2scottmontgomery

2012-01-31T12:17:00.000-08:00

foxnews:The view from the Gulf: America’s quiet go-between speaks

2012-01-31T11:56:00.000-08:00

The view from the Gulf: America’s quiet go-between speaks

EXCLUSIVE: Sultan Qaboos bin Said, Oman’s reclusive leader and intermediary on Iran, speaks with Fox News correspondent Judith Miller

Oman's ruler, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, a longtime, discreet intermediary with Iran, says that Iran is seriously seeking a way out of American-led sanctions over its nuclear program and urges the United States to re-engage the regime on a variety of issues, not just its nuclear program.

“No one in the world can live on his own in today’s world,” the sultan said, referring to Iran.

“They don’t want to bring upon themselves more trouble. They know they are mistrusted and must convince the world of their peaceful intentions.”

Specifically, the sultan added, Iran understands that this means working more closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency to increase international nuclear inspections of its nuclear program and returning to talks with the U.S. and key Security Council members, Britain, France, Russia, China, as well as Germany, known as the P-5 plus 1. Last Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed such talks.

The sultan urged President Obama to take Iran up on its offer. “The United States and Iran should sit together and talk,” he said.

Sultan Qaboos’ conviction that Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons can and must be resolved peacefully was among several notes of optimism he struck during a rare, four-hour interview -- the first in-depth interview he has given an American reporter since 1997. The meeting took place last week at Hisn Al Shomoukh palace, about 90 miles from Muscat, the capital.

He disclosed that Oman, at America’s “hint” for assistance, had recently conveyed to the highest levels of the Iranian government a warning about the adverse potential consequences of closing the Strait of Hormuz. How precisely that message was conveyed -- "we have our ways and means," he said -- he would not disclose. But he added that he believes the message was clearly received.

"No one will block the Strait of Hormuz," Qaboos asserted.

Iran, he added, may also be preparing to adopt unspecified reforms.

The sultan shared his views before Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that Iran could acquire a nuclear bomb within a year. But Sultan Qaboos disputed the notion that this was Tehran’s intent.

“They now want to persuade the rest of the world that while they are seeking a nuclear capability -- like Japan -- they are not seeking weapons per se,” he said. He claims to believe them.

Asked why the West should try again to negotiate with Iran, since Tehran had reneged on an earlier agreement to reduce stocks of low enriched uranium which, if further enriched, could provide fuel for a nuclear bomb, he said that Iran’s economic challenges had now grown more severe as a result of economic sanctions.

But Washington remains skeptical, noting that Tehran has not yet responded to the European Union's demand for a specific proposal from Iran indicating that its desire to talk is more than merely a time-buying tactic.

Asked about reports that Israel was allegedly weighing a military strike to degrade and delay Iran’s nuclear program, Qaboos replied that while he understood that “Israel must be looking at all the options and keeping all of them open,” he hoped that the situation would not “deteriorate to the point that Israel feels compelled to take drastic measures.”

“Inshallah it will not happen,” the sultan stressed. But were Israel to strike, “God forbid,” he added, all parties would have to “do what you can to avoid an escalation.”

“Peaceful solutions are always preferred,” he said.

For Israel, especially, the sultan said, there was no viable alternative to resuming serious talks with the Palestinians. “These two peoples must find a way to live together,” he said.

The sultan expressed optimism about Yemen, a country that has been in constant turmoil since the outbreak of the Arab spring last year. He said he believed that Yemen would stabilize now that Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who came first to Muscat before traveling to the U.S. for medical treatment last Saturday, had agreed to leave Yemen, at least temporarily. “He realized that he should be part of the solution, not the problem,” Qaboos said during the interview in English, which he speaks fluently and with a slight British accent.

The Sultan, who celebrated his 40th year in power last November, seemed far less optimistic about developments in Syria, Egypt, and prospects for a resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

With respect to Egypt, which just marked the one-year anniversary of the uprising that prompted President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, Qaboos said that he felt personally sorry for the Egyptian president, who is ailing and on trial for capital crimes, because “it didn’t have to end this way.”

“Maybe there were other alternatives, such as reform,” he said. But Qaboos added that he wanted to hear from Mubarak’s defenders. “A proper trial should be conducted and the truth should come out.” The sultan also indirectly cautioned both Egypt’s armed forces and militant Islamists from clinging to, or trying to usurp power. “No one party or religious group should impose its will,” he said. “They all need to work together.”

As for Syria, while refraining from criticizing President Bashar Assad by name, he urged Damascus to accept the Arab League’s initiative asking Assad to step aside so that a political transition can begin. The Syrian government has rejected the Arab group’s resolution. But Sultan Qaboos urged persistence and patience. It had taken time to convince President Saleh of Yemen that Oman’s advice to leave was sound. Because Saleh was granted immunity from political charges, the sultan said, the Yemeni president felt that he could eventually return to Yemen to compete for power democratically. The Arab League resolution, as written, would enable Assad, who heads his own party, to “remain as leader of that and compete in a democratic system.”

Oman has repeatedly used what the sultan called his country’s “good ties” to Iran and his other neighbors to free hostages and help defuse potential politically explosive situations. A diplomatic cable disclosed by WikiLeaks says that Oman helped free British sailors captured by Iran’s navy in 2007.

According to the state-run Omani news agency, Oman also helped free three French aid workers being held hostage by Al Qaeda militants in Yemen by paying a sum which officials here declined to disclose but that diplomats estimate at several million dollars. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has traveled here twice, once to thank Sultan Qaboos for his role in freeing American hikers being held by Tehran. Oman reportedly paid some $1.5 million to Iran and sent a plane to transport the hiker hostages out of the country.

To demonstrate his support for a “friend” in trouble, the sultan said he traveled to Iran for the first time ever during the Green uprising in 2009. But another Wikileaks cable, dated 2010, put such gestures in a more pragmatic light. “Oman views Iran as the strategic threat to the region but has chosen to manage the threat by fostering strong working relations with Tehran," the cable asserts.

Clinton has come here to Muscat twice to meet with the sultan, whom she has lavishly praised on several occasions.

The respect is clearly mutual. The sultan called Clinton "a lady I admire." He said he had not met President Obama, but had talked to him by phone several times. “He is a capable man,” the sultan said, with somewhat more measured enthusiasm.

WASHPOST:Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds

2012-01-31T09:55:00.000-08:00

Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-is-prepared-to-launch-terrorist-attacks-in-us-intelligence-report-finds/2012/01/30/gIQACwGweQ_story.html?hpid=z1

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies, the U.S. spy chief said Tuesday.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in prepared testimony that an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year reflects an aggressive new willingness within the upper ranks of the Islamist republic to authorize attacks against the United States.

That plot “shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime,” Clapper said in the testimony, which was submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee in advance of a threat assessment hearing Tuesday. “We are also concerned about Iranian plotting against U.S. or allied interests overseas.”

The assessment signals a potentially dire new direction in the adversarial relationship between the United States and Iran, at a time when there are indications that a covert campaign is already underway to thwart Iran’s alleged ambition to develop a nuclear weapon.

Clapper’s warning about Iran was delivered as part of the U.S. intelligence community’s annual overview of the nation’s most serious national security concerns. As the hearing got underway, Clapper signaled that the United States is seeking to avoid a violent confrontation with Iran, instead pushing for more and more sanctions while also monitoring the possibility of a preemptive strike by Israel.

“Our hope is that the sanctions ... would have the effect of inducing a change in Iranian policy toward their apparent pursuit of a nuclear capability,” Clapper said. “Obviously this is a very sensitive issue right now. We’re doing a lot with the Israelis.”

Clapper’s testimony also calls attention to a heightened concern over cyber-related threats, as well as the diminished but persistent danger to the United States posed by al-Qaeda.

This year’s assessment is the first to evaluate al-Qaeda’s capabilities since Osama bin Laden was killed in a U.S. commando raid in May. That blow, combined with the toll taken by subsequent strikes and raids, has destroyed al-Qaeda’s core.

As a result, Clapper said in the testimony, the United States is entering a “critical transitional phase for the terrorist threat,” in which smaller-bore strikes from regional nodes are more likely than elaborate, mass-casualty plots.

If the pressure on al-Qaeda can be maintained, “there is a better-than-even chance that decentralization will lead to fragmentation,” Clapper said. The terrorist group “will seek to execute smaller, simpler plots to demonstrate relevance to the global jihad.”

The group’s affiliate in Yemen continues to be seen as the most likely source of plots targeting the United States. But the death of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a CIA drone strike in Yemen last year has at least temporarily eroded the affiliate’s ability to mount international attacks.

The indications of al-Qaeda’s declining potency were offset by the grim new concern about the potential for terror attacks from Iran.

In October, U.S. officials accused Iran of being behind the disrupted plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir. The convoluted scheme was to rely on assassins from a Mexican drug cartel to carry out the killing at a restaurant in Washington.

U.S. officials said the plot was devised by an Iranian American with ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. But the plan was foiled when the Iranian American mistakenly hired a paid informant of the Drug Enforcement Administration to carry it out. Iranian officials have denied any role in the plot.

At the time, Obama administration officials said they were unclear on “how high up” in the Iranian leadership approval of the alleged plan extended. Clapper’s reference to Khamenei marks the first time that U.S. officials have mentioned Iran’s supreme leader in connection with the plot, signaling new belief that the alleged willingness to authorize such attacks comes directly from the top.

The view of U.S. intelligence agencies on Iran’s nuclear intentions has not shifted since last year. Clapper said that Iran still appears to be “keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons,” but that “we do not know” what the republic will decide.

Iran has blamed the United States and Israel for a series of mysterious developments, including the apparently targeted killing of yet another Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran on Jan. 11, as well as a crippling cyberattack on the country’s largest uranium enrichment facility.

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama raised the threat of military intervention to halt Iran’s alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb, saying he would “take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

But the administration insists that it has refrained from violent measures so far. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denied “any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.”

abcnews:Digital Detectives Dig Through Data Deluge

2012-01-31T07:10:00.001-08:00

Digital Detectives Dig Through Data Deluge

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/fbis-digitial-detectives-recover-deleted/story?id=15470999&page=2#.TygA_fmAE4k

"The warrant requirement is in the Constitution.We just have to make it clear that it applies not only to your physical effects, but also to your digital life." Dempsey told ABC News. "This is golden age of surveillance. There is more information available more easily to the government than ever before."

CNN:Al Qaeda benefits from Yemen turmoil

2012-01-31T05:53:00.000-08:00

Al Qaeda benefits from Yemen turmoil

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/30/aqap-benefits-from-turmoil-in-yemen/?hpt=hp_bn2

When President Barack Obama told Americans last week that al Qaeda operatives in Yemen "are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America," he may have been telling only half the story.

While al Qaeda's Yemen branch has been hit hard - most notably with the killing of American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - U.S. officials and experts say there are signs that al Qaeda is making significant gains in Yemen as the government's control over outlying regions continues to fray amid political unrest.

Furthermore, they say, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) hasn't given up its goal of striking the United States, though there have been no attempted attacks on American soil by al Qaeda since 2010.

While the death of al-Awlaki by a CIA-operated drone in September eliminated AQAP's external operations commander and chief recruiter of English-speaking militants, key players remain at-large in Yemen.

They include AQAP leader Naser al-Wuhayshi - a close associate of Osama bin Laden - and Ibrahim al-Ashiri, the skilled bomb-maker U.S. officials believe was behind the attempt to blow up a U.S. commercial airliner on Christmas Day in 2009 and a plot to bomb cargo planes belonging to such companies as FedEx the following year.

And while some of al Qaeda's most-wanted members may be "scrambling," as Obama put it during his State of the Union speech Tuesday, AQAP's goal of striking the United States either overseas or at home has not diminished, according to one U.S. official.

"AQAP hasn't changed its two main aims which are to attack the West, while establishing a safe-haven in Yemen. They may have more success at the latter if they continue to take advantage of the political unrest there, which is going to be tense for some time," said the U.S. official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University, said AQAP members "are taking advantage of the chaos" in Yemen right now.

In addition to the fight against AQAP, Yemen has been wracked with protests throughout the past year, with demonstrators and rival factions demanding the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and calling for elections.

Daniel Green, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, agreed that AQAP has much more room to operate within Yemen, and offered a dire prediction: the group has an incentive to launch a spectacular attack in a presidential election year.

"They have shown a very entrepreneurial ability to get explosives into the U.S.," Green said. "I wouldn't put it past them to try and do something this year."

Most of the group's gains have been in the southern provinces where the government exercises little control, according to the experts. Clashes between suspected militants and security forces have been particularly fierce over the past year in southern Abyan province, where suspected AQAP members held the provincial capital of Zinjibar under siege for months before eventually being flushed out.

The U.S. official agreed AQAP is "particularly strong" in the southern provinces and warned, "they'll most likely try to expand from there to establish themselves as a force in the surrounding provinces."

