May 24, 2013

Posts Comments

You are here: Home / Archives for leon panetta

President Obama: A strong U.S. response to Syria but experts say not likely

May 3, 2013 By Leave a Comment

5b288dd834c517c40c76a83e1504903a President Obama: A strong U.S. response to Syria but experts say not likely
President Obama has said the use of by the Assad regime would be a “game changer” that would require a stronger response.(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

Story Highlights

Each of the major options has significant risks
Sanctuaries in Syria mean occupying Syrian soil
Arming the rebels means weapons could get into the wrong hands

(PhatzNewsRoom / ) — WASHINGTON – When it comes to intervening in Syria, the Obama administration faces a choice between robust but risky military operations that could turn the tide of war and more limited moves that may deter the Syrian regime but probably won’t change the balance of power, analysts say.

The military options include establishing a no- and sanctuary for refugees, arming the rebels or launching targeted airstrikes on a few military objectives.

Many analysts now see the Obama administration taking a more limited approach that would not draw the country into a wider war. “It’s unlikely we would do anything open-ended like a no-fly zone,” said Kenneth Pollack, an analyst at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the .

A push for taking military action gained momentum last week after the Obama administration acknowledged in an intelligence assessment that Assad’s regime had probably used chemical weapons on a couple occasions.

The U.S. is supplying rebels with non-lethal aid. The Pentagon might broaden that to providing equipment such as and protective armor vests but stop short of weapons, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

The White House said no decision has been made.

The developments highlight the difficulties the administration faces as it struggles to come up with an effective response.

President Obama said the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be a “game changer” that would require a stronger response. “By game changer I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us,” he said.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey and then- told Congress in February they had recommended arming the Syrian rebels. The White House rebuffed the idea at the time. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are already arming some opposition groups.

But any move by the United States to arm rebels would require a significant vetting process, analysts said. “The problem is separating the wheat from the chaff,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official now at the American Enterprise Institute.

Another option under consideration is limited airstrikes aimed at military targets in Syria.

Cruise missiles launched by long-range bombers, for example, could be carried out without having allied aircraft breach Syrian air defenses, said Kenneth Pollack, an analyst at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Pollack said this might be the most attractive option for the administration because it is lower risk than the other options and is not an open-ended commitment. It would likely not be enough to seriously degrade the regime’s power, analysts said.

The advantage to such strikes are that they might deter Assad from additional use of chemical weapons by raising the prospect of future allied strikes, Pollack said. But he said if Assad felt desperate as the opposition gained strength, the deterrence might not work.

Sen. John McCain, a leading foreign policy voice in the Republican Party, has been advocating for a more robust response, including creating a no-fly zone over a portion of Syria to protect refugees and an air campaign against military targets.

The administration has so far resisted such actions. “I don’t see that happening,” Pollack said. “That gets you into an open- ended commitment in Syria.”

Any allied air campaign in Syria would face a fairly extensive Syrian air defense system.

Among other actions an extended air campaign would require setting up bases in the region that could be capable of launching aircraft to rescue pilots who ejected from their cockpits.

Analysts say U.S. and allied aircraft could ultimately disable the Syrian air defense system but it could come at a cost in lives and aircraft.

Syria has weapons that can take down planes at higher altitudes and longer ranges than had. A NATO-led air campaign helped opposition forces topple Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

“It’s a much denser and more sophisticated system,” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, of Staff, said of Syrian defenses.

Syria has “five times” the air defenses that Libya possessed, and they are concentrated in the western third of the country, Dempsey told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor event.

Analysts and military officials say that America has fewer options as the civil war drags on. The government institutions weaken and will likely make more inroads into the opposition.

“The longer it goes on the more potential there is that it will fragment,” said Marine Gen. James Mattis, who recently stepped down as the head of Central Command.

Option 1

Arming the rebels

Pro: Anti-tank and anti-air weapons and other equipment could give the rebels a military advantage without committing U.S. troops.

Con: Many of the most effective rebel groups have al-Qaeda ties and those weapons could ultimately be turned on the United States.

Option 2

Establishing a no-fly zone

Pro: This could neutralize Assad’s ability to use airstrikes and shuttle his troops around the country. It could also be used to establish a sanctuary for refugees and opposition forces.

Con: It would mean penetrating Syria’s thick air defense system and potentially drag the United States and its allies into an open-ended commitment.

