway to citizenship, which includes paying fines and learning English.






Charles Dharapak/AP Photo







But the debate over a pathway to citizenship is expected to be contentious. Other flashpoints in an immigration reform push could include a guest-worker program, workplace enforcement efforts, border security, and immigration backlogs.


In a statement, the White House said that "any legislation must include a path to earned citizenship."


Ahead of his immigration push next week, Obama met today with a group of lawmakers from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), including chairman Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas) , Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), and CHC Immigration Task Force Chair Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the latter's office said. CHC members are expected to play a pivotal role in the debate.


"The president is the quarterback and he will direct the team, call the play, and be pivotal if we succeed. I am very optimistic based on conversations with Republicans in the House and Senate that we will do more than just talk about the immigration issue this year," Gutierrez said in a statement following the CHC meeting with Obama. "The president putting his full weight and attention behind getting a bill signed into law is tremendously helpful. We need the president and the American people all putting pressure on the Congress to act because nothing happens in the Capitol without people pushing from the outside."


A bipartisan group of eight senators, which includes Menendez, has also begun talks on drafting an immigration bill and will play an integral part in the process of passing a bill through Congress. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who has been participating in talks with others senators, has also unveiled his own outline for an immigration proposal.


The group of senators have reportedly eyed Friday as the date when they'll unveil their separate proposal, according to the Washington Post.



Read More..

Where is aid for Syria going?






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • The U.S. ambassador to Syria says the U.S. has provided $210 million in humanitarian aid

  • The assistance has to be discrete, he said, to protect workers from being targeted

  • Washington has also provided $35 million worth of assistance to Syria's political opposition

  • Ambassador: We can help, but it's up to Syrians to find their way forward




(CNN) -- It has been more than a year since the United States government withdrew its ambassador to Syria and closed its embassy in Damascus.


On Thursday, that ambassador returned to the region along with a U.S. delegation, touring a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey to bring more attention to the growing humanitarian crisis. As the civil war has intensified in Syria, hundreds of thousands of people have sought refuge in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and other neighboring countries.


Ambassador Robert Ford gave an exclusive interview to CNN's Ivan Watson and described what the U.S. is doing to help the refugees and the Syrian opposition.


Ivan Watson: The U.S. has given $210 million in aid (to Syria), but I think that there is a perception problem because no one can actually point at what that help is. So people conclude there is no help.


Robert Ford: The assistance is going in. It's things like tents, it's things like blankets, it's things like medical equipment, but it doesn't come in big boxes with an American flag on it because we don't want the people who are delivering it to be targeted by the Syrian regime.


The regime is going after and killing people who are delivering supplies. You see them bombing even bakeries and bread lines. So we're doing that, in part, to be discrete.



The assistance is going in ... but it doesn't come in big boxes with an American flag on it.
Robert Ford, U.S. ambassador to Syria



The needs are gigantic. So even though a great deal of American materials and other countries' materials are arriving, the needs are still greater. And that's why we're going to Kuwait to talk to the United Nations and to talk to other countries about how we can talk together to provide additional assistance.


Watson: The head of the Syrian National Coalition, which the U.S. government has backed, came out with a statement very critical of the international community, saying we need $3 billion if you want us to have any say on events on the ground inside Syria. Where is that money?


Ford: (Sheikh Ahmed) Moaz al-Khatib is a good leader, and we think highly of him and we have recognized his (coalition) as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. And, of course, he wants to get as many resources as possible because of the humanitarian conditions that I was just talking about. Especially the ones inside Syria.


But we also, at the same time, have to build up those (aid) networks I was talking about. In some cases, they start out with just a few people. We don't need just a few people, we need hundreds of people, thousands of people on the inside of Syria organized to bring these things in.


And so step by step, the Syrians, Moaz al-Khatib and his organization, need to build that capacity. We can help build it, we can do training and things like that. But in the end, Syrians have to take a leadership role in this.


Watson: Is Washington giving money to the Syrian National Coalition?


Ford: We absolutely are assisting the (coalition), with everything from training to, in some cases, limited amount of cash assistance so that they can buy everything ranging from computers to telephones to radios.








Frankly, if not for the American assistance in many cases, the activists inside Syria wouldn't be in contact with the outside world. It's American help that keeps them in contact with the outside world.