It appeared they did just that with the recent seizure of Radda only 100 miles south of the capital of Sanaa and considered a key transit route to the south. Suspected militants stormed the town earlier this month, taking over government buildings and mosques and freeing inmates from jails, according to local authorities and residents.

The U.S. official acknowledged AQAP had "made some new gains" in Radda, but questioned soon after it happened whether the militants would be able to hold onto them.

"Often in the areas where AQAP has some control, they use intimidation and violence against tribal officials to force local support for their activities," the official said.

In the end, the militants relinquished control. They agreed to leave Radda in exchange for the release of three prisoners, according to the office of the Yemeni vice president.

The U.S. official also cautioned against confusing secessionist violence with AQAP actions.

In 1990, North Yemen and South Yemen united as one country, but a secessionist movement has been gaining steam in the south, emboldened by the popular uprising against Saleh.

Green said that measuring the apparent gains of the organization is tricky.

"The challenge is discerning how much of this is al Qaeda and how much of this is just tribes taking advantage of the security vacuum to get more power."

There is also a question of whether al Qaeda is growing in Yemen.

Johnsen estimated the number of fighters at more than 1,000 - what he called a "significant increase" from the hundreds just a couple of years ago.

Two U.S. officials suggested that while difficult to determine, there are probably hundreds of hardcore operatives. When low-level and affiliated fighters are included, the total number could be anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 people, the officials said.

Meanwhile, the emergence of a group last year called Ansar al-Sharia has experts debating its connections to AQAP. The group has been linked to the takeover of Radda, according to Johnsen.

"Ansar al-Sharia seems to be a front AQAP sometimes uses in Yemen to avoid the baggage that comes with the al Qaeda name. But, they are still al Qaeda," a U.S. official said.

However, a U.S. counterterrorism official referred to Ansar al-Sharia as a social movement that favors Islamic rule in Yemen and appears to support the ideals of al Qaeda.

Johnsen thinks the group is certainly tied to AQAP and is pursing a model similar to the one the Taliban used to gain control of Afghanistan.

"These people are coming in and they are trying to provide some services to the people," said Johnsen, noting that all they have to do is be better than the Yemeni government to gain support.

Ansar al-Sharia recently released a video on its website of what it claimed to be U.S. soldiers on the roof of the Sheraton Hotel in the capital of Sanaa. There has been no confirmation of when the video was shot or whether in fact the men on the roof are American soldiers.

Johnsen said the group could use the video as a rallying cry to justify waging jihad against the United States, similar to what al Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan did in response to U.S. forces being in country.

For his part, Green said he believes AQAP is also trying to balance its image among the populace having learned a lesson from the playbooks of al Qaeda operators in Iraq and Pakistan where their brutality alienated local populations.

"They are being very careful pursuing a softer policy in addition to this hard policy of fighting," Green said.

smallbiztrends:John Locke Shares His Strategies for Selling a Million Books on Amazon

2012-01-31T05:41:00.001-08:00

John Locke Shares His Strategies for Selling a Million Books on Amazon

http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/01/john-locke-shares-strategies-interview.html

In 2011 I wrote a few business book reviews based on a couple of Kindle purchases. In addition to the business books, I picked up one of those $.99 Kindle Singles written by John Locke about a savvy CIA assassin named Donovan Creed. I got hooked on his engaging and entertaining stories and before I knew it, I had read through all nine of them and there were no more! (sniff). When I check bed a few months later, at the end of the list of nine was How I Sold a Million Books on Amazon in Five Months.” I picked it up without even thinking about it.

Now that it’s a nominated best business book for 2012, I asked John Locke to share some of his secrets for writing, promoting and selling ebooks.

Ivana Taylor: What was the tipping point that took your novels to the 1 million mark?

John Locke: This is a very difficult question to answer and had you asked it six months ago I would have given you a different response. Back then I would have said it was a combination of the blog posts I’d written, emails I’d answered, Twitter contacts I’d made, and the Amazon sales engine that links similar books and identifies the categories readers search, such as Movers and Shakers, Top 100, and so forth.

But today I have a different answer because, while my last two books were best sellers, neither did as well as my flagship books, Saving Rachel and Wish List. Those books drove my sales into the stratosphere. These days my blog is still effective, I have ten times as many subscribers as I did when Saving Rachel came out, four times as many contacts, and twice as many Twitter followers. And the Amazon sales engine is as effective as ever.

My recent book, Call Me! got no higher than #20 overall. I look around and see other authors setting all sorts of sales records with a first book, and realize there are many roads to the top. But the tipping point to that top level of sales seems to be the book itself. Saving Rachel and Wish List caught the public’s imagination, and the sales were breathtaking.

For an entire month I sold more than 12,000 units a day. At one point Saving Rachel and Wish List were #1 and #2 overall. On my best day I sold 30,000 ebooks. All the marketing methods helped, and the Amazon sales engine was a huge factor. But these days I’m convinced the major factor, or tipping point, is the book itself. Writing that type of book is like catching lightning in a bottle. And when you write one of those, you know it. But everything you write is not going to have that type of effect on the public.

Ivana Taylor: You said, “Don’t let the things you don’t have prevent you from using what you do have.” Do you have an example of this principle in action around marketing your books?

John Locke: Here’s one: I had no formal training as a writer. I never took a writing course, never attended a seminar or workshop. In other words, I had no experience. But I didn’t let that prevent me from using what I did have: imagination, drive, determination. As for marketing, I did have money to spend on ads and so forth, but the money I spent didn’t help. Cost-free marketing is the only type that generated sales for me. So if you don’t have money to invest, don’t let that stop you from using what you do have: enthusiasm, empathy, people skills.

What I’m saying, there’s always a way to compensate for what you don’t have. If I’m not as smart as you, I’ll have to work harder. If another woman is prettier than you, you might have to be more charming. There’s always a way to compensate.

Ivana Taylor: What do you mean when you say you don’t set sales goals, you set project goals. How does that work? What’s a project goal that a small business author might set and how would they track it?

John Locke: I always tell people that goals should be low enough to hit and high enough to matter. A wonderful project goal for a starting author would be to get five, 5-star reviews for his or her book. That’s a significant goal when you’re starting out. Without a specific goal like this, you won’t do the necessary things it takes to achieve it. In other words, if you set a goal to get five 5-star reviews, you’ll be able to create a plan for hitting it. You’ll ask friends to review your book. You’ll read reviews others have gotten and it will dawn on you to contact the reviewers and see if they’ll review your book.

These are simple things, but without the goal, you’ll never draw up the plan. Without the plan, you’ll never take the action.

Ivana Taylor: You say that you should have a quotable quote for each encounter and interview. Why? How does this help your marketing?

John Locke: Quotes are sound bites. People remember sound bites. If you listen to the evening news, it’s all sound bites. When someone tells you about a movie or TV show or comedy act they enjoyed, they’ll quote dialog or jokes, which are nothing more than sound bites. Monday I did an interview and got this quote in: “Wish List is half rocket ship, half roller coaster.” I spoke to the interviewer a full hour, but that’s the comment she remembered. Yesterday I got this quote in:

“It’s amazing how everything comes together when you put the reader first.”

I could have pontificated on the subject for an hour, but people appreciate the economy of words a sound bite offers. I believe authors should set a plan for each interview. In the past three days I’ve done five interviews, and had a specific plan for each. I went to each site and became familiar with the type of interviews they’ve done in the past. I tried to figure out the best way to approach the upcoming interview. I’ve heard authors say they’ve done so many interviews they could do one in their sleep.

Don’t worry, they say, they’re good on their feet, they’ll just wing it. “Just winging it” is another way of saying you didn’t bother to prepare (that’s my sound bite for you!)

Ivana Taylor: This quote was a whack on the side of the head for me, “My work isn’t 10x worse and theirs isn’t 10x better for the price.” How did you set the pricing for your book? What advice would you give other business authors about pricing their book?

John Locke: You should always have a reason for your actions. I set my prices low because I wanted to make buying my books an afterthought. Also, I was writing day and night at the time, so I figured to make volume sales. So those were my reasons for the 99-cent price point. But circumstances change.

On February 1st, Wish List will be available in mass-market paperback in every bookstore and retail outlet in America. I set the price extremely low for a paperback book: $4.99, because I’m trying to get noticed in a new market. But I don’t want to self-compete against my ebooks, so for the first time, I’m raising the prices of my Donovan Creed series.

Am I abandoning my core readers? No. All future Creed books will still debut at 99 cents for a period of time that allows my loyal readers to download them at my “friendship” price of 99 cents. After that, I’ll raise the price so as not to hurt sales of the paperback versions. My Emmett Love and Dani Ripper series will continue to be sold for 99 cents unless the circumstances for those books change. So my advice is to have a reason for your pricing. It can be based on experimenting with different price points, or some other factor that makes sense to you.

reuters:Top U.S. spies to face grilling on Taliban, Iran talks

2012-01-31T05:34:00.000-08:00

Top U.S. spies to face grilling on Taliban, Iran talks

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/us-usa-congress-threats-idUSTRE80T1UY20120130

Reuters) - The possible release of detained Taliban leaders is likely to join Iran's nuclear ambitions at the top of a busy agenda when the top seven American intelligence chiefs testify before the Congress this week.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper -- as well as the heads of the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Counterterrorism Center and State and Homeland Security department intelligence units -- will be grilled on "worldwide threats" at a pair of open hearings.

The hearings -- before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday and its House of Representatives counterpart on Thursday -- are an annual ritual. But they offer a rare opportunity for legislators publicly to raise sensitive national security topics that are usually discussed only in secret briefings.

Lawmakers have expressed concern about the Obama administration's efforts to engage in peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, including consideration of the release of five Taliban leaders incarcerated at Guantanamo as a "confidence building" gesture, sources close to the committee said.

Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, told Reuters at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week that he and the panel's Democratic chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, had twice written to the Obama administration "raising strong objections" to the proposed move, which purportedly would involve the release of the Taliban prisoners into Afghan government custody.

Chambliss said he and Feinstein first wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "We've gotten a response" from Clinton, he said, declining to discuss the classified contents of her letter.

But he hinted that Clinton's response did not mollify them, adding that he and Feinstein then wrote a second letter to President Barack Obama.

Chambliss said there was "every reason to believe" some of the five Taliban detainees were involved in the death of CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann during an uprising by Taliban prisoners at a fortress outside the Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif in November 2001.

"I think it's bad policy. We don't negotiate with terrorists. We never have," Chambliss said, calling the detainees "five of the meanest, nastiest killers in the world."

Two detainees slated for possible release, former senior Taliban army commanders Mohammed Fazl and Noorullah Noori, were held at the historic Qala-i-Jangi fortress outside Mazar-i-Sharif when the prison revolt erupted in 2001.

But a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted earlier this month that he knew of no evidence that they were involved in the death of Spann, who was surrounded and killed by rioting prisoners.

CONGRESS NOT NOTIFIED

Chambliss said Obama had not yet notified Congress of the administration's plan to transfer the prisoners from Guantanamo, a step which is required by a law which the president signed on December 31.

"It's the president's call. There's an ongoing conversation about it, let me say that," said Chambliss. To date, all discussions the Administration has had with Congress on the prisoner transfer issue have taken place behind closed doors.

Iran's nuclear progress and threats to Persian Gulf shipping and U.S. interests are almost certain to be key topics of discussion, with U.S. intelligence officials expected to offer a less alarming take on Iranian activity than those voiced by some conservative and Israeli analysts.

U.S. officials have told Reuters they believe that Iran's leaders have not yet made a decision to build nuclear weapons, an assessment which the U.S. intelligence community has held since it published extracts of a controversial National Intelligence Estimate on the issue in 2007.

U.S. officials say the reason Iranian leaders have not made a decision to build a bomb is because they are still weighing the costs and benefits of doing so.

But while a lot of what Iran is doing in its nuclear program has civilian applications, U.S. officials also believe that Tehran is keeping its options open regarding the building of a bomb -- adding to the air of ambiguity surrounding Iran's intentions and dealings with the U.S. and the outside world.

Other subjects which officials said might come up during this week's hearings are the stability of North Korea's regime and the future of its nuclear program after the death last month of Kim Jong-il and his replacement by his son Kim Jong-un; the recent discovery by authorities in Thailand of possible stockpiling of bomb-making materials by an individual with alleged links to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah; and drug-related violence and instability in Mexico.

The activities of homegrown U.S. militants could also be raised at the hearings. The FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies have been particularly concerned about "lone wolf" militants who become radicalized via the internet and plot violence without catching the attention of authorities.

"We have to constantly be vigilant against a range of threats. Terrorism didn't begin with (Osama) bin Laden, it's not over with his death. There are other al Qaeda, al Qaeda-related groups, and we have the growth of homegrown extremists," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Monday.