Option 3

Targeted airstrikes

Pro: It might deter Assad’s regime without significant risk. Air-launched cruise missiles could be launched from far outside Syrian airspace.

Con: It probably would not damage Assad’s military enough to shift the balance of power.

13a1f660761fe60fcbce76bed709130a President Obama: A strong U.S. response to Syria but experts say not likely

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday the Obama administration is rethinking its policy of opposing providing weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Hagel’s acknowledgment – after weeks of the U.S. resisting arming the opposition, for fear the weapons could end up in the wrong hands – comes days after the White House sent a letter to two U.S. senators saying the intelligence community assessed “with varying degrees of confidence” that -Assad’s government had used the chemical agent sarin on a “small scale.”

President Obama, asked about Hagel’s remarks, said he was only reiterating a position the administration has held for months. “We are continually evaluating the situation on the ground working with our international partners to find the best way to move a political transition that has Assad leaving, stabilizes the country, ends the killing and allows the Syrian people to determine their own destiny, ” the president said during a press conference in Mexico.

“As we’ve seen evidence of further bloodshed, potential use of chemical weapons inside of Syria, what I’ve said is that we’re gonna look at all options,” Obama said.

But for months the administration has resisted calls by some members of Congress and U.S. allies to send lethal aid to the Syrian opposition.

Hagel and other officials stress that no decision has been made to send such assistance.

(Hagel’s remarks Thursday were prompted by questions from CNN’s Barbara Starr.)

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Featured, World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gen. Allen: Fewer U.S. troops could do job in Afghanistan

April 25, 2013 By Leave a Comment

297b5d335c7b8b8c9aa791e26c992282 Gen. Allen: Fewer U.S. troops could do job in Afghanistan
Retired Marine general John Allen, pictured in March 2012, says the U.S. could do the work in Afghanistan with fewer troops than he previously recommended.(Photo: Haraz N. Ghanbari, AP)

Story Highlights

Recommendation is that 13,600 U.S. troops stay in Afghanistan after 2014
Republican Sen. John McCain urges a higher post-2014 troop number
Residual U.S. force will be dominated by advisers to Afghan military

(PhatzNewsRoom / USA Today) — The former top commander in Afghanistan said he initially recommended that 13,600 U.S. troops remain in the country when the American there ends after 2014, but believes the mission could still be accomplished with less.

“I always believed that was the number that I should recommend,” retired Marine general John Allen said of the 13,600 recommendation. A lower number would accomplish the job, but require more assistance from allies, he said.

The issue of what size residual force to leave in Afghanistan has been the subject of debate as the United States grapples with winding down a war that has lasted more than 10 years.

“The question is if you get a number less than that can you still accomplish the mission,” Allen said. “I believe there was a number less than that that could still accomplish the mission with acceptable risk.” Allen declined to specify the lesser number.

However, the German said after a NATO meeting in February that then- said he envisioned between 8,000 and 12,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

The White House has not reached a decision on numbers.

Republicans, such as Sen. John McCain, have accused the administration of accelerating the pace of the too quickly, potentially jeopardizing by not leaving a robust force behind. The also have expressed worries about being abandoned.

Marine Gen. Joseph , who assumed command in February from Allen, said recently that he has not yet made a recommendation but would see how Afghan security forces perform as a new fighting season opens.

This is the first fighting season with Afghan security forces leading most operations. “I believe this summer will be the bellwether for Afghan performance into 2014,” Dunford told the Committee recently.

After 2014, U.S. forces will provide advisers for the Afghan security forces and a counterterrorism force capable of targeting al-Qaeda militants. U.S. allies are also expected to contribute to the adviser mission.

Coalition advisers will be embedded in the Defense and Interior ministries and at the corps level, where top-level operations are planned, around the nation. Coalition forces will also be required to provide security for some U.S. agencies that remain in Afghanistan.

“The United States has been very clear: We are going to put a military force into Afghanistan post-2014 to train, advise, assist and conduct (counterterrorism),” Allen said. “That is a certainty.”

Dunford and Allen said the specific number of forces is less critical than assuring the Afghans that the United States and its allies will not abandon them when the combat mission ends at the end of 2014.

The current climate of uncertainty worries the Afghans, Allen said.

“In the absence of clarity of what the post-2014 period will look like we are going to see increasingly, I believe, a hedging strategy,” Allen said.