Watson: But, how much assistance has this coalition gotten from the U.S.?


Ford: So far, we've allocated directly to the coalition in the neighborhood of $35 million worth of different kinds of equipment and assistance. And over the next few weeks, couple of months, we'll probably provide another $15 million worth of material assistance.


Watson: Washington recently blacklisted Jabhat al-Nusra, the Nusra Front, calling it a terrorist organization even though inside Syria, it has attracted a lot of respect for its victories and for comparative lack of corruption compared to many rebel groups. How has blacklisting the Nusra Front helped the Syrian opposition?


Ford: We blacklisted the Nusra Front because of its intimate links with al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization with whom we have direct experience, which is responsible for the killings of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of Americans. We know what al Qaeda in Iraq did and is still doing, and we don't want it to start doing that in Syria -- which is why we highlighted its incredibly pernicious role.


I think one of the things that our classification of Nusra as a terrorist group did is it set off an alarm for the other elements of the Free Syrian Army. There was a meeting of the Free Syrian Army to set up a unified command, (and) Nusra Front was not in that meeting -- which we think is the right thing to do. As Syrians themselves understand that Nusra has a sectarian agenda, as they understand better that Nusra is anti-democratic and will seek to impose its very strict interpretation of Islam on Syria -- which historically is a relatively moderate country in terms of its religious practices -- as Syrians understand that better, I think they will more and more reject the Nusra Front itself.


Watson: But I've seen the opposite. As I go into Syria, I hear more and more support and respect for the Nusra Front, and more and more criticism for the U.S. government each time I go back.


Ford: I think that people, Ivan, are still understanding what Nusra is. I have heard criticism from the Nusra Front from people like Moaz al-Khatib who, in Marrakesh (Morocco) in his speech, said he rejected the kind of ideology which backs up Nusra. ... We have heard that from the senior commander of the Free Syrian Army as well. And so the more people understand inside Syria what Nusra is and represents, I think they will agree that is not the group on which to depend for freedom in Syria.


Watson: Do you think the U.S. government could have done more?


Ford: I think the Syrians, as I said, are the ones who will bring the answer to the problem -- just as in Iraq, Iraqis brought the solution to the Iraq crisis, to the Iraq war. The Americans can help, and we helped in Iraq, but ultimately it wasn't the Americans. Despite our help, it was Iraqis.


In Syria, again, it has to be Syrians who find their way forward. Twenty-three million Syrians need to find their way forward. We can help, and we are helping: $210 million in humanitarian assistance, $50 million to help the political opposition get organized for the day after (Bashar) al-Assad goes. These are important bits of help. But ultimately, it's not the American help. It's the Syrians themselves.







Read More..

Mixed reactions in India after high court delays controversial film's release






INDIA: Mixed reactions in India to the Madras High Court's decision to put on hold the release of a movie "Vishwaroopam". The latest work of Tamil actor and film-maker Kamal Haasan, has been accused by some Muslim groups of making the community look bad.

Haasan said he never intended to denigrate anyone and that the movie is being used by groups for political gain.

Tamil actor and film-maker Kamal Haasan has to wait a little longer for his latest movie to premiere in his home state of Tamil Nadu.

The Madras High Court put on hold the release of the film after protests against the film spilled onto the streets. Some Muslim groups petitioned for the movie to be banned, alleging that it depicts the community in a negative light.

Mohammed Hanifa, a coordinator for the Tamil Nadu Muslim Movements and Political Parties Confederation, said: "We cannot accept the picture. Muslims of Tamil Nadu are against the picture. We don't want the picture to be released."

Vishwaroopam will be released in the rest of the country as scheduled.

Kamal Haasan termed the ban "cultural terrorism" and said he will take legal recourse against the Tamil Nadu government.

Movie lovers said the ban is unfortunate.

Sanjay Roy, a literary festival organiser, said: "Yes, there is an element there which needs to be looked at. But there's no need to ban it. If you don't like something, don't go and watch it. If you don't like something, don't go and read it.

"I don't understand why artists are banned every time. Why is art banned? I have never seen any politician being banned."

Made with a budget of about US$17 million, the film is expected to do well at the box office. Besides producing and directing, Kamal Haasan also stars in the movie.