Last week in Baltimore, a man pleaded guilty to attempting to bomb a military recruiting center. Investigators said he had no connection to international militants but had been trying unsuccessfully to recruit others to join his plot until he was trapped by authorities in a "sting" operation.

Earlier in January, a home-grown militant in Tampa was arrested in connection with a plot to car-bomb nightclubs and then attack crowds of onlookers with guns or a suicide vest.

(Reporting By Mark Hosenball and Warren Strobel; additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria)

CNN:How Petraeus ended up CIA Director

2012-01-31T05:22:00.001-08:00

How Petraeus ended up CIA Director

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from All In: The Education of General David Petraeus by Paula Broadwell with Vernon Loeb. This is reprinted by arrangement with The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc. Copyright (c) Paula Broadwell with Vernon Loeb, 2012.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/how-petraeus-ended-up-cia-director/

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates landed in Afghanistan on Dec 7th and after a battlefield circulation to see tough fighting in the east, met privately with Petraeus, his partner now in two troubled wars. It had been a year since Obama committed to a troop surge in his address at West Point, and it felt like there was a new momentum, including progress in Kandahar and Helmand, even if conditions on the ground at some places remained violent and dangerous. Gates said progress in the war was exceeding his expectations. But, he paused, he had difficult news to relay to Petraeus about the one job in the military in which Petraeus was interested - chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Forget about it," Gates said. "It wasn't happening."

Petraeus's mind whirled, even though, as he'd told a close friend, he'd had distinctly mixed feelings about the position. Nonetheless, being told it was out of the question stung. He wasn't nearly ready to retire. But, the jobs Gates mentioned - chief of staff of the Army or NATO's supreme commander in Europe - while very important and prestigious, no longer held the allure they once had for Petraeus. He wanted to stay more directly engaged in the fight against al Qaeda and the extremists who threatened the United States and its allies - the effort to which he had devoted virtually the entire past decade. As always, he was intrigued by the prospect of something new. "What about the CIA?" Petraeus asked.

Petraeus knew how important the agency was in fighting terrorism and told Gates he thought he could contribute as its director. In fact, he had been thinking about it for some time. Gates was enthusiastic. He had served as the agency's director after a long career with the agency. He thought Petraeus would be a superb choice to replace Leon Panetta, who likely would be a candidate to replace Gates as Defense Secretary the following summer.

While they had no sense of this at the time, their conversation would come to influence both the arc of the war in Afghanistan, which Petraeus would leave sooner than he wanted, and that of the ongoing war against al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups, which Petraeus wanted to help prosecute as director of the CIA. Gates took that option back to the White House and, according to one of Gates's aides, relayed to Petraeus that the president had been intrigued by the idea. Although he and Gates periodically revisited the idea, Petraeus wouldn't discuss it face-to-face with Obama until he returned to Washington for testimony in March.

***

When Petraeus returned to Washington in March for testimony, he was summoned to the White House where Obama welcomed Petraeus with a firm handshake. They once again sat down one-on-one next to each other in the same two armchairs in which they'd sat in late June 2010, when the president asked Petraeus to go to Afghanistan. Obama observed that the hearings on Afghanistan that week had seemed to go well. According to aides briefed after the meeting, he then raised the issue most on Petraeus's mind. He noted that he had, for some time, been "intrigued" by the notion of making Petraeus the director of the CIA. He told Petraeus he thought he would be a great director. There was no better place than the CIA, Obama said, for Petraeus to continue to contribute to the missions in which he'd been engaged throughout much of the past decade. Petraeus's field experience, including that with the intelligence community in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and the greater Central Command theater, and his intellectual acumen seemed to make him a natural fit.

Obama added, however, that he thought that Petraeus should run the agency as a civilian. The CIA wasn't the military, and Obama was sensitive about the already blurry lines between the two. Having Petraeus in uniform would only further confuse the matter, especially when he traveled to the CENTCOM area and met with national leaders. Petraeus said he understood completely and had already discussed the issue with Secretary Gates and decided that he would retire from the military if offered the job.

He told Obama that he thought taking the uniform off would send a powerful message to the CIA workforce. Obama agreed. They then discussed how Obama felt the CIA director should operate. He thought the director should represent the agency's analysts' positions on issues, but Obama would welcome Petraeus's personal views on occasions when they might differ somewhat from those of the analysts. Petraeus agreed, and Obama closed the conversation by saying he needed to discuss Petraeus's selection with others and he would finalize the decision in the weeks ahead.

***

Months later, in late April, the President met with Secretary Gates to discuss the CIA position and then, after further discussion in the White House, Gates called Petraeus to tell him that the President planned to nominate him and the President wanted Petraeus back in Washington for the announcement. Late the next night, Obama called Petraeus himself and formally offered him the job. Petraeus didn't share the conversation or the news with his team; they just knew they would be boarding a plane in less than a day for the flight home. While the news spreading all over Washington, Team Petraeus geared up for another trip. They departed from Kabul on April 27 for an eight-hour flight to Ramstein Air Base in Germany. Petraeus went for a run while the plane refueled, then flew for another eight hours to Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington. After the announcement was made the next day in the White House, Petraeus's team returned directly to Kabul. By the end of the trip, he had spent more time in the air than on the ground in Washington.

latimes:Petraeus works to improve relations with lawmakers The CIA director's dealings with congressional oversight committees have been strained at t

2012-01-31T04:57:00.000-08:00

Petraeus works to improve relations with lawmakers

The CIA director's dealings with congressional oversight committees have been strained at times, some say. He's more guarded than his predecessor, and drone attacks in Pakistan have slowed since he took the job.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia-petraeus-20120131,0,1129166.story

Reporting from Washington—

CIA Director David H. Petraeus will have a dual mission when he testifies about worldwide threats at a Senate intelligence committee hearing Tuesday.

He also is working to improve relations with some powerful lawmakers and their staff on the congressional oversight committees.

At issue is what the retired Army general's critics call his guarded approach, especially compared to that of his back-slapping predecessor, now-Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta. Some also complain that Petraeus has failed to adequately explain why the pace of CIA drone missile attacks in Pakistan has dropped since he took over the spy service in September.

Petraeus' storied 37-year career in the Army, including commanding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has given him significant credibility on Capitol Hill. But even supporters acknowledge that his shift to a civilian agency has been wobbly at times.

He has faced a difficult transition from "a chest full of medals and drivers and assistants and information and 'Yes sir!' into an agency where you're a director and not a commander," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, said in a telephone interview.

Dealing with congressional oversight committees is "a role that may not come easily to a four-star general," Feinstein added. "But with him, it has. He's been very forthright with me."

Several aides on the House and Senate committees, however, say Petraeus has not always accommodated lawmakers' schedules when he plans classified briefings and has limited the briefings' duration so some questions go unanswered.

The aides, who asked for anonymity while discussing classified briefings, said he also has balked at providing some classified information that members have requested. They declined to provide details.

The CIA strongly denied any rift with the committees, or any disputes over scheduling, information or access.

Petraeus "deeply values his relationships with the intelligence oversight committees," said Preston Golson, a CIA spokesman. He said Petraeus "has gone to great lengths to make himself available to the Hill" and had 37 "in-person interactions" with members of Congress since September.

"He has set a very fast pace for congressional engagement," Golson said.

The CIA is infamous for challenging outsiders, especially from the Pentagon, and Petraeus has won plaudits for not bringing his former military aides to his new job. Some officials close to the agency praise major espionage operations he has approved but say he has clashed with senior officers at the counter-terrorism center, a powerful fiefdom inside the agency that helps run the covert drone war.

Those officers are frustrated by the drop-off in drone strikes in Pakistan, including an undeclared two-month moratorium that ended Jan. 11, according to several current and former U.S. officials. In interviews, one member of Congress and four senior aides from the House and Senate committees said they were upset as well.

"There are different stories coming out of different people in the agency," one congressional source said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the CIA's drone program is classified. "There is an issue of how up front [Petraeus] is being with members."

CIA officials would not discuss the covert program, but a senior U.S. official acknowledged that a misunderstanding had emerged because the term "rules of engagement" meant different things to the former Army general and to civilian analysts.

"It seems a brief and honest disconnect in the terminology used for describing the tactical and strategic considerations the program is responsive to," the senior official said. "I think you'd find now people are on the same page."

The CIA has launched 17 drone strikes in Pakistan since Petraeus took over last September, including three this month, according to the New America Foundation, a think tank that tracks reported attacks. That was down from an average of two a week under Panetta, who authorized 215 drone attacks in just over two years.

But critics in the CIA's counter-terrorism center have told allies on Capitol Hill that the fall-off has reduced pressure on Al Qaeda.

The senior U.S. official disputed that, saying Al Qaeda and its militant allies suffered major losses in Pakistan last fall, including the deaths of five senior commanders or planners. Overall, they say, the CIA campaign has been so successful that only a handful of Al Qaeda leaders remain alive in Pakistan.

"After such successes, it's natural that important targets would go into even deeper hiding and it would take time to find them," the official said.

"Part of the success of this program over time is the willingness to continuously examine and improve it," the official added.

Some lawmakers find the CIA argument persuasive, and support Petraeus' decision to slow the attacks, especially at a time when U.S. relations with Pakistan are in a perilous state.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), a member of the House intelligence committee, said fewer drone strikes "gives the militants greater freedom of action. But how significant is that? Probably in the short term, not very significant. There's obviously a trade-off here, and I think the administration has made the right call."

WASHPOST:Questions for the intelligence community

2012-01-31T03:36:00.000-08:00

Questions for the intelligence community

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/questions-for-the-intelligence-community/2012/01/28/gIQAYvQPdQ_story.html

Here are some questions that members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence should ask the heads of the intelligence community when the panel meets Tuesday morning for Congress’ first public assessment in 2012 of worldwide threats.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan is the only country where substantial numbers of U.S. forces are fighting. President Obama and the NATO coalition have set 2014 as the date for all foreign combat forces to withdraw and the Afghan army and police to take over security responsibilities.

In the December 2011 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Afghanistan, the community opinion was that gains from the 2009 troop surge have been mitigated by continuing government incompetence and corruption and insurgents’ ability to be resupplied from Pakistan sanctuaries. The apparent stalemate, if continued, endangers future stability as U.S. combat troops continue to depart, says the NIE.

The Afghan coalition commander, Marine Corps Gen. John Allen, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker signed a dissent to the NIE’s judgments, questioning the intelligence community assumptions about Taliban intentions, the capability of Afghan security forces and the speed of the U.S. withdrawal.

For CIA Director David H. Petraeus:

1. When you were Afghan commander you also had disagreements with intelligence community views of the fighting so what is your personal position today in this dispute?

2. What causes such differences and how should members of Congress and the public judge them?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has opposed negotiating with the Taliban and recently said the Afghan war would be ended only by “beating them.”

The Taliban delegation has arrived in Qatar to man their political office, which the Obama administration hopes will lead to political talks with the Karzai government to end the fighting.

For Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr.:

1. Does this group represent all the Taliban insurgents?

2. Does it represent the Haqqani network, which has ties to al-Qaida?

3. Does the Pakistan Army’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence support the political negotiations?

4. Is it true that U.S. officials in Qatar are working out an arrangement with the Taliban delegation to move Taliban detainees from Guantanamo?

Iran

Iran has reached the capability of enriching uranium to 20 percent at an underground facility near Qom, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. From that level, it is no great leap to reach a weapons grade level of 90 percent.

For Clapper:

1. Assuming that the Iranian leadership has yet to decide to produce a nuclear weapon, what event or issue does the intelligence community believe will trigger that step to be taken?

2. If that decision is made, how long do you think it would take for the United States to learn about it?

3. If that decision is made, how long would it take Iran to build a nuclear weapon?

4. Would Iran have to test a nuclear device before building a weapon?

5. Do you expect Tehran would announce it has a nuclear weapon, or would it maintain silence as does Israel?

Hekmati arrest

Amir Hekmati, the former Marine accused of being a CIA agent and sentenced to death in Iran last month, was arrested by the Iranians last August. Obama administration officials have denied he had any CIA connection. The FBI has been investigating Hekmati in this country.

For FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III:

1. What have you learned about why this former Marine and Defense Department contractor went to Iran?

2. Was he ever warned about the dangers he faced by going there?

3. Is there any indication he intended on his own to supply classified documents to Iran?

For Clapper:

1. Do you have any intelligence indicating why Hekmati was arrested?

2. Was the release of American hikers, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer on Sept. 21, 2011, related to Hekmati’s arrest a month earlier?

DNI/CIA relations

The role of the DNI has been an evolving one. A clash between former national intelligence director Dennis C. Blair and then-CIA Director Leon E. Panetta was among the reasons Blair left that job.

For Clapper:

1. How do you perform your statutory role as the president’s chief adviser on intelligence? For example, do you attend each Oval Office morning national security briefing, and if not, how often do you see the president?