The climate of uncertainty makes businesses less willing to invest and neighboring countries hesitant to support a peace process, Allen said. Women, who were severely repressed under the Taliban and have since won back a number of rights, are also worried.

“I know they are very concerned about having clarity about the future,” Allen said.

“The longer we don’t have that clarity, the more difficult it will be to walk back those hedging strategies,” Allen said.

Allen, who stepped down from the Afghanistan command in February, is officially retired from the .

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Featured, World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Military rape victims: Stop blaming us

March 15, 2013 By Leave a Comment

130314175549 nr female military abuse 00011226 story top Military rape victims: Stop blaming us
Ex-soldier: I was raped twice in 1 year

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Army specialist testified she was raped several times
19,000 men and women are assaulted a year; only 3,200 are reported
A military chaplain told one victim that rape was “God’s will”

() — BriGette McCoy described how she was raped on her first military assignment, two weeks before her 19th birthday. She described how, later that year, she was raped by another soldier in her unit.

Then came by two officers — including one who requested that she be moved to work directly for him, she said Wednesday.

Testifying before lawmakers, the former Army specialist described the “anguish” and “entrapment” she felt, and the horror of the ordeal that followed.

“I no longer have any faith or hope that the military chain of command will consistently prosecute, convict, sentence and carry out the sentencing of in uniform without absconding justice somehow,” she told the Committee’s subcommittee on personnel.

“It even starts at recruitment,” she said. “We have quite a few of our men and women that are being raped and sexually harassed during the recruitment process.”
Quite a few of our men and women are being raped during the recruitment process.
BriGette McCoy, former Army specialist and rape victim

McCoy was one of four who testified Wednesday about a problem the military has acknowledged.

About 19,000 men and women suffer sexual assault each year in the military, former said, though he noted that only about 3,200 assaults were reported. About 10,700 of those cases — 56% — involved male victims in 2010, based on anonymous reporting collected by the military.

In painful, dramatic testimony, and one man, all of whom have left the military, described their suffering — and explained why, in some cases, they never filed reports. They helped paint a picture of the military as a place where victims are often pressured to remain quiet or endure having their reputations and careers tarnished for coming forward.

High-ranking representatives from each military branch also gave statements, each one saying how brave they thought those troops had been in telling their stories openly. They stressed that special victims’ units have been established along with training to recognize, investigate and prosecute cases involving rape.

Maj. Gen. Gary Patton, the director of the ’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, said that in his five decades of service, he’s seen massive cultural change in the military, including racial tolerance and increasing acceptance of gay and lesbian troops.

Changing attitudes toward sexual assault will be no different.

Only when rape within the military is treated with the same revulsion as friendly-fire will he believe a shift has actually occurred, he said.

Read: Rape in the military

‘Chaplain told me the rape was God’s will’

Rebekhah Havrilla was sexually harassed by a team leader to such an extent that she needed mental health care and medication, she said.

“One week before my unit was scheduled to return back to the United States, I was raped by another service member that had worked with our team.

“Initially, I chose not to do a report of any kind because I had no faith in my chain of command, as my first sergeant previously had sexual harassment accusations against him, and the unit climate was extremely sexist and hostile in nature towards women,” she said.

Later, she filed a restricted report against her rapist and the team leader.

A year later, the former sergeant testified, she bumped into her rapist in a store, who told her he had been moved to her new location.

“I was so re-traumatized from the unexpectedness of seeing him that I removed myself from training and immediately sought out the assistance from an Army chaplain who told me, among other things, that the rape was God’s will and that God was trying to get my attention so that I would go back to church,” she testified. “Again, I did not file an unrestricted report against my rapist.”

“Six months later, a friend called me and told me they had found pictures of me online that my perpetrator had taken during my rape.”

So she turned to the Army Investigation Division, which carried out a full investigation, she said. An investigator had her describe in detail what was happening in each of the photos.

After months passed, she said, she was told that her rapist had told investigators that he had had consensual sex with Havrilla. The command did not pursue adultery charges, and the case was closed.

“The military criminal justice system is broken,” Havrilla said.

Later, after the hearing, Havrilla posted a message on Twitter: “I have your name, Chaplain. Sweat in your britches.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told military leaders that he appreciated their comments but criticized them for giving “lawyer-like” statements.

The problem of sexual assault in the military is a problem that demands a more immediate response.