As India is set to celebrate the anniversary of its constitution formation, a judge will watch the movie and decide if Kamal Haasan gets to enjoy his cultural freedom, or if Muslim groups will get their way.

-CNA/ac



Read More..

Te'o reveals biggest regret






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: Te'o says he was embarrassed to discuss girlfriend upon learning she was fake

  • NEW: But while admitting some were misled, he says he "didn't lie" publicly

  • Te'o has his first on-camera interview since news broke of the girlfriend hoax

  • "I wasn't as forthcoming about (the story), but I didn't lie," he tells Katie Couric




(CNN) -- He had wanted to help someone in need, this beautiful girl who had been through so much. And he ended up falling for her. They had much in common -- a strong faith, their Samoan heritage, common values -- and clicked, even though they'd never met face-to-face.


Their relationship ended, the first time, in September when Manti Te'o got a call from her hysterical brother telling him the woman he knew as Lennay Kekua had died, one day after leaving the hospital where she was being treated for leukemia.


Two months later, the relationship unraveled again, this time when he got another call from someone who claimed she was Lennay, very much alive.


In the weeks to follow -- until and after Deadspin broke the story January 16 that Lennay Kekua didn't exist, despite Te'o's repeated references to her and her death in interviews -- the Notre Dame star player admitted feeling embarrassed, scared and overwhelmed.









Notre Dame star Manti Te'o















HIDE CAPTION





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14



>


>>














In his first on-camera interview since then, Te'o said that, publicly, he'd always been truthful.


"For people feeling that they were misled, that I'm sorry for," he told Katie Couric, on an episode of her talk show that aired Thursday. "I wasn't as forthcoming about it (as I could have been).


"But I didn't lie."


Then why, Couric asked, had he said the two met through his cousin and at a game his sophomore year, when he now says she had reached out to him on Facebook? Why had he told his father that he and Kekua had gotten together once in Hawaii?


And why hadn't he had stronger doubts before this winter? Like how, in their FaceTime chats, her screen always appeared black? Or how every in-person meeting they set up fell through, like when she was hospitalized or the time her brother had borrowed her car?


Or how odd was it that, in the months he'd gotten to know her well, a 22-year-old woman had a near-death accident then came down with cancer? And through all her struggles, why didn't he visit her once in the hospital -- even when he was in Southern California, like her, and she was in a coma?


Te'o said he understands why people might doubt their relationship, and him. But he told Couric that his feelings in the relationship -- and after the supposed death -- were authentic.


"What I went through was real. The feelings, the pain, the sorrow ... that was all real," said the standout linebacker and Heisman runner-up. "That's something I can't fake."


Te'o admits lying to father, not to others


The two, Te'o at Notre Dame and Kekua at Stanford University, first got acquainted his freshman year, after she reached out to him on Facebook, he said. Those first few years, they would converse but "it was a friend relationship," Te'o told Couric.




Their relationship began to go to another level, he explained, during his junior year. As it did, Te'o admitted to having his doubts, even reaching out to some others to confirm Kekua was real.


"That was my way of saying, 'Oh she's real, they met her, they've seen her,'" Te'o said of his conversations with friends. "This girl who was in the pictures, and this girl I was talking to must be the same."


But while they talked for hours, they never met face-to-face. Once, Kekua told Te'o she was in his home state of Hawaii, and the two planned to meet. He told Couric she had told him her brother had her car and she couldn't drive to him, but invited him to her hotel.


That meeting never panned out. Still, the next morning, Te'o admitted telling his father the two had, in fact, seen each other. Brian Te'o later mentioned in interviews how his son had met up with Kekua in Hawaii.


That conversation with his father, Te'o told Couric, was "the biggest lie."


"That's the thing I regret most," he said. "That's my way of trying to get my dad's approval of this young lady. Because I knew if he knew I didn't meet her, he would immediately just say no, (it is a) red flag that I obviously should have seen."


The relationship continued. On the talk show "Katie," tapes were played of voice mails left by the woman Te'o said he thought was Kekua. In one, she talked about starting her first session of chemotherapy. In another, she suspiciously called him out after she said another woman answered his phone. In another, she wished him good night: "I'll talk to you tomorrow. I love you so much hon. Sweet dreams."