2. How often do you meet with the heads of the other intelligence agencies?

For Petraeus:

1. Have you made any structural changes within the agency since your arrival, and if so, why?

2. How often do you attend the president’s morning briefing?

3. Do you have any set meeting time with the president?

Clandestine operations

There has been a running discussion over presidential approval and congressional reporting under statutes governing covert and clandestine paramilitary operations that involve either CIA or Defense Department personnel or both acting jointly: The attack in Pakistan and killing of Osama bin Laden being one. There are studies being made about putting all such covert and clandestine operations under one agency, outside the CIA or the Pentagon.

For Clapper and Petraeus:

1. How are decisions made today under the current laws to carry out such operations?

2. Should there be one law governing authorization and congressional reporting for such paramilitary operations in the future and a separate organization to carry them out?

3. Does the continued expansion of special forces mean that more of these operations will be carried out in the future?

Answers to these types of questions at this, or the four other worldwide threat hearings that will occur over the next several weeks before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate and House Armed Services Committees could go a long way toward giving the public more insight into — and faith in — the intelligence community.

For more Fine Print columns, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage.

egyptindependent:Brotherhood would cancel Camp David Agreement, says Hezbollah official

2012-01-31T03:31:00.001-08:00

Brotherhood would cancel Camp David Agreement, says Hezbollah official

http://www.egyptindependent.com/print/629041

Author: Haitham Dabbour

Tehran — Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood will eventually cancel the Camp David Agreement, despite the group’s announcement that it respects international agreements Egypt has signed, said Amin al-Sayed Ibrahim, head of Hezbollah’s political council.

Speaking to the “International Conference on Islamic Awakening and the Youths,” Ibrahim said that the Egyptian military, so as not to lose its clout, would never allow the Brotherhood to write the constitution or even form a constituent assembly to write the constitution.

Following their electoral victories in Parliament, Egypt's most organized political group has offered assurances that it would respect the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

When asked early this month whether Washington believed that the Islamist party would uphold the treaty, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that the party "has made commitments to us in this regard.”

Ibrahim said that the current unrest in Syria is a conspiracy and not a revolution, as western media claims. The Egyptian delegation clashed with him over the remarks.

“The Syrians transfer arms to the Palestinian resistance,” he said.

Over 1,200 young people from Iran as well as 73 other countries are participating in the two-day conference, Iran’s Fars news agency reported on Monday.

foxnews:Tribal sources: Possible US air raids on Al Qaeda bases in Yemen kill 15

2012-01-31T03:28:00.001-08:00

Tribal sources: Possible US air raids on Al Qaeda bases in Yemen kill 15

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/31/tribal-sources-possible-us-air-raids-on-al-qaeda-bases-in-yemen-kill-15/?test=latestnews#ixzz1l2C0DwNi

Air raids struck an Al Qaeda meeting and control post in southern Yemen, killing around 15 people including a long-hunted regional militant leader, tribal officials said Tuesday.

The four raids overnight appeared to have been carried out by US planes, one tribal official said.

Al Qaeda extremists have taken advantage of months of political turmoil in Yemen to overrun swathes of the country's south.

The air strikes took place in the Loder and Al-Wadih areas of Abyan province, southeast of the capital Sanaa, one official said.

"We think they were carried out by American planes," another tribal official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Three of the raids targeted a school in which Al Qaeda fighters and chiefs of a local militant network were meeting around midnight, the sources said.

Among the people killed was regional Al Qaeda leader Abdul Monem al Fahtani, who has long been sought by the Yemeni authorities, and other local chiefs.

The fourth strike hit an Al Qaeda control post, killing three more people.

"Two planes carried out these raids and continued to fly over the region through the night," a tribal chief said.

The New York Times reported several months ago that the United States had stepped up its raids against suspected militants in Yemen with the aid of drones and other aircraft.

payvand:Conservative Iranian MP says Supreme Leader can be criticized

2012-01-30T22:15:00.000-08:00

Conservative Iranian MP says Supreme Leader can be criticized
Source: Radio Zamaneh Iranian MP Ali Motahari says: "It is every citizen's right to put questions to the leader in person or through a letter." In recent weeks, a number of Iranian political figures have written letters to Ayatollah Khamenei to criticize the country's political situation.

http://www.payvand.com/news/12/jan/1318.html

Motahari stated that "The leader of the Revolution ha s shown that he will answer questions with an open mind and announced several times that he is open to criticism and questions."

He added: "Sometimes followers of a political figure may ruin things because they are intent on making an idol out of someone. It is possible to criticize or question the leader and yet be obedient to him."

He added that Iran's political crisis will not be resolved until Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani returns to the political arena.

Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, a moderate cleric and head of the Expediency Council, has been increasingly isolated from the Islamic Republic establishment since he expressed support for the reformists in the presidential elections of 2009.

Motahari stated that despite the political differences, Ayatollah Rafsanjani has a large populist base; therefore, his opponent will not be able to eliminate him from the political arena.

Ayatollah Rafsanjnai was removed from his position as the head of the Assembly of Experts but he still remains chairman of the Expediency Council.

nytimes:Civilian Deaths Due to Drones Are Not Many, Obama Says

2012-01-30T21:52:00.000-08:00

Civilian Deaths Due to Drones Are Not Many, Obama Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/world/middleeast/civilian-deaths-due-to-drones-are-few-obama-says.html

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday defended the use of drones to strike suspected terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere, saying the clandestine program was “kept on a very tight leash” and enabled the United States to use “pinpoint” targeting to avoid more intrusive military action.

Mr. Obama, in an unusually candid public discussion of the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert program, said the drone strikes had not inflicted huge civilian casualties. “We are very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,” he said. “It is important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.”

The president made the remarks in answer to questions posed by people during a live Web interview sponsored by Google Plus, the social media site of Google. He also spoke about the economy, laughed at a comedian’s impersonation of him, and declined a woman’s request to sing or do a dance.

The subject of drones came up when a viewer asked Mr. Obama about a report in The New York Times on Monday about the State Department’s use of drones for surveillance purposes to protect its diplomatic installations in Iraq. Mr. Obama confirmed their use for surveillance, but said he thought the article was “a little overwritten.” He added that drones were a key part of the country’s offensive against Al Qaeda.

The C.I.A.’s drone program, unlike the use of armed unmanned aircraft by the military in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq, is a covert program, traditionally one of the government’s most carefully-guarded secrets. But because of intense public interest — the explosions cannot be hidden entirely — American officials have been willing to discuss the program on condition of anonymity.

Until Monday, Mr. Obama, who has overseen a dramatic expansion of the use of drones in Pakistan and on a smaller scale in Yemen and Somalia, had spoken only indirectly about the program. For example, after a C.I.A. drone strike in September killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Qaeda propagandist hiding in Yemen, Mr. Obama never mentioned the agency, its unmanned aircraft or the missiles they fired.

Instead, speaking at a Virginia military base, he said Mr. Awlaki “was killed” in what he said was “a tribute to our intelligence community.” The secrecy has prevented an open debate on legal and ethical questions surrounding the strikes, since neither intelligence officials nor members of Congress can speak openly about them.

salon:Mitt and the White Horse Prophecy A close look at the roots of Romney's -- and the Mormon church's -- political ambitions

2012-01-30T06:17:00.001-08:00

Mitt and the White Horse Prophecy

A close look at the roots of Romney's -- and the Mormon church's -- political ambitions

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_and_the_white_horse_prophecy/singleton/

When Mitt Romney received his patriarchal blessing as a Michigan teenager, he was told that the Lord expected great things from him. All young Mormon men — the “worthy males” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as it is officially known — receive such a blessing as they embark on their requisite journeys as religious missionaries. But at 19 years of age, the youngest son of the most prominent Mormon in American politics — a seventh-generation direct descendant of one of the faith’s founding 12 apostles—Mitt Romney had been singled out as a destined leader.

From the time of his birth — March 13, 1947 — through adolescence and into manhood, the meshing of religion and politics was paramount in Mitt Romney’s life. Called “my miracle baby” by his mother, who had been told by her physician that it was impossible for her to bear a fourth child, Romney was christened Willard Mitt Romney in honor of close family friend and one of the richest Mormons in history, J. Willard Marriott.

In 1962, when Mitt — as they decided to call him — was a sophomore in high school, his father, George W. Romney, was elected governor of Michigan. Throughout the early 1960s, Mitt collected petition signatures, campaigned at his father’s side, attended strategy sessions with his father’s political advisors, and interned at his father’s office during all three of his gubernatorial terms. He attended the 1964 Republican National Convention where his father led a challenge of moderates against the right-wing Barry Goldwater. Although he was fulfilling his spiritual obligation as a Mormon missionary in France in 1968 while his father was the front-running GOP presidential candidate, Mitt was kept apprised of the political developments back in the U.S.

Upon completion of his foreign mission, he immersed himself in the 1970 senatorial campaign of his mother, Lenore Romney, who was running against Phillip Hart in the Michigan general election. That same year, the Cougar Club — the all male, all white social club at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City (blacks were excluded from full membership in the Mormon church until 1978) — was humming with talk that its president, Mitt Romney, would become the first Mormon president of the United States. “If not Mitt, then who?” was the ubiquitous slogan within the elite organization. The pious world of BYU was expected to spawn the man who would lead the Mormons into the White House and fulfill the prophecies of the church’s founder, Joseph Smith Jr., which Romney has avidly sought to realize.

Romney avoids mentioning it, but Smith ran for president in 1844 as an independent commander in chief of an “army of God” advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government in favor of a Mormon-ruled theocracy. Challenging Democrat James Polk and Whig Henry Clay, Smith prophesied that if the U.S. Congress did not accede to his demands that “they shall be broken up as a government and God shall damn them.” Smith viewed capturing the presidency as part of the mission of the church. He had predicted the emergence of “the one Mighty and Strong” — a leader who would “set in order the house of God” — and became the first of many prominent Mormon men to claim the mantle.

Smith’s insertion of religion into politics and his call for a “theodemocracy where God and people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteous matters” created a sensation and drew hostility from the outside world. But his candidacy was cut short when he was shot to death by an anti-Mormon vigilante mob. Out of Smith’s national political ambitions grew what would become known in Mormon circles as the “White Horse Prophecy” — a belief ingrained in Mormon culture and passed down through generations by church leaders that the day would come when the U.S. Constitution would “hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber” and the Mormon priesthood would save it.

Romney is the product of this culture. At BYU, he was idolized by fellow students and referred to, only half jokingly, as the “One Mighty and Strong.” He was the “alpha male” in the rarefied Cougar pack, according to Michael D. Moody, a BYU classmate and fellow member of the group. Composed almost exclusively of returned Mormon missionaries, the club members were known for their preppy blue blazers and enthusiastic athletic boosterism. Romney, who had been the assistant to the president of the French Mission where he was personally in charge of more than 200 missionaries, easily assumed a leadership position in the club.

Both political and religious, the Cougar Club raised funds for the school and its members emulated the campus-wide honor and dress codes, passionately disavowing the counterculture symbolism of long hair, bell-bottom jeans and antiwar slogans that were sweeping college campuses throughout America. They held monthly “Fireside testimonies” — Sacrament meetings at which each member testified to his belief that he lived in Heaven before being born on Earth, that he became mortal in order to usher in the latter days, and that he recognized Joseph Smith as the prophet, the Book of Mormon as the word of God, and the Mormon church as the one true faith.

Such regular testimonies encouraged the students to live devout lives and to resist the encroaching outside influences overtaking the nation at large. “It helps them cope with such external pressures as evolution-teaching professors and cranky anthropologists who expect answers that conflict with LDS teachings,” according to James Coates, author of “In Mormon Circles.”

They traditionally hosted frat-like parties (Greek fraternities were banned from the campus) to raise a few thousand dollars for the college’s sports teams. But Cougar president Romney drove the young men to aim higher, orchestrating a telethon that raised a stunning million dollars. Romney’s position as head of the club was widely seen as a calculated steppingstone for a career in national politics.

So it seemed disingenuous to his former club mates when, in a 2006 magazine interview, Romney denied his longtime political aspirations. “I have to admit I did not think I was going to be in politics,” he told the American Spectator. “Had I thought politics was in my future, I would not have chosen Massachusetts as the state of my residence. I would have stayed in Michigan where my Dad’s name was golden.”

Michael Moody says political success was an institutional value of the LDS church.

“The instructions in my [patriarchal] blessing, which I believed came directly from Jesus, motivated me to seek a career in government and politics,” he wrote in his 2008 book. Moody recently said that he ran for governor of Nevada in 1982 because he felt he had been divinely directed to “expand our kingdom” and help Romney “lead the world into the Millennium. Once a firm believer but now a church critic, Moody was indoctrinated with the White Horse Prophecy. Like Romney, Moody is a seventh-generation Mormon, steeped in the same intellectual and theological milieu.