He called “sexual assault” as an “immensely destructive force,” likening the assaults to the problem the military first grappled with years ago over strengthening its insufficient body armor so that the armor could withstand IED blasts.

Male service members are victims, of course, and Brian Lewis reminded senators of that Wednesday.

Lewis told senators he felt “humbled” to be “the first male survivor to testify in front of on this very important issue.”

After enlisting in the Navy in 1997, he was raped by a superior officer during his first tour, he said.

“I was ordered by my command not to report this crime.”

Then, he said, “I was misdiagnosed with a personality disorder” and was discharged. That remains on his record, he said.

“The military has shoved many survivors out the back door with inaccurate, misleading, and very harmful, almost weaponized, medical diagnoses like personality disorders that affect their benefits and future employment opportunities,” he said.

McCoy also said many victims are let go with “less than honorable discharges and personality disorders on their records, further hindering them from applying for medical treatment and medical claims.”

“The culture of victim blaming and retaliation while failing to punish the perpetrator must end,” Lewis said.

“We also need to ensure that prevention efforts are inclusive of male service members. … We cannot marginalize male survivors and send a message that men cannot be raped, and, therefore, are not real survivors,” the former officer said.

But, as senators pointed out, there are few convictions made in the military.

According to a 2010 Defense Department study, only 8% of sexual assailants are referred to military court, compared with 40% of similar offenders prosecuted in the civilian court system.

Military ‘desperately needs to be shown the next steps’

Anu Bhagwati, director of the Service Women’s Action Network, was the fourth victim who testified.

She said that in her years as a Marine officer, she “experienced daily discrimination and sexual harassment,” which included rape jokes and “commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls.”

While stationed at an infantry school, “I witnessed reports of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment swept under the rug by a handful of field grade officers.

“Perpetrators were promoted, were transferred to other units without punishment, while victims were accused of lying or exaggerating their claims in order to ruin men’s reputations.”

She called on Congress to grant “convening authority over criminal cases to trained, professional, disinterested prosecutors. Commanding officers cannot make truly impartial decisions because of their professional affiliation with the accused, and oftentimes with the victim as well.”

She also called for civil courts to be opened to military victims.

“Congress must ensure that men and women in uniform can access the remedies available to all other aggrieved individuals under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Civil Rights Act. Given the prevalence of retaliation against service members who report incidents of sexual assault and harassment, the absence of these remedies for military personnel is especially shameful.”

“We are looking,” she said, “at an institution that desperately needs to be shown the next steps forward.”

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Breaking News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

State of the Union: Explaining some of the key details

February 13, 2013 By Leave a Comment

barack obama state of union 4 State of the Union: Explaining some of the key details
(Photo: Andrew P. Scott, )

Story Highlights

Call for immigration changes follows for from Hispanic voters
Focus on guns the biggest State of the Union push on the issue since Clinton’s in 2000
Obama has backed away from proposals to raise Medicare eligibility age

(PhatzNewsRoom / USA Today) — During Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Obama raised several issues and initiatives that require a deeper explanation. Here are some of those passages.

Spending cuts

Statement: “In 2011, passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of would automatically go into effect this year. These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our .”

Context: Defense Secretary has said the $500 billion in automatic budget cuts forced by the cuts, known as , on the Pentagon over the next decade would render the U.S. military a “second-rate power.” The cuts will go into effect March 1 unless Congress and the White House can reach a deal.

The cuts will force the Pentagon to change the way it trains, defense analysts say. But it’s unclear how that will affect the military’s readiness to fight. It’s unclear how perishable some skills are, and Congress could appropriate emergency funds quickly if hostilities break out.

The Pentagon estimates that sequestration would require $46 billion be slashed from its budget before the end of its budget year on Sept. 30. It is examining a variety of cost-saving measures, including 22 days of unpaid time off for its 800,000 . It would also reduce training time for all troops not going to Afghanistan and South Korea. The Navy has already said it will not send the USS Harry S Truman to the Persian Gulf and will cease operations in and around South America.

Jobs and economy

Statement: “U.S. businesses have added 6 million jobs, car sales are the highest in five years, and U.S. oil dependence is the lowest in 20 years.”