In an off-camera interview January 18 with ESPN, Te'o said a man named Ronaiah Tuiasosopo was behind the hoax, saying Tuiasosopo had called him earlier this month to apologize. While Tuiasosopo or his father haven't talked publicly, his uncle recently defended him, saying, "It definitely takes two to tango."


Responding to reports Kekua may have been voiced by Tuiasosopo, Te'o said, "It sounded like a woman, but if (a man) somehow made that voice,... that's incredible talent to do that, especially every single day."


A near-death accident then a bout with leukemia


They planned to meet while he was in San Diego, but then she was severely injured in April after being struck by a drunk driver, Te'o said. He could have missed his flight to either Los Angeles or, eventually, Hawaii to be with her, but he didn't.


Manti Te'o denies he was part of girlfriend hoax


"It was a conversation that I didn't want to have with my parents," Te'o told Couric. "To say, 'Uh Mom, Dad, I missed my flight ... because I'm going to see Lennay in the hospital.' "


While she was in a coma at the hospital, Te'o said her relatives held a phone up to her ear and he talked. Nurses said the sound of his voice would cause her breath to quicken, and he'd hear the respirator and "the machines. It was very real."


She awoke from the coma, he said, as he was talking -- whispering his name and causing him to jump for joy, feeling he'd helped her.


"It goes back to what my parents taught me, to always be there for somebody when they need help," Te'o said.


There were more talks in the subsequent months, not just between the two but also involving Te'o's family. He said he was most hurt, most ashamed because the apparent hoax hurt not just him, but his father and mother.


"The belief in this person, the deception, wasn't only with Manti, it was our entire family," his mother, Ottilia Te'o, told Couric. "We had conversations with this person. So in our mind, we had followed the same pattern as Manti."


Te'o: 'I was just scared and I didn't know what to do'


Te'o said he was told that, on September 12, Kekua suddenly started to breathe hard, to sweat and, at 10:47 p.m., she died.


That was the same day his grandmother died. Three days later, he led the Fighting Irish to a 20-3 rout of Michigan State, saying he had been inspired to honor the two women with his play.


"I miss 'em, but I know that I'll see them again one day," he told ESPN at the time.


Even in death, Kekua continued to come up in interviews and elsewhere. She was part of Te'o's story.


Then came the December 6 phone call, from a woman he first thought was Kekua's sister. But then, he recalled, "She said, 'No Manti, it's Lennay.' "


"There was a long silent pause," Te'o said. "And I was angered to say the least."


Despite his renewed doubts, he kept talking -- including at the Heisman presentation on December 8, when he referred to his girlfriend losing her battle with cancer. A Twitter picture sent later that month showing the girl he thought was Kekua, holding a sign with that day's date, convinced him it was all a lie.


But he still didn't know what to do, or what to say.


"Part of me was saying if you say that she's alive, what would everybody think? What are you going to tell everybody who followed you, who you've inspired? What are you going to say?


He added: "I was scared. That's the truth. I was just scared, and I didn't know what to do."


On Christmas Day, he sat down with his parents in Hawaii.


Parents defend Te'o: 'He's not a liar, he's a kid'


This conversation led to one with Notre Dame coaches and administrators. But the school was mum until the Deadspin story came out.


That was followed by many stories as well as speculation about what happened and why. Did Te'o help concoct the hoax to promote his Heisman hopes? He said no. Did he help invent this relationship because he's gay? That, too, isn't true, he said.


It's uncertain how this scandal will affect his standing in the upcoming NFL Draft, set for April. Te'o said he's hoping for the best, though most disappointed in how he's hurt his family.


"The greatest joy in any child's life is to make your parents proud," he said. "The greatest pain is to know that they are experiencing pain because of you."


On the "Katie" show, his mother said she's proud of how her son has handled this entire situation -- saying that, in befriending who he thought was Kekua, he showed he "always puts others before himself."


His father said it's easy to spot the red flags in retrospect. But he said this ordeal hasn't rattled his faith in his son.


"He's not a liar. He's a kid," Brian Te'o said. "He's a 21-year-old kid trying to be a man."


CNN's Eliott C. McLaughlin contributed to this report.






Read More..

Battery expert: "I would not fly in a Dreamliner"

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Investigators say they still don't know what caused batteries to burn in two Boeing 787 Dreamliners, and until they figure that out and how to fix the problem, none of the planes will be allowed to fly.