“We were taught that America is the Promised Land,” he said in an interview.”The Mormons are the Chosen People. And the time is now for a Mormon leader to usher in the second coming of Christ and install the political Kingdom of God in Washington, D.C.”

In this scenario, Romney’s candidacy is part of the eternal plan and the candidate himself is fulfilling the destiny begun in what the church calls the “pre-existence.”

Several prominent Mormons, including conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck, have alluded to this apocalyptic prophecy. The controversial myth is not an official church doctrine, but it has also arisen in the national dialogue with the presidential candidacies of Mormons George Romney, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and now Mitt Romney.

“I don’t think the White Horse Prophecy is fair to bring up at all,” Mitt Romney told the Salt Lake Tribune when he was asked about it during his 2008 presidential bid. “It’s been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it. It has nothing to do with anything.”

Pundits and scholars, rabbis and bloggers, have repeatedly posed the question during Romney’s run: Is a candidate’s religion relevant? With a startling 50 percent increase of recently polled American voters claiming to know little or nothing about Mormonism, another 32 percent rejecting Mormonism as a Christian faith, a whopping 42 percent saying they would feel “somewhat or very uncomfortable” with a Mormon president, and a widespread sense that the religion is a cult, the issue is clearly more complicated than religious bigotry alone. Judging from poll results, Americans seem less prejudiced against a candidate’s faith than concerned about the unknown, apprehensive about any kind of fanaticism, and generally uneasy about a religion that is neither mainstream Judaic nor Christian.

Just as the Christian fundamentalism of former GOP candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry informed their political ideology — and was therefore considered fair game in the national dialogue — so too does Mormonism define not only Mitt Romney’s character, but what kind of president he would be and what impulses would drive him in both domestic and foreign policy.

Romney’s religion is not a sideline, but a crucial element in understanding the man, the mission and the candidacy. He is the quintessential Mormon who embodies all of the basic elements of the homegrown American religion that is among the fastest growing religions in the world. Like his father before him, Romney has charted a course from missionary to businessman, from church bishop to politician — and to presidential candidate. The influence that Mormonism has had on him has dominated every step of the way.

The seeds of Romney’s unique brand of conservatism, often regarded with intense suspicion by most non-Mormon conservatives, were sown in the secretive, acquisitive, patriarchal, authoritarian religious empire run by “quorums” of men under an umbrella consortium called the General Authorities. A creed unlike any other in the United States, from its inception Mormonism encouraged material prosperity and abundance as a measure of holy worth, and its strict system of tithing 10 percent of individual wealth has made the church one of the world’s richest institutions.

A multibillion-dollar business empire that includes agribusiness, mining, insurance, electronic and print media, manufacturing, movie production, commercial real estate, defense contracting, retail stores and banking, the Mormon church has unprecedented economic and political power. Despite a solemn stricture against any act or tolerance of gambling, Mormons have been heavily invested and exceptionally influential in the Nevada gaming industry since the great expansion of modern Las Vegas in the 1950s. Valued for their unquestioning loyalty to authority as well as general sobriety — they are prohibited from imbibing in alcohol, tobacco or coffee — Mormons have long been recruited into top positions in government agencies and multinational corporations. They are prominent in such institutions as the CIA, FBI and the national nuclear weapons laboratories, giving the church a sphere of influence unlike any other American religion in the top echelons of government.

Romney, like his father before him who voluntarily tithed an unparalleled 19 percent of his personal fortune, is among the church’s wealthiest members. And like his father, grandfather and great-grandfathers before him, Mitt Romney was groomed for a prominent position in the church, which he manifested first as a missionary, then as a bishop, and then as a stake president, becoming the highest-ranking Mormon leader in Boston — the equivalent of a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church.

Called a “militant millennial movement” by renowned Mormon historian David L. Bigler, Mormonism’s founding theology was based upon a literal takeover of the U.S. government. In light of the theology and divine prophecies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unamended by the LDS hierarchy, it would seem that the office of the American presidency is the ultimate ecclesiastical position to which a Mormon leader might aspire. So it is not the LDS cosmology that is relevant to Romney’s candidacy, but whether devout 21stcentury Mormons like Romney believe that the American presidency is also a theological position.

Since his first campaign in 2008, Romney has attempted to keep debate about his religion out of the political discourse. The issue is not whether there is a religious test for political office; the Constitution prohibits it. Instead, the question is whether, past all of the flip-flops on virtually every policy, he has an underlying religious conception of the presidency and the American government. At the recent GOP presidential debate in Florida, Romney professed that the Declaration of Independence is a theological document, not specific to the rebellious 13 colonies, but establishing a covenant “between God and man.” Which would suggest that Mitt Romney views the American presidency as a theological office.

: Sally Denton is the author most recently of "American Massacre" and is currently working on "Betrayal at the Border: Profit, Death, and the American Dream." More Sally Denton

foreignaffairs:Al Qaeda in Iran

2012-01-30T06:16:00.003-08:00

Al Qaeda in Iran

Why Tehran is Accommodating the Terrorist Group

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137061/seth-g-jones/al-qaeda-in-iran

Virtually unnoticed, since late 2001, Iran has held some of al Qaeda's most senior leaders. Several of these operatives, such as Yasin al-Suri, an al Qaeda facilitator, have moved recruits and money from the Middle East to central al Qaeda in Pakistan. Others, such as Saif al-Adel, an Egyptian that served as head of al Qaeda's security committee, and Abu Muhammad al-Masri, one of the masterminds of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa, have provided strategic and operational assistance to central al Qaeda. The Iranian government has held most of them under house arrest, limited their freedom of movement, and closely monitored their activities. Yet the organization's presence in Iran means that, contrary to optimistic assessments that have become the norm in Washington, al Qaeda's demise is not imminent.

Perhaps more disturbing, Iran appears willing to expand its limited relationship with al Qaeda. Just as with its other surrogate, Hezbollah, the country could turn to al Qaeda to mount a retaliation to any U.S. or Israeli attack. To be sure, the organization is no Iranian puppet. And the two have sometimes been antagonistic, as illustrated by al Qaeda in Iraq's recent attacks against Shias. But both share a hatred of the United States. U.S. policymakers should think twice about provoking a closer relationship between them and should draw greater public attention to Iran's limited, but still unacceptable, cooperation with al Qaeda.

Evidence of the Iranian-al Qaeda partnership abounds -- and much of it is public. This past year, I culled through hundreds of documents from the Harmony database at West Point; perused hundreds more open-source and declassified documents, such as the U.S. Department of Treasury's sanctions against al Qaeda leaders in Iran; and interviewed government officials from the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia.

Through that research, the history of al Qaeda in Iran emerges as follows: over the past several years, al Qaeda has taken a beating in Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, and North Africa. In particular, an ongoing campaign of drone strikes has weakened -- although not eliminated -- al Qaeda's leadership cadre in Pakistan. But the group's outpost in Iran has remained almost untouched for the past decade. In late 2001, as the Taliban regime collapsed, most al Qaeda operatives fled Afghanistan. Many of the leaders, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy and future successor, headed for Pakistan. But some did not, choosing instead to go west. And Iran was apparently more than willing to accept them. Around October 2001, the government dispatched a delegation to Afghanistan to guarantee the safe travel of operatives and their families to Iran.

Initially, Iran's Quds Force -- the division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps whose mission is to organize, train, equip, and finance foreign Islamic revolutionary movements -- took the lead. Between 2001 and 2002, it helped transport several hundred al Qaeda-linked individuals. By 2002, al Qaeda had established in Iran its "management council," a body that bin Laden reportedly tasked with providing strategic support to the organization's leaders in Pakistan. Key members of the council included Adel, Sulayman Abu Ghayth, Abu al-Khayr al-Masri, Abu Muhammad al-Masri, and Abu Hafs al-Mauritani. All five remained influential over the next several years and retained close ties to bin Laden. Among the most active of the council, Adel even helped organize groups of fighters to overthrow Hamid Karzai's regime in Afghanistan and provided support for the May 2003 terrorist attacks in Riyadh.

According to U.S. government officials involved in discussions with Iran, over time, the growing cadre of al Qaeda leaders on Iranian soil apparently triggered a debate among senior officials in Tehran. Some worried that the United States would eventually use the terrorist group's presence as a casus belli. Indeed, in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. government officials held face-to-face discussions with Iranian officials demanding the regime deport al Qaeda leaders to their countries of origin. Iran refused, but around the same time, the country's Ministry of Intelligence took control of relations with the group. It set to work rounding up al Qaeda members and their families.

By early 2003, Tehran had detained all the members of the management council and their subordinates who remained in the country. It is not entirely clear what conditions were like for al Qaeda detainees. Some apparently suffered through harsh prison confinement, while others enjoyed informal house arrest with freedom to communicate, travel, and fundraise. Over the next several years, bin Laden, Zawahiri, and other leaders apparently sent messages to Tehran threatening to retaliate if al Qaeda personnel and members of bin Laden's family were not released. Iran did not comply. Bin Laden did not follow through...

msnbc:US, Taliban talks on prisoner swap falter

2012-01-30T06:16:00.001-08:00

US, Taliban talks on prisoner swap falter

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/29/10264773-us-taliban-talks-on-prisoner-swap-falter

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Talks between the Afghan Taliban and the United States in Qatar almost failed as the Taliban leadership reportedly refused to accept the U.S. demand of a ceasefire before swapping prisoners.

Sources in the Afghan Taliban said the Taliban had set up an office in Qatar hoping that it would help in a prisoners' swap, especially for their five top commanders held at the Guantanamo Bay base since 2002.

The Taliban sources said their talks with the U.S. had been going for the past few years in exchange for an American soldier, Bowe Bergdahl, captured by Taliban militants in Afghanistan's Paktika province in June 2009, bordering Pakistan's South Waziristan.

Maulvi Sangeen, a senior commander of the powerful Haqqani terror network, had initially claimed responsibility for kidnapping the U.S. soldier.

The Taliban sources said U.S. officials had earlier promised them they would exchange prisoners and later start peace talks.

However, according to the sources, the U.S. demanded that the Taliban announce a ceasefire in Afghanistan before any prisoner swap, which they said their central leadership had turned down.

STORY: Family of captured US soldier hopeful

"Our stance is the same. We will announce a ceasefire when the foreign forces start their withdrawal from Afghanistan," a Taliban source said.

The Afghan Taliban leadership is also worried about the reaction from their field commanders and fighters if a ceasefire were announced without getting anything to show in exchange.

Some members of the 140-strong Taliban delegation that went to Qatar had started leaving after no breakthrough was seen in talks with the U.S.

yahoo:Thwarted on US oil pipeline, Canada looks to China

2012-01-29T02:54:00.001-08:00

Thwarted on US oil pipeline, Canada looks to China

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/thwarted-us-oil-pipeline-canada-looks-china-050249469.html

KITAMAAT VILLAGE, British Columbia (AP) — The latest chapter in Canada's quest to become a full-blown oil superpower unfolded this month in a village gym on the British Columbia coast.

Here, several hundred people gathered for hearings on whether a pipeline should be laid from the Alberta oil sands to the Pacific in order to deliver oil to Asia, chiefly energy-hungry China. The stakes are particularly high for the village of Kitamaat and its neighbors, because the pipeline would terminate here and a port would be built to handle 220 tankers a year and 525,000 barrels of oil a day.

But the planned Northern Gateway Pipeline is just one aspect of an epic battle over Canada's oil ambitions — a battle that already has a supporting role in the U.S. presidential election, and which will help to shape North America's future energy relationship with China.

It actually is a tale of two pipelines — the one that is supposed to end at Kitamaat Village, and another that would have gone from Alberta to the Texas coast but was blocked by the Obama administration citing environmental grounds.

Those same environmental issues are certain to haunt Northern Gateway as the Joint Review Panel of energy and environmental officials canvasses opinion along the 1,177 kilometer (731 mile) route of the Northern Gateway pipeline to be built by Enbridge, a Canadian company.

The fear of oil spills is especially acute in this pristine corner of northwest British Columbia, with its snowcapped mountains and deep ocean inlets. People here still remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, and oil is still leaking from the Queen of the North, a ferry that sank off nearby Hartley Bay six years ago.

The seas nearby, in the Douglas Channel, "are very treacherous waters," says David Suzuki, a leading environmentalist. "You take a supertanker that takes miles in order to stop, (and) an accident is absolutely inevitable."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada's national interest makes the $5.5 billion pipeline essential. He was "profoundly disappointed" that U.S. President Barack Obama rejected the Texas Keystone XL option but also spoke of the need to diversify Canada's oil industry. Ninety-seven percent of Canadian oil exports now go to the U.S.