Context: The United.States had 106.9 million private-sector jobs when the economy bottomed out in early 2010, and reached 113.0 million jobs in January 2013. U.S. private employers had 111 million workers when Obama took office. U.S. auto sales hit an annual rate of 15.48 million in November before slipping to 15.32 million in December. The last time they were that high was February 2008. The 4.2 billion barrels of crude oil and petroleum products imported from all nations last year is the lowest since 2000. The 1.7 billion barrels imported from OPEC is the lowest since 1997. The difference between those figures reflect a greater share of U.S. oil imports that come from Canada, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Rising U.S. energy independence has little to do with policy, according to a book-length report by Citigroup last year, among many other sources. Instead, it is due to the greater application of new technologies to extract more oil and gas from shale rock using technologies such as hydraulic fracking.

Immigration

Statement: “Right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, and faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform. … In other words, we know what needs to be done. As we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts.”

Context: Any kind of overhaul of the nation’s immigration system has been stuck in the mud since 2007, when President George W. Bush failed to get a bipartisan bill through the Senate. Though it was torpedoed mostly by 37 Senate Republicans who thought the bill was left the borders too soft, 15 Democrats also voted to scuttle the plan under pressure from labor groups opposed to a “guest worker” provision.

Obama has given no more than a passing mention to immigration in previous addresses to Congress. He didn’t even mention it in 2009, and gave the issue no more than a paragraph or so in 2010, 2011 and 2012. This year, it warranted five paragraphs.

What changed? The 2012 election. Republicans have warmed up to moving an immigration bill after exit polls showed Obama winning 71% of the Hispanic vote. And Obama tried to allay GOP concerns about “amnesty” by promising that a pathway to citizenship must include a “background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.”

Cyber security

Statement: “Earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy. Now, Congress must act as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks. ”

Context: Obama’s executive order is an attempt to do something about the growing threat from cyber attacks. The order expands the government program that provides cyber threat information to industries, such as banking, energy, telecommunications and other “critical infrastructure.”

The order “puts mechanisms in place to share information but does not make it mandatory,” said Stephanie Sanok, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Lawmakers said legislation is required for a more comprehensive approach. The “biggest barriers to bolster our cyber defenses can be fixed only with legislation,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and ranking member Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger said in a statement. Previous legislative efforts have failed because of concerns they did not include enough privacy protection for individuals. Everyone agrees the threat — from criminals, terrorists, hackers and hostile countries — is growing. “It is touching everywhere from media to think tanks to individual accounts and this threat is growing,” Sanok said.

Guns

Statement: “It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans – Americans who believe in the Second Amendment – have come together around commonsense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun.”

Context: The last time a president even mentioned guns in a State of the Union Address was in 2000, when President Bill Clinton called on Congress to pass “commonsense gun safety legislation.” Then, as now, Clinton was prodded by a tragic mass shooting — the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. And Clinton, like Obama, called for background checks at gun shows and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

But Clinton went further, asking for child safety locks on all new handguns and mandatory state licensing for handgun owners. Much of his gun control agenda passed the Senate. But it failed in the House, and no major gun bill has passed since.

Obama is correct that polls show a majority of Americans favor background checks. A CBS News poll released Tuesday showed that even 90% of gun owners favor closing the so-called “gun-show loophole.” But while narrow majorities of Americans also favor an assault weapons ban and limiting the size of magazines, majorities of gun owners oppose those key parts of Obama’s gun control plan.

Medicare

Statement: “Now, some in this Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training; Medicare and Social Security benefits.

“That idea is even worse. Yes, the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population. And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms – otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations.”

Context: After previously stating that he would consider lowering the Medicare eligibility age, Obama has backed off that proposal. As more Baby Boomers hit retirement and Medicare age, those costs are, indeed, rising. But the 2010 health care law was meant to address some of those increases by providing better, coordinated care to cut duplicate tests and keep people out of the hospital, as well as by helping people have healthier lifestyles.

This comes after a Republican proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to offer seniors a set amount of money they could use toward private insurance essentially failed during his vice presidential campaign. It also follows Republican attempts to keep the cuts the law offers, while gutting the rest of the law.

Earlier this week, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Obama was no longer open to raising the Medicare eligibility age, an idea that had been attacked by groups that feared doing so would raise premiums in all categories. By deleting the youngest, healthiest seniors from the Medicare pool, premiums would go up for the older and sicker seniors. In contrast, those younger, healthier seniors would be older and sicker than most Americans in the private insurance pool, so those premiums would also go up. But conservatives have argued that cutting those seniors from Medicare would lower the deficit.