More than any other plane, the Dreamliner relies on lithium ion batteries to help power its advanced electrical system. They're lighter and more powerful than older battery types, but they contain a highly flammable liquid electrolyte.

U.S. officials defend handling of 787 mishaps

Boeing 787 probe turns to battery companies

Boeing plans to carry on with Dreamliner production

Federal investigators are examining the disassembled battery from the 787 that caught fire in Boston January 7, spewing molten electrolyte.

George Blomgren worked for Eveready, a batteries and flashlights company, for 40 years. He says lithium ion batteries are bundled together for the 787, and that increases the risk.

"These fires burn at very high temperatures, so they are just very dangerous fires," he said.


George Blomgren, a battery expert for Eveready

George Blomgren, a battery expert for Eveready


/

CBS News

The Boston fire, and the burned-out battery on a Dreamliner in Japan, is not the first time lithium ion batteries have caused problems.

In 2011, a Chevy Volt lithium ion battery was damaged in a crash test. Three weeks later, it burst into flames. Chevrolet installed a number of fixes to prevent fires.

Safety features also were added to lithium ion batteries in some cell phones and laptops after 56 million were recalled for risk of overheating and exploding.

Boeing says lithium ion batteries "best met the performance and design objectives of the 787" and "Based on everything we know at this point, we have not changed our evaluation."

Blomgren considers the safety of lithium ion batteries on planes questionable.

"From what I know about incidents, I would not fly in a Dreamliner tomorrow. I just wouldn't feel that it was appropriate or safe," Blomgren said.

Many experts believe in the promise of lithium ion batteries, including for airlines, but they just aren't sure its safety has been perfected.

Read More..

It's Official: Women Will Serve in Combat













Women will soon be able to serve in combat, as things officially changed with the stroke of a pen today at the Pentagon.


At a joint news conference, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Charman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed a memorandum rolling back a 1994 directive prohibiting women from doing so.


"They serve, they're wounded, and they die right next to each other," Panetta said of women and men in the military. "The time has come to recognize that reality.


"If they're willing to put their lives on the line, then we need to recognize that they deserve a chance," Panetta said, noting that he wants his own granddaughters and grandsons to have the same opportunities in their lives and careers.


The change won't be immediate, however. While Panetta announced that thousands of new positions will now be open to women, he has asked the military branches to submit plans by May on how to integrate women into combat operations. He set a January 2016 deadline for branches to implement the changes, giving military services time to seek waivers for certain jobs.


Both Panetta and Dempsey said they believe the move will strengthen the U.S. military force.








Soaring With the First Woman Fighter Jet Commander Watch Video









Florida Judge Puts Debra Lafave Back on Probation After Year Off Watch Video







"Ultimately, we are acting to strengthen the armed forces," Dempsey said. "We will extend opportunities to women in a way that maintains readiness, morale and unit cohesion."


Women have already served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, as ABC News' Martha Raddatz and Elizabeth Gorman reported in 2009: Prohibited from serving in roles "whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground," women in support roles, nonetheless, served in support roles on the frontlines, where they have fought, been wounded and died.


Women have also flown combat missions since 1993 and have served on submarines since 2010.


Panetta noted that 152 women have died serving in the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dempsey said he realized a change was inevitable when he noticed two female turret gunners protecting a senior military officer.


"It's clear to all of us that women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the military's mission of defending the nation," Panetta said. "Women represent 15 percent of the force of over 200,000 [and] are serving in a growing number of critical roles on and off the battlefield.


"I've gone to Bethesda to visit wounded warriors, and I've gone to Arlington to bury our dead. There's no distincton."


Panetta and Dempsey said President Obama supported the move, while warning them to maintain military readiness as they considered the change.


Obama hailed the move in a written statement


"Today, by moving to open more military positions -- including ground combat units -- to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens," he said.


"This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today's military," Obama said.






Read More..

Benghazi blame-game is useless



























































Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through the years


Hillary Clinton through 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




27




28




29




30




31




32




33




34




35




36




37




38




39




40




41




42




43




44




45




46




47




48




49




50




51




52



>


>>







STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Anthony Cordesman: Questions for Hillary Clinton on Benghazi attack inevitable, important

  • But political blame game useless, a discouraging message to diplomats, military advisers, he says

  • He says in hindsight, warnings, pleas for support mistakenly make crisis seem obvious

  • Writer: U.S. must focus forward: encourage, support risk-takers doing crucial work in field




Editor's note: Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Follow CSIS on Twitter.