"I think what's happened around the Keystone is a wake-up call, the degree to which we are dependent or possibly held hostage to decisions in the United States, and especially decisions that may be made for very bad political reasons," he told Canadian TV.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich quickly picked up the theme, saying that Harper, "who, by the way, is conservative and pro-American ... has said he's going cut a deal with the Chinese ... We'll get none of the jobs, none of the energy, none of the opportunity."

He charged that "An American president who can create a Chinese-Canadian partnership is truly a danger to this country."

But the environmental objections that pushed Obama to block the pipeline to Texas apply equally to the Pacific pipeline, and the review panel says more than 4,000 people have signed up to testify.

The atmosphere has turned acrimonious, with Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver claiming in an open letter that "environmental and other radical groups" are out to thwart Canada's economic ascent.

He said they were bent on bogging down the panel's work. And in an unusually caustic mention of Canada's southern neighbor, he added: "If all other avenues have failed, they will take a quintessential American approach: Sue everyone and anyone to delay the project even further."

Environmentalists and First Nations (a Canadian synonym for native tribes) could delay approval all the way to the Supreme Court, and First Nations still hold title to some of the land the pipeline would cross, meaning the government will have to move with extreme sensitivity.

Alberta has the world's third-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela: more than 170 billion barrels. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025, which the oil industry sees as a pressing reason to build the pipelines.

Critics, however, dislike the whole concept of tapping the oil sands, saying it requires huge amounts of energy and water, increases greenhouse gas emissions and threatens rivers and forests. Some projects are massive open-pit mines, and the process of separating oil from sand can generate lake-sized pools of toxic sludge.

Meanwhile, China's growing economy is hungry for Canadian oil. Chinese state-owned companies have invested more than $16 billion in Canadian energy in the past two years, state-controlled Sinopec has a stake in the pipeline, and if it is built, Chinese investment in Alberta oil sands is sure to boom.

"They (the Chinese) wonder why it's not being built already," said Wenran Jiang, an energy expert and professor at the University of Alberta.

In a report on China's stake in Canadian energy, Jiang notes that if every Chinese burned oil at the rate Americans do, China's daily consumption would equal the entire world's.

Harper is set to visit China next month. After Obama first delayed the Keystone pipeline in November, Harper told Chinese President Hu Jintao at the Pacific Rim summit in Hawaii that Canada would like to sell more oil to China, and the Canadian prime minister filled in Obama on what he said.

Jiang reads that to mean "China has become leverage."

But oil analysts say Alberta has enough oil to meet both countries' needs, and the pipeline's capacity of 525,000 barrels a day would amount to less than 6 percent of China's current needs.

"I don't think U.S. policymakers view China's investment in the Canadian oil sands as a threat," says David Goldwyn, a former energy official in the Obama administration.

"In the short term it provides additional investment to increase Canadian supply; that's a good thing. Longer-term, if Canadian oil goes to China, that means China's demand is being met by a non-OPEC country, and that's a good thing for global oil supply. Right now we are spending an awful lot of time finding ways for China to meet its demand from some place other than Iran. Canada would be a great candidate."

Pipelines are rarely rejected in Canada, but Murray Minchin, an environmentalist who lives near Kitamaat Village, says this time he and other opponents are determined to block construction. "They are ready to put themselves in front of something to stop the equipment," Minchin said. "Even if it gets the green light it doesn't mean it's getting done."

Enbridge is confident the pipeline will be built and claims about 40 percent of First Nation communities living along the route have entered into a long-term equity partnership with Enbridge. The communities together are being offered 10 percent ownership of the pipeline, meaning those which sign on will share an expected $400 million over 30 years.

But of the 43 eligible communities, only one went public with its acceptance and it has since reneged after fierce protests from its members.

Janet Holder, the Enbridge executive overseeing the project, says pipeline leaks are not inevitable, new technologies make monitoring more reliable, and tugboats will guide tankers through the Douglas Channel.

At the Kitamaat hearings, speakers ranged from Ellis Ross, chief of the Haisla First Nation in British Columbia, to Dieter Wagner, a German-born Canadian, retired scientist and veteran sailor who called the Douglas Channel "an insane route to take."

Ross used to work on whale-watching boats, and refers to himself as a First Nation, a term applicable to individuals as well as groups. He testified that the tanker port would go up just as marine life decimated by industrial pollution was making a comeback in his territory.

He held the audience spellbound as he described an extraordinary nighttime encounter last summer with a whale that was "logging" — the half-doze that passes for sleep in the cetacean world.

"...Midnight I hear this whale and it's right outside the soccer field. ... It's waterfront, but I can hear this whale, and I can't understand why it's so close, something's got to be wrong.

"So I walk down there with my daughter, my youngest daughter, and I try to flash a light down there, and quickly figured out it's not in trouble, it's sleeping. It's resting right outside our soccer field.

"You can't imagine what that means to a First Nation that's watched his territory get destroyed over 60 years. You can't imagine the feeling."

whitehouse.gov:WEEKLY ADDRESS"NOT ABOUT ME"

2012-01-29T01:35:00.000-08:00

Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
Saturday, January 28, 2011
The White House

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/28/weekly-address-president-s-blueprint-includes-renewal-american-values

On Tuesday, in my State of the Union Address, I laid out a blueprint for an economy built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

This week, I took that blueprint across the country, and what I saw was people who work hard and believe in each other. They believe in the America that’s within our reach. But they’re not sure that the right thing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or the year after that. And frankly, when you look at some of the things that go on in this town, who could blame them for being a little cynical?

Just two days ago, a senator from Utah promised to obstruct every single American I appoint to a judgeship or public service position – unless I fire the consumer watchdog I put in place to protect the American people from financial schemes or malpractice.

For the most part, it’s not that this senator thinks these nominees are unqualified. In fact, all of the judicial nominees being blocked have bipartisan support. And almost 90 percent have unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee.

Instead, one of his aides told reporters that the senator plans to, and I’m quoting here, “Delay and slow the process in order to get the President’s attention.”

This isn’t about me. We weren’t sent here to wage perpetual political campaigns against each other. We were sent here to serve the American people. And they deserve better than gridlock and games. One senator gumming up the works for the whole country is certainly not what our founding fathers envisioned.

The truth is, neither party has been blameless in tactics like these. But it’s time for both parties to put an end to them. I’m asking Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to stop this kind of behavior by passing a rule that allows all judicial and public service nominations a simple up-or-down vote within 90 days.

We should also stem the corrosive influence of money in politics. The House and Senate should send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it immediately. They should limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. And they should make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa.

During my Address on Tuesday night, I spoke about the incredible example set by the men and women of our armed forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

If you agree with me that leaders in Washington should follow their example, then make your voice heard. Tell your Member of Congress that it’s time to end the gridlock, and start tackling the issues that really matter – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, American skills and education, and a return to American values. An economy built to last.

Thank you, God bless you, and have a great weekend.

whitehouse.gov:Remarks by the President on College Affordability, Ann Arbor, Michigan

2012-01-29T01:34:00.000-08:00

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 27, 2012

Remarks by the President on College Affordability, Ann Arbor, Michigan

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/27/remarks-president-college-affordability-ann-arbor-michigan

University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

10:00 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Michigan! (Applause.) Oh, it is good to be back in Ann Arbor. (Applause.)

Thank you, Christina, for that introduction. I also want to thank your president, Mary Sue Coleman. (Applause.) The mayor of Ann Arbor, John Hieftje, is here. (Applause.) My outstanding Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, is in the house. (Applause.) We have some outstanding members of Congress who are here as well, who are representing you each and every day. Give them a round of applause -- come on. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you, President Obama!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

So in terms of -- boy, we've got all kinds of members of Congress here, so -- (laughter.)

Where's Denard? (Applause.) Denard Robinson is in the house. (Applause.) I hear you're coming back, man. (Applause.) That is a good deal for Michigan. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Denard Robinson in 2012! (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, oh, come on. They're trying to draft you for President. (Laughter.) He's got to graduate before he runs for President. (Laughter.) There's an age limit. (Laughter.)

Well, it is wonderful to be here. I want to thank all of you for coming out this morning. I know for folks in college, this is still really early. I remember those days. It is good home -- good to be in the home of the Sugar Bowl champion Wolverines. (Applause.) And with Denard Robinson coming back, this will be a team to be reckoned with. I understand your basketball team is pretty good this year, too. (Applause.) All right -- go, Blue! (Applause.) It's always good to start with a easy applause line. (Laughter.)

But the reason I'm here today -- in addition to meeting Denard Robinson -- (laughter) -- is to talk with all of you about what most of you do here every day -- and that is to think about how you can gain the skills and the training you need to succeed in this 21st century economy. And this is going to be one of the most important issues that not just you face, but this entire country faces: How can we make sure that everybody is getting the kind of education they need to personally succeed but also to build up this nation -- because in this economy, there is no greater predictor of individual success than a good education.

Today, the unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. Their incomes are twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma. College is the single most important investment you can make in your future. And I'm proud that all of you are making that investment. (Applause.)

And the degree you earn from Michigan will be the best tool you have to achieve that basic American promise -- the idea that if you work hard, if you are applying yourself, if you are doing the right thing, you can do well enough to raise a family and own a home and send your own kids to college, put away a little for retirement, create products or services -- be part of something that is adding value to this country and maybe changing the world. That's what you're striving for. That's what the American Dream is all about.

And how we keep that promise alive is the defining issue of our time. I don’t want to be in a country where we only are looking at success for a small group of people. We want a country where everybody has a chance. (Applause.) Where everybody has a chance. We don't want to become a country where a shrinking number of Americans do really well while a growing number barely get by. That’s not the future we want. Not the future I want for you, it's not the future I want for my daughters. I want this to be a big, bold, generous country where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody is doing their fair share, everybody is playing by the same set of rules. That’s the America I know. That’s the American I want to keep. That's the future within our reach. (Applause.)

Now, in the State of the Union on Tuesday, I laid out a blueprint that gets us there. Blueprint -- it's blue. (Laughter and applause.) That's no coincidence. I planned it that way, Michigan. (Laughter.) A blueprint for an economy that’s built to last.

It’s an economy built on new American manufacturing -- because Michigan is all about making stuff. (Applause.) If there's anybody in America who can teach us how to bring back manufacturing, it is the great state of Michigan. (Applause.)

On the day I took office, with the help of folks like Debbie Stabenow, your senator, and Carl Levin and -- (applause) -- John Conyers -- the American auto industry was on the verge of collapse. And some politicians were willing to let it just die. We said no. We believe in the workers of this state. (Applause.) I believe in American ingenuity. We placed our bets on the American auto industry, and today, the American auto industry is back. Jobs are coming back -- (applause) -- 160,000 jobs.

And to bring back even more jobs, I want this Congress to stop rewarding companies that are shipping jobs and profits overseas, start rewarding companies who are hiring here and investing here and creating good jobs here in Michigan and here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

So our first step is rebuilding American manufacturing. And by the way, not all the jobs that have gone overseas are going to come back. We have to be realistic. And technology means that a larger and larger portion of you will work in the service sector as engineers and computer scientists. (Applause.) There you go. We got the engineering school -- there you go. (Applause.) And entrepreneurs. So there’s going to be a lot of activity in the service sector. But part of my argument, part of the argument of Michigan’s congressional delegation is that when manufacturing does well, then the entire economy does well.

The service sector does well if manufacturing is doing well, so we’ve got to make sure that America isn’t just buying stuff, but we’re also selling stuff -- all around the world, products stamped with those three proud words: Made In America. (Applause.)

An economy built to last is also one where we control our energy needs. We don't let foreign countries control our energy supplies. Right now, America is producing more of our own oil than we were eight years ago. That's good news. (Applause.) As a percentage, we’re actually importing less than any time in the last 16 years.

But -- I think young people especially understand this -- no matter how much oil we produce, we’ve only got 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that means we’ve got to focus on clean, renewable energy. (Applause.) We’ve got to have a strategy that, yes, is producing our own oil and natural gas. But we’ve also got to develop wind and solar and biofuels. (Applause.)

And that is good for our economy. It creates jobs. But it’s also good for our environment. (Applause.) It also makes sure that this planet is sustainable. That’s part of the future that you deserve.

We've subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. Congress needs to stop giving taxpayer dollars to an oil industry that’s never been more profitable, and double down on a clean energy future that’s never been more promising. (Applause.)

I don’t want to cede the wind or the solar or the battery industry to China or Germany because we were too timid, we didn’t have the imagination to make the same commitment here. And I want those jobs created here in the United States of America. And I also want us to think about energy efficiency, making sure -- we’ve already doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. Part of Detroit coming back is creating more fuel-efficient cars here in Michigan -- (applause) -- and more fuel-efficient trucks. And we’ve got to revamp our buildings to make them more fuel-efficient.

And we -- if we are focused on this, we can control our energy future. That’s part of creating an America that’s built to last.

And we’ve got to have an economy in which every American has access to a world-class higher education, the kind you are getting right here at the University of Michigan. (Applause.)