(CNN) -- Politics are politics, and partisan congressional challenges over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, last September were inevitable.


But while some of the questions Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee bordered on politics at their worst, some represented democracy at its best: A legitimate challenge of how the government works. The fact is, we do need to ask serious questions about the way our diplomats function, how they are deployed and protected.


In her responses, Clinton took responsibility, as the top official in every department always must. The question now, however, is what, if anything, will we really learn from the events that led to the deaths of Stevens and his colleagues?



Anthony H. Cordesman

Anthony H. Cordesman



Do we actually learn something from their courage and sacrifice, and the similar experience of other American diplomats and officers that have faced similar attacks in the past? Or do we go on playing a pointless blame game, creating a climate that discourages our diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers from taking necessary risks -- and relies even more on fortifying our embassies.


Three lessons here. The first: Virtually every post mortem that relies on the blame game has the same result. There is always someone who asked for more resources and warned of the risk before the event. There are always enough intelligence indicators so that once you go back -- knowing the pattern of actual events -- it becomes possible to predict the past with 20-20 hindsight.


The problem is that the post mortems and hearings tend to be useless. Every prudent security officer has always asked for more; the indicators that could provide warning with 20-20 hindsight will still be buried in a flood of other reporting that warns of crises that don't take place; U.S. officials will still have to deal with what intelligence experts call "noise" -- the vast amount of reporting and other data that make it impossible to sort out the right information until the event actually occurs and the patterns are known. All of this makes it hard to know what request or warning ever matters.


Opinion: Algeria hostage crisis shows jihadists on rise


Yes, intelligence and warning can always be improved if the post mortem is realistic and objective. But the resulting improvements will never be enough. No one will ever assess all the risks correctly, U.S. diplomats and other Americans will be vulnerable when they operate in a hostile environment, and risk-taking will remain inevitable.



The second lesson is that we cannot deal with crises like the political upheavals in the Arab world, or the more direct threats that countries like Iran and North Korea can pose, unless our diplomats and military advisers take risks -- and more casualties -- in the process.


Stevens and those around him did what had to be done. These are the teams that can help lead unstable countries towards democracy and stability. They are the crucial to our counterterrorism efforts in the field and to building up the military security capabilities of developing states. They are key to uniting given factions, creating effective governance, and persuading states to move toward development and greater concern for human rights.


They can only be effective if they are on the scene, work with the leaders and factions involved, and often go into harms way where there are terrorist and military threats. Like Stevens, they cannot wait for perfect security, stay in a safe area, or minimize risks and deal with the realities of Libya, filled with local power struggles, extremist elements and potential threats.


We need risk-takers. We need them in any country that is going through the kind of upheavals taking place in Libya, as well as in countries where our enemies operate, and semi-war zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. We need diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams, and intelligence officers that reach far beyond our embassies and go into high risk zones. We need to reward and honor those risk-takers, not those who shelter in safety and avoid the risks they should take or fear their career will be damaged if anyone is killed or hurt.


Opinion: Algeria crisis is a wakeup call for America








The third lesson is that we do need to steadily strengthen our ability to provide secure mobility, better intelligence, better communications, and better protection for those diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers. We need to be able to better provide emergency help to those American NGO personnel and businessmen who take similar risks.


We need both an administration and a Congress that look beyond the blame game and understand that some things are worth spending money on. We need them to understand that what we once called the Arab Spring is clearly going to be the Arab Decade, and we face different but equally real risks in the field in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.


It is far better -- and cheaper even, in the medium term -- to fund strong U.S. country teams, military advisers, counterterrorism teams and development efforts than to let nations collapse, to let extremists take over, to lose allies, and see American NGOs and businesses unable to operate.


We need to see what new methods and investments can protect our people in the field and reduce the risks they should be taking. The answer may be special communications, intelligence system, helicopters and armored vehicles, emergency response teams and new career security personnel to replace contractors and foreign nationals.


What the answer is not is partisan blame, risk avoidance, punishing those who do take risks for the result, and failing to make the improvements in security for risk takers -- while building larger fortress embassies. If you want to honor the Americans lost in the line of duty, focus on the future and not the past.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Anthony Cordesman






Read More..