My grandfather got the chance to go to college because this country decided that every returning veteran of World War II should be able to afford it. My mother was able to raise two kids by herself because she was able to get grants and work her way through school. I am only standing here today because scholarships and student loans gave me a shot at a decent education. Michelle and I can still remember how long it took us to pay back our student loans. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tell the First Lady we wish her happy birthday!

THE PRESIDENT: I will tell Michelle you said happy birthday. (Applause.)

But I just want all of you to understand, your President and your First Lady were in your shoes not that long ago. (Laughter.) We didn’t come from wealthy families. The only reason that we were able to achieve what we were able to achieve was because we got a great education. That’s the only reason. (Applause.) And we could not have done that unless we lived in a country that made a commitment to opening up opportunity to all people. (Applause.)

The point is, this country has always made a commitment to put a good education within the reach of all who are willing to work for it, and that’s part of what helped to create this economic miracle and build the largest middle class in history.
And this precedes even college. I mean, we were -- we helped to begin the movement in industrialized countries to create public schools, public high schools, understanding that as people are moving from an agricultural sector to an industrial sector, they were going to need training.

Now we've moved to an information age, a digitalized age, a global economy. We've got to make that same commitment today. (Applause.)

Now, we still have, by far, the best network of colleges and universities in the world. Nobody else comes close. Nobody else comes close. (Applause.) But the challenge is it's getting tougher and tougher to afford it. Since most of you were born, tuition and fees have more than doubled. That forces students like you to take out more loans and rack up more debt.

In 2010, graduates who took out loans left college owing an average of $24,000. That's an average. Are you waving because you owe $24,000 or -- (laughter.)

Student loan debt has now surpassed credit card debt for the first time ever. Think about that. That’s inexcusable. In the coming decade, 60 percent of new jobs will require more than a high school diploma. Higher education is not a luxury. It's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford. And when I say higher education, I don't just mean four-year colleges and universities; I also mean our community colleges and providing lifelong learning for workers who may need to retrain for jobs when the economy shifts. All those things cost money, and it's harder and harder to afford. (Applause.)

So we've got to do something to help families be able to afford -- and students to be able to afford -- this higher education. We've all got a responsibility here.

Thanks to the hard work of Secretary Duncan, my administration is increasing federal student aid so more students can afford college. (Applause.) And one of the things I'm proudest of, with the help of all these members of Congress, we won a tough fight to stop handing out tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to banks that issue student loans and shift that money to where it should go, directly to the students and to the families who need it. (Applause.)

Tens of billions of dollars that were going to subsidies for banks are now going to students in the form of more grants and lower rates on loans. We’ve capped student loan payments so that nearly 1.6 million students -- including a bunch of you -- are only going to have to pay 10 percent of your monthly income towards your loans once you graduate -- 10 percent of your monthly income. (Applause.)

So that’s what we’ve been doing. Now Congress has to do more. Congress needs to do more. They need to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling this July. That's what’s scheduled to happen if Congress doesn't act. That would not be good for you. (Laughter.) So you should let your members of Congress know: Don't do that. Don't do it. Don't do it.

They need to extend the tuition tax credit that we’ve put in place that’s saving some of you and millions of folks all across the country thousands of dollars. And Congress needs to give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years. (Applause.)

So the administration has a job to do. Congress has a job to do. But it’s not just enough to increase student aid, and you can imagine why. Look, we can’t just keep on subsidizing skyrocketing tuition. If tuition is going up faster than inflation, faster than even health care is going up, no matter how much we subsidize it, sooner or later, we’re going to run out of money. And that means that others have to do their part. Colleges and universities need to do their part to keep costs down as well. (Applause.)

Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Here at Michigan, you’ve done a lot to find savings in your budget. We know this is possible. So from now on, I’m telling Congress we should steer federal campus-based aid to those colleges that keep tuition affordable, provide good value, serve their students well. (Applause.) We are putting colleges on notice -- you can’t keep -- you can't assume that you’ll just jack up tuition every single year. If you can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down. We should push colleges to do better. We should hold them accountable if they don’t. (Applause.)

Now, states also have to do their part. I was talking to your president -- and this is true all across the country -- states have to do their part by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. (Applause.) Last year, over 40 states cut their higher education spending -- 40 states cut their higher education budget. And we know that these state budget cuts have been the largest factor in tuition increases at public colleges over the past decade.

So we’re challenging states: Take responsibility as well on this issue. (Applause.) What we’re doing is, today we’re going to launch a Race to the Top for college affordability. We’re telling the states, if you can find new ways to bring down the cost of college and make it easier for more students to graduate, we’ll help you do it. We will give you additional federal support if you are doing a good job of making sure that all of you aren’t loaded up with debt when you graduate from college. (Applause.)
And, finally, today I’m also calling for a new report card for colleges. Parents like getting report cards. I know you guys may not always look forward to it. (Laughter.) But we parents, we like to know what you’re doing. From now on, parents and students deserve to know how a college is doing -- how affordable is it, how well are its students doing? We want you to know how well a car stacks up before you buy it. You should know how well a college stacks up.

We call this -- one of the things that we’re doing at the Consumer Finance Protection Board that I just set up with Richard Cordray -- (applause) -- is to make sure that young people understand the financing of colleges. He calls it, “Know Before You Owe.” (Laughter.) Know before you owe. So we want to push more information out so consumers can make good choices, so you as consumers of higher education understand what it is that you’re getting.

The bottom line is that an economy built to last demands we keep doing everything we can to bring down the cost of college. That goes along with strengthening American manufacturing. It means we keep on investing in American energy. It means we double down on the clean energy that’s creating jobs across this state and guaranteeing your generation a better future. (Applause.)

And you know what else it means? It means that we renew the American values of fair play and shared responsibility. (Applause.) Shared responsibility.

I talked about this at the State of the Union. We’ve got to make sure that as we’re paying for the investments of the future that everybody is doing their part, that we’re looking out for middle-class families and not just those at the top. The first thing that means is making sure taxes don’t go up on 160 million working Americans at the end of next month. (Applause.) People can’t afford to lose $40 out of every paycheck. Not right now. Students who are working certainly can’t afford it.

Your voices encouraged and ultimately convinced Congress to extend the payroll tax cut for two months. Now we’ve got to extend it for the whole year. I need your help to get it done again. Tell them to pass this tax cut, without drama, without delay. (Applause.) Get it done. It’s good for the economy. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Four more years!

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, in the longer run, we’re also going to have to reduce our deficit. We’ve got to invest in our future and we’ve got to reduce our deficit. And to do both, we’ve got to make some choices. Let me give you some examples.

Right now, we’re scheduled to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was intended to be a temporary tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: That's not fair.

THE PRESIDENT: That's not fair. A quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Not fair. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. I know because she was at the State of the Union. She told me. (Laughter.) Is that fair?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Does it make sense to you?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Do we want to keep these tax cuts for folks like me who don’t need them? Or do we want to invest in the things that will help us in the long term -- like student loans and grants -- (applause) -- and a strong military -- (applause) -- and care for our veterans -- (applause) -- and basic research? (Applause.)

Those are the choices we've got to make. We can't do everything. We can't reduce our deficit and make the investments we need at the same time, and keep tax breaks for folks who don't need them and weren't even asking for them -- well, some of them were asking for them. I wasn't asking for them. (Laughter.) We've got to choose.

When it comes to paying our fair share, I believe we should follow the Buffett Rule: If you make more than $1 million a year -- and I hope a lot of you do after you graduate -- (laughter) -- then you should pay a tax rate of at least 30 percent. (Applause.) On the other hand, if you decide to go into a less lucrative profession, if you decide to become a teacher -- and we need teachers -- (applause) -- if you decide to go into public service, if you decide to go into a helping profession -- (applause) -- if you make less than $250,000 a year -- which 98 percent of Americans do -- then your taxes shouldn’t go up. (Applause.)

This is part of the idea of shared responsibility. I know a lot of folks have been running around calling this class warfare. I think asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes is just common sense. (Applause.) Yesterday, Bill Gates said he doesn't think people like him are paying enough in taxes. I promise you, Warren Buffett is doing fine, Bill Gates is doing fine, I’m doing fine.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Koch Brothers.

THE PRESIDENT: They're definitely doing fine. (Laughter.)

We don't need more tax breaks. There are a lot of families out there who are struggling, who’ve seen their wages stall, and the cost of everything from a college education to groceries and food have gone up. You’re the ones who need that. You’re the ones who need help. And we can't do both.

There have been some who have been saying, well, the only reason you’re saying that is because you're trying to stir people up, make them envious of the rich. People don't envy the rich. When people talk about me paying my fair share of taxes, or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett paying their fair share, the reason that they're talking about it is because they understand that when I get a tax break that I don't need, that the country can't afford, then one of two things are going to happen: Either the deficit will go up and ultimately you guys are going to have to pay for it, or alternatively, somebody else is going to foot the bill -- some senior who suddenly has to pay more for their Medicare, or some veteran who's not getting the help that they need readjusting after they have defended this country, or some student who’s suddenly having to pay higher interest rates on their student loans.

We do not begrudge wealth in this country. I want everybody here to do well. We aspire to financial success. But we also understand that we’re not successful just by ourselves. We’re successful because somebody started the University of Michigan. (Applause.) We’re successful because somebody made an investment in all the federal research labs that created the Internet. We’re successful because we have an outstanding military -- that costs money. We’re successful because somebody built roads and bridges and laid broadband lines. And these things didn’t just happen on their own.

And if we all understand that we’ve got to pay for this stuff, it makes sense for those of us who've done best to do our fair share. And to try to pass off that bill onto somebody else, that’s not right. That’s not who we are. (Applause.) That’s not what my grandparents' generation worked hard to pass down. That’s not what your grandparents and your great-grandparents worked hard to pass down. We’ve got a different idea of America, a more generous America. (Applause.)

Everybody here is only here because somebody somewhere down the road decided we’re going to think not just about ourselves, but about the future. We’ve got responsibilities, yes, to ourselves but also to each other. And now it’s our turn to be responsible. Now it’s our turn to leave an America that’s built to last. And I know we can do it. We’ve done it before and I know we can do it again because of you.

When I meet young people all across this country, with energy and drive and vision, despite the fact that you’ve come of age during a difficult, tumultuous time in this world, it gives me hope. You inspire me. You’re here at Michigan because you believe in your future. You’re working hard. You’re putting in long hours -- hopefully some at the library. (Laughter.) Some of you are balancing a job at the same time. You know that doing big things isn’t always easy, but you’re not giving up.

You’ve got the whole world before you. And you embody that sense of possibility that is quintessentially American. We do not shrink from challenges. We stand up to them. And we don’t leave people behind; we make sure everybody comes along with us on this journey that we’re on. (Applause.)

That’s the spirit right now that we need, Michigan. (Applause.) Here in America, we don’t give up. We look out for each other. We make sure everybody has a chance to get ahead. And if we work in common purpose, with common resolve, we can build an economy that gives everybody a fair shot. And we will remind the world just why it is that the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)

Thank you, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)

END 10:33 A.M. EST

nytimes:Former Taliban Officials Say U.S. Talks Started

2012-01-29T00:09:00.000-08:00

Former Taliban Officials Say U.S. Talks Started

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/world/asia/taliban-have-begun-talks-with-us-former-taliban-aides-say.html

KABUL, Afghanistan — Several Taliban negotiators have begun meeting with American officials in Qatar, where they are discussing preliminary trust-building measures, including a possible prisoner transfer, several former Taliban officials said Saturday.

The former officials said that four to eight Taliban representatives had traveled to Qatar from Pakistan to set up a political office for the exiled Afghan insurgent group.

The comments suggested that the Taliban, who have not publicly said they would engage in peace talks to end the war in Afghanistan, were gearing up for preliminary discussions.

American officials would not deny that meetings had taken place, and the discussions seemed to have at least the tacit approval of Pakistan, which has thwarted previous efforts by the Taliban to engage in talks.

The Afghan government, which was initially angry that it had been left out, has accepted the talks in principle but is not directly involved, a potential snag in what could be a historic development.

The former Taliban officials, interviewed Saturday in Kabul, were careful not to call the discussions peace talks.

“Currently there are no peace talks going on,” said Maulavi Qalamuddin, the former minister of vice and virtue for the Taliban who is now a member of the High Peace Council here. “The only thing is the negotiations over release of Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo, which is still under discussion between both sides in Qatar. We also want to strengthen the talks so we can create an environment of trust for further talks in the future.”

The State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland has said only that Marc Grossman, the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, had “a number of meetings” related to Afghanistan when he visited Qatar last week.

The Taliban’s announcement this month that they would open an office in Qatar, which could allow for direct negotiations, drew fire from some Afghan factions as well as some American policy makers, who fear the insurgents would use negotiations as a ploy to gain legitimacy and then continue their efforts to reimpose an extremist Islamic state in Afghanistan.

Mr. Grossman, at a news conference in Kabul last week, said that real peace talks could begin only after the Taliban renounced international terrorism and agreed to support a peace process to end the armed conflict.

The Afghan government and the Qataris must also come to an agreement on the terms under which the Taliban will have an office. Mr. Grossman has been regularly briefing the Afghan government but Afghan officials have complained that they were being kept out of the loop.

The Taliban officials now in Doha, Qatar, include a former secretary to the Taliban’s leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, as well as several former officials of the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, according to Mr. Qalamuddin and Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban minister of higher education.

The former Taliban officials here described fairly advanced discussions in Qatar about the transfer of prisoners. One former official, Syed Muhammad Akbar Agha, who had been a Taliban military commander, said that five Taliban prisoners were to be transferred in two phases, two or three in one group and then the remainder.

There has also been discussion in Qatar of removing some Taliban members from NATO’s “kill or capture” lists, the former Taliban officials said.

Mr. Grossman, in his comments last week, played down talk of detainee releases, saying the United States had not yet decided on the issue. “This is an issue of United States law first of all, that we have to meet the requirements of our law,” he said.

He said the Obama administration would also consult with Congress. Under American law, the defense secretary must certify to Congress that the transfer of any Guantánamo prisoner to a foreign country would meet certain requirements, including that the country maintains control over its prisons and will not allow a transferred detainee to become a future threat to the United States.

If any detainees were released, Western and Afghan officials said, they would likely be transferred to Qatar and held there, perhaps under house arrest.

The former Taliban officials said that they were most surprised by Pakistan’s decision to allow the Taliban delegates to obtain travel documents and board a plane to Qatar. The former officials have long contended that Pakistan has obstructed talks. “This is a green light from Pakistan,” Mr. Rahmani said.

Pakistan “definitely supported this and is also helping,” Mr. Qalamuddin added. He said that if Pakistan did not approve of the talks, it would have arrested the Taliban delegates to Qatar, just as it did with Mullah Baradar, a senior Taliban official, after he began secret talks with the Afghan government in 2010.

Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting from Washington, Taimoor Shah from Kandahar, Afghanistan, and Sharifullah Sahak from Kabul.

huffpost:Ex-President Bush Lied To FBI Director About Warrantless Surveillance: Book

2012-01-28T14:29:00.000-08:00

Ex-President Bush Lied To FBI Director About Warrantless Surveillance: Book

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/bush-lied-to-fbi-director_n_1237262.html?ref=books&ir=Books

Former President George W. Bush lied to FBI Director Robert Mueller in the Oval Office to protect White House programs that secretly eavesdropped on Americans, according to an upcoming book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Tim Weiner.

In "Enemies," the former New York Times reporter reveals the extent of the bureau's long war against terrorists, spies and anyone considered subversive, including American presidents. Among its explosive claims, Weiner reports that the FBI was penetrated by agents working for China, Russia, Cuba and al-Qaeda and that the bureau gathered evidence that was sufficient to impeach Presidents Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

In the wake of 9/11, when the Bush administration expanded its anti-terror programs to include warrantless eavesdropping of Americans' phones and emails, FBI director Mueller was one who opposed the program because he felt that the White House was "trying to do an end run" around the law. After drafting a letter of resignation, Mueller met with Bush one-on-one on March 12, 2004, telling him that "he would resign if the FBI was ordered to continue warrantless searches on Americans without an order from the Department of Justice." The meeting came the day after the infamous bedside visit to Attorney General John Ashcroft, when White House chief of staff Andy Card and legal director Alberto Gonzalez unsuccessfully tried to get the ailing Ashcroft to sign off on the program.

Weiner writes of Bush and Mueller:

"Both men had sworn upon taking office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Only one still held to his oath.

"The president pleaded ignorance of the law and the facts. He said he hadn't known there had been legal problems with Stellar Wind. He said he hadn't known [Attorney General John] Ashcroft had been in the hospital. He said he hadn't known Mueller and (acting Attorney General James) Comey had been blowing the whistle. He was almost surely deceiving the director, and deliberately ...

"Bush promised to put the programs on a legal footing. This did not happen overnight. It took years. But based on the president's promise, Mueller and his allies backed down from their threats to resign. Bush kept the secret for twenty more months."

A spokesman for Bush did not return an email for comment from The Huffington Post.

Among other revelations:

Despite the bureau's domestic purview, the FBI has engaged in many overseas operations and "choreographed" the 1965 American invasion that installed FBI informant Joaquin Balaguer as president of the Dominican Republic. As a testament to its powers of persuasion, the bureau recruited the exiled president within 72 hours of his visit to New York City. The bureau was also able to place spies at the highest levels of communist China, the Soviet Union and Cuba, according to Weiner.
Weiner is particularly critical of former FBI director Louis Freeh, claiming that the bureau was penetrated by agents working for China, Russia, Cuba and al Qaeda during his tenure. Weiner adds: "The Bureau spent far more time and energy" on the investigation into allegations that China's intelligence services had bought political influence at the White House "than it did on any terrorism investigation during the Clinton years."
The late FBI official Mark Felt wasn't the only "Deep Throat" -- there were at least five of them, including Bob Kunkel (in charge of Washington field office) and Charles Bates, Dick Long and Charles Nuzum, (chief and lead agent in the FBI's white-collar crime section). These men, along with a few trusted fellow agents, would meet at the end of the day to discuss the Watergate investigation. "They would make a decision, a conscious decision, to leak to the newspapers. They did that because of the White House obstructing the investigation. And they leaked it because it furnished the impetus to continue," agent Paul Daly told Weiner.
The rumors about J. Edgar Hoover's cross-dressing and homosexual tendencies have become legend -- and provided fodder for Clint Eastwood's recent movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the head G-man -- but Weiner discounts the rumors. He attributes them to rival CIA director William "Wild Bill" Donovan and to an book that describes Hoover's sexual relations with companion Clyde Tolson. "It would be fascinating if it were true. But it is almost surely false. The allegation rests on third-hand hearsay from highly unreliable sources. Not a shred of evidence supports the notion that Hoover ever had sex with Tolson or any other human being."
Hoover's staff obtained documents in the 1930s "suggesting lucrative financial connections among American bankers, multinational companies doing underground business with Germany, the German-American Bund and the Nazi government." The FBI got the information by recruiting an assistant cashier and midlevel manager at America's biggest bank, Chase, sneaking in and spending hours poring through records.
Hoover was prescient in at least one respect -- sending intelligence warnings of suicidal airborne attacks against New York and Washington from 1947 on -- describing "suicide planes with atom bombs," "large-scale attack of suicide paratroopers" and "dirty bombs" unleashed in attache cases in midtown Manhattan.
The bureau revealed evidence of the Reagan White House's plot to divert the proceeds of arms sales to Iran to the Contras in Nicaragua. "In a remarkable feat of forensics, FBI agents recovered and restored the backup tapes for the internal White House email system that recorded the arms sales and the diversion of funds," writes Weiner, despite the fact that Oliver North and national security adviser John Poindexter shredded records and deleted computer files.

digitalspy:Barack Obama 'names Homeland as favorite show'

2012-01-27T23:27:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama 'names Homeland as favorite show'

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/s188/homeland/news/a362535/barack-obama-names-homeland-as-favorite-show.html

Barack Obama is reportedly a fan of Showtime's hit drama Homeland.

The psychological thriller follows an unstable CIA operative (Claire Danes) who is determined to prove that an ex-prisoner of war (Damian Lewis) has been turned by terrorists.

The US President requested and received at least four sets of the show's first season on DVD, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Obama was also said to have named Homeland - which also stars Mandy Patinkin and David Harewood - as one of his favorite shows.

In addition, a staffer for former President Bill Clinton is also said to have contacted Showtime's PR department to request a set of the DVDs.

Homeland recently dominated the 2012 Golden Globes, with star Danes taking home the prize for 'Best Performance by an Actress In A Television Series - Drama' and the show itself being named 'Best Television Series - Drama'.

Mandy Patinkin, who plays troubled agent Saul Berenson, has claimed that the forthcoming second season has "endless possibilities".

"We could still end up in the CIA this year [or] we might all end up morphing ourselves into Congress or the White House or something else," he suggested.

Homeland's second season will air on Showtime in late 2012. The first season will air on Channel 4 in the UK.

AFP:Pakistan knew of bin Laden hideout: US Defense Secretary

2012-01-27T23:22:00.001-08:00

Pakistan knew of bin Laden hideout: US Defense Secretary

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iM7XKil-vLt8i_hph3gjyeNUqS4w?docId=CNG.782ee6697adf10e19e14035be0f1302b.551

(AFP) – 4 hours ago

WASHINGTON — US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has expressed concern about Pakistan's treatment of a doctor who helped the United States find Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

The doctor, Shikal Afridi, has been arrested and charged with treason by the Pakistani government.

In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" program due to be aired on Sunday, Panetta acknowledged that Afridi, a Pakistani doctor in Abbottabad, the town where bin Laden was found, had in fact been working for US intelligence, collecting DNA to verify the 9/11 mastermind's presence.

US Navy SEALs killed bin Laden on May 2 in a raid on a compound in Abbottabad, north of the capital Islamabad, and later buried him at sea.

"I'm very concerned about what the Pakistanis did with this individual ... who in fact helped provide intelligence that was very helpful with regards to this operation," Panetta said, according to excerpts of the interview.

"He was not in any way treasonous towards Pakistan," the defense secretary said. "Pakistan and the United States have a common cause here against terrorism ... and for them to take this kind of action against somebody who was helping to go after terrorism, I just think is a real mistake on their part."

Panetta said he still believed someone in authority in Pakistan knew where bin Laden was hiding before US forces went in to find him.

Intelligence reports found that Pakistani military helicopters had passed over the compound in Abbottabad, according to the interview.

"I personally have always felt that somebody must have had some sense of what was happening at this compound," Panetta said. "Don't forget, this compound had 18-foot walls ... It was the largest compound in the area.

"So you would have thought that somebody would have asked the question, 'What the hell's going on there?'" Panetta told CBS.

The Pentagon chief said this concern contributed to Washington's decision not to give Pakistan advance warning of the impending raid.

"It concerned us that if we in fact brought (Pakistan) into it, that -- they might ... give bin Laden a heads up," he said.

Panetta acknowledged he did not have "hard evidence" that Pakistan knew of the Al-Qaeda leader's whereabouts.

foxnews:Biden claims Panetta was only Obama adviser urging a 'go' on bin Laden raid

2012-01-27T23:00:00.000-08:00

Biden claims Panetta was only Obama adviser urging a 'go' on bin Laden raid

Vice President Biden claimed Friday that Leon Panetta was the only member of the inner circle who definitively urged President Obama to green-light the raid on Usama bin Laden's compound, as Biden discussed new details about the behind-the-scenes deliberations.

Biden, speaking to the House Democratic Issues Conference in Maryland, candidly admitted that he told the president not to go forward with the mission. Biden said at the time he thought the administration should do more to find out whether bin Laden was actually inside the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Describing the scene when Obama sought the advice of his top officials on whether to go ahead, Biden said most advisers -- aside from himself and Panetta, the defense secretary who was CIA chief at the time -- didn't offer a clear opinion.

"He went around the table with all the senior people. ... Every single person in that room hedged their bet except Leon Panetta. Leon said, 'go.' Everyone else said 49, 51 (percent in favor)," Biden said.

"It got to me. (Obama) said 'Joe -- what do you think?' I said, 'You know, I didn't know we had so many economists around the table.' I said we owe the man a direct answer. Mr. President, my suggestion is don't go."

Click here to see the video.

Biden recalled the scene to illustrate his point that Obama showed leadership and, in his words, has a "backbone like a ramrod."

Despite the uncertain and conflicting advice, Obama told his national security adviser the next day, "Go," Biden said.

"He knew what was at stake. Not just the lives of those brave warriors, but literally the presidency, and he pulled the trigger," Biden said. "This guy doesn't lead from behind -- he just leads."

Robert Gates, the defense secretary at the time of the raid, has already said publicly that he had reservations about the intelligence pertaining to the bin Laden compound.

It's not clear exactly what every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and key Cabinet members advised.

A defense official said Adm. Mike Mullen who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, "certainly recognized the risk, but he did not hesitate in offering his advice that we should go."

One U.S. official told Fox News that Gen. James Cartwright, who was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, was leaning against a raid and more toward an airstrike in that final meeting.

The official also said that Michael Leiter, then director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was pessimistic on the intelligence.

The official said many in the room were worried about losing their jobs should the mission go wrong. The official added that one of the reasons Panetta came down on the side of approving the raid was he had met with his intelligence team -- and even one of the most pessimistic analysts put a high percentage on the likelihood that bin Laden was indeed in that compound.