Networking more important than getting pay rise: survey






SINGAPORE: Eighty-five per cent of Singaporean professionals surveyed actually plan to make a New Year resolution related to their professional life or career this year - up from the 67 per cent who did in 2012 and in contrast to how only 54 per cent of them make New Year resolutions in general.

Four hundred and fifty professionals were involved in the survey by LinkedIn, the world's largest professional network.

The top five professional goals that Singaporeans want to achieve in 2013 are professional development through learning new skills, network more or build more professional relations, getting promoted or move into a leadership role, getting a new job or career and getting a pay rise.

LinkedIn also asked Singaporean professionals what they wanted to achieve with these professional goals and the top choice was financial security and growth, followed by having stronger workplace performance and better work-life balance.

- CNA/ck



Read More..

Gergen: Speech deepens divisions






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • David Gergen says historians will look on Obama's speech as an important source

  • Obama seemed liberated to express his philosophy of government, he says

  • Gergen says the president stressed equality in the tradition of Lincoln, King

  • He says GOP is bristling at the speech, and it will likely deepen divisions in Washington




Editor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter.


(CNN) -- Years from now, historians are likely to look back upon Barack Obama's second inaugural address as a rich treasure trove for understanding his presidency and possibly the course of American politics.


It wasn't as important for his rise to power as his 2004 address to the Democratic National Convention. That one propelled him onto the national stage. It wasn't as elegant as his Philadelphia speech on race relations in the 2008 campaign. That one was his rhetorical masterpiece. But the second inaugural was far more important than either in defining his political philosophy as president.


Politics: After inauguration, political reality returns to Washington


Here's a first rough draft of what historians may find significant:



David Gergen

David Gergen



Obama revealed: The Obama who took the oath of office this week seemed not only more confident but also liberated. A central point of his address was that he inherited an economic crisis and two wars but now the nation is emerging into a clearing. This, he believes, is a golden opportunity for fresh action -- a moment to be seized.


Left unspoken were two other reasons why he feels liberated: He clearly thinks he has shown the country that Republicans aren't willing to compromise, so that he has no choice but to try to muscle them.


The GOP has now blinked twice on the fiscal cliff and the new debt ceiling; he plans to make them keep blinking. Then, too, Obama is also freed up because he is no longer working under the shadow of the 2010 midterm elections when he was snookered. After his convincing win in 2012, he is back on top politically.


Opinion: Obama's ringing defense of liberalism


All of this has inspired the president to reveal to the world his true political philosophy: In one speech, he gave the strongest embrace of 20th-century liberalism since Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. Yes, he gave a couple of bows to the importance of individual initiative and private enterprise, but the heart and soul of the address was a call to collective action on a wide array of fronts.


Gone were the third way of Bill Clinton and the centrism of Jimmy Carter. He emerged as an unapologetic, unabashed liberal -- just what the left has long wanted him to be and exactly what the right has feared.


Heir to Lincoln and King: A little more than three decades ago, Ronald Reagan moved the inaugural ceremony from the east side of the Capitol to the west. For Reagan, the symbolism was that of a Californian who wanted to give his inaugural address gazing out across the National Mall, the monuments and Arlington Cemetery toward the Pacific. But for Obama, the symbolism was very different: He was the president who looked west toward the monuments of Abraham Lincoln and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his address artfully tied him to their legacy.


The historian Garry Wills won a Pulitzer Prize some years ago with his book on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in 1863. Wills argued that for most of America's early history, people thought that the republic was born with the Constitution of 1787 and the Declaration of Independence was a secondary document.


Opinion: Anti-government era is over








Along came Lincoln at Gettysburg saying that the country was born "four score and seven years ago" -- in 1776 with the declaration. In Wills' view, now widely accepted, Lincoln at Gettysburg turned the declaration's second paragraph into the founding creed of the country. What we must aspire to, Lincoln was saying, was to ensure that all are created equal.


King came to the Lincoln Memorial 100 years later -- in 1963 -- to go back to Lincoln at Gettysburg and through him to the declaration. The nation, King said, must live up to the promise of equal opportunity -- and indeed, that was the dream he so eloquently expressed in the finest American speech since Gettysburg.


Enter Obama at his second inaugural, not only on King's official holiday but 50 years after "I Have a Dream" and 150 years after Gettysburg. The president's address begins with a recitation of the declaration, calls it our "founding creed" and makes the aspiration of equal opportunity the central goal of his presidency.


In the past, presidents at inaugurations have found the nation's heroes among those who have died in battle. Obama chose a different path: He found the nation's heroes at Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall. His philosophy, as we learned, is not just about government programs but about embracing inclusion and diversity. It was, I believe, his firmest attempt to build upon Lincoln and King -- and in effect, his address made him their modern heir.


Opinion: GOP, play offense in Obama's second term


Setting a new course: A president's inaugural address often sets the tone and direction of his next four years in office and nowhere may that be more true than with Obama's second. His assertive address has heartened his supporters so that they seem ready to march into battle with him. They not only want him to succeed, but they now have an ambitious agenda to embrace as well.


Smartly, the president's team began putting together a new citizens group, Organizing for Action, just before the inauguration, and his speech was in effect a call to arms. Whether "OFA", as Democrats in Washington already call it, will work well with the Democratic Party is open to question, but it is clear that Obama & Co. intend to use it as an important way to rally public pressure on Congress for his agenda.



Gone were the third way of Bill Clinton and the centrism of Jimmy Carter. He emerged as an unapologetic, unabashed liberal. ...
David Gergen



On the other side of the aisle, many Republicans such as Eric Cantor were respectful of the president after his address but underneath most of them were bristling. They had expected the president to issue a ritualistic plea for bipartisanship and then to begin negotiating with them over federal deficits.


Instead, he made it clear that he will work with them as long as they agree with him and try to run over them if they resist. From the GOP perspective, Obama was virtually dismissive of the nation's fiscal threats and wasn't interested in true negotiations. In a tweet after the speech, scholar Ian Bremmer captured their view of Obama's message to the GOP: "Together, we shall pursue my objectives."


Opinion: World to Obama -- You can't ignore us


In short, the divisions in Washington may grow even deeper in the near term, if that is possible, and no one knows what will actually be accomplished. Among partisans on both sides, there is still a sense that a piece of gun control can be passed (starting with background checks) and perhaps a larger piece of immigration (starting with H-1B visas and legal status for the undocumented). But serious action on climate change seems distant.


More centrally, the parties seem even further apart on a budget agreement. The GOP is in no mood to revisit higher taxes and the president's address gave a ringing endorsement to the basic structure of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. In short, the road ahead looks even rockier than it seemed after the elections.


On the day before the inaugural, a New York Times article by Jodi Kantor reported that after the first term, Obama has warned possible candidates for his job that it is very difficult to get things done in Washington and that the president has a "contracted sense of possibility." He and his team are also aware that power seeps away quickly in a second term.


How, one wondered, is it possible to reconcile those views with Obama's decision to go big at the inaugural, pushing an extraordinarily ambitious agenda.


That question still lingers after the inauguration. It is just possible that what he was ultimately doing in his address was to present the country with a liberal vision of the future and a legislative agenda to go with it -- something akin to what Franklin Roosevelt did in 1944. FDR left behind a Democratic Party with a majority coalition and an agenda that drove American politics for more than 20 years.


Is that the legacy that Obama really wants to leave? Lincoln, King, FDR -- all rolled into one? Only historians will know the answer for sure.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Gergen.






Read More..

Romney to be honored Friday at D.C. luncheon

Mitt Romney will make it to Washington, D.C. for inauguration week after all.

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee and his wife Ann are scheduled to attend a luncheon in their honor Friday at Washington's J.W. Marriott hotel, National Journal reported this afternoon. The reception will be hosted by two of Romney's biggest campaign fundraisers: Virginia philanthropist Catherine Reynolds and hotel tycoon Bill Marriott, Jr.

Romney, a longtime friend to the Marriott family, serves on Marriott International's board of directors. While on the trail, he and his traveling staff stayed almost exclusively at Marriott hotels.

Having opted to spend Inauguration Day at his home in La Jolla, Calif., on Monday, Romney became the first presidential nominee since Michael Dukakis in 1989 to not attend the ceremonial event. But he's made at least one appearance in the nation's capital since the election: Several weeks following his loss, he enjoyed a lunch of white turkey chili with President Obama at the White House.

Read More..