Minimum wage

Statement: “The $9 an hour proposed minimum wage would bring the inflation-adjusted minimum back to where it was in 1981. About 15 million workers would get a raise under proposals to raise the minimum wage and index it for inflation. And the combination of a full-time, minimum wage job and the earned income tax credit is not sufficient now to lift a family of four above the poverty line.”

Context: The minimum wage was $3.35 an hour in 1981. Some online inflation calculators contend that this works out to exactly $9 an hour now, though the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says It’s about $8.46 in 2012 dollars. By 2015, when the increase would be phased in, that would be $9 an hour or a few cents more, depending on the inflation assumption for 2013-2015. According to the BLS, in 2011, 1.7 million American workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.

Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 5.2% of all hourly paid workers. At 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year, the minimum wage works out to $15,080 a year. The earned income tax credit for a family of four with that income is $5,230, according to 2012 IRS instructions. The federal poverty line for this year is $23,550, according to Families USA, a health care advocacy group.

Voting

Statement: “We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes our most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote. When any Americans – no matter where they live or what their party – are denied that right simply because they can’t wait for five, six, seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals.”

Context: Obama’s call to fix a broken election system started with an off-the-cuff remark in his re-election victory speech — “By the way, we have to fix that” — and escalated with a reference to Jeffersonian ideals in his inaugural address: “Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.”

With his State of the Union Address, he didn’t provide much more detail about how he would fix long lines at polls. Instead, he said he would name a non-partisan commission — led by top lawyers for the campaigns of Obama and Republican Mitt Romney — “to improve the voting experience in America.”

Health care savings

Statement: “On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.”

Context: Much of the Affordable Care Act — the 2010 health care law — has yet to be implemented, so it’s hard to know how much of the expected savings will actually happen. However, the administration has already announced record-breaking Medicare fraud and abuse recoveries, bringing in almost $8 billion over the last three years. It has also brought in savings on prescription drugs but requiring discounts from drug manufacturers. The law is built on expected savings through coordinated care, quality incentives for providers and prevention programs, such as annual exams with no out-of-pocket expenses. Health care spending has slowed since 2011, but that may be more because of a slow economy than due to the law.

Syria

Statement: “In the Middle East, we will stand with citizens as they demand their universal rights, and support stable transitions to democracy. The process will be messy, and we cannot presume to dictate the course of change in countries like Egypt; but we can – and will – insist on respect for the fundamental rights of all people. We will keep the pressure on a Syrian regime that has murdered its own people, and support opposition leaders that respect the rights of every Syrian.

Context: The lack of a more muscular response to the civil war in Syria — arming rebel groups trying to topple President Bashar Assad — highlights the failure of Obama’s policy in the Middle East, Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican and member of the Committee, has charged. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told McCain that they supported a CIA plan to arm the rebels. Dempsey told USA TODAY this week that the plans were “conceptual” and hinged on a better understanding of what’s happening in Syria than the United States has now. Rebels are receiving non-lethal aid. An estimated 60,000 civilians have died in the fighting there.

Housing market

Statement: “Today, our housing market is finally healing from the collapse of 2007. Home prices are rising at the fastest pace in six years, home purchases are up nearly 50 percent, and construction is expanding again. But even with mortgage rates near a 50-year low, too many families with solid credit who want to buy a home are being rejected. Too many families who have never missed a payment and want to refinance are being told no. That’s holding our entire economy back, and we need to fix it.”

Context: Obama’s proposal to fix it is the same as he proposed in 2012: A program that would allow homeowners to refinance if they’re current on their payments and have decent credit. Obama says his proposal would help homeowners save an average of $3,000 a year on mortgage payments.

So why hasn’t Congress passed it? The cost is estimated to be $5 billion to $10 billion, and Obama has proposed a tax on banks to pay for it — a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled House.

Wind power

Statement: “Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more.”

Context: The actual figure is 42%, up from the 35% average over the last five years. Wind power still provides less than 3% of total U.S. electricity, in part because of technical limitations in transmitting electricity efficiently over long distances.

Medications and seniors

Statement: “The reforms I’m proposing go even further. We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital – they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive. And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don’t violate the guarantee of a secure retirement. Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep – but we must keep the promises we’ve already made.”

Context: There are several subsidies available to make sure pharmaceutical companies can continue to develop medications, such as those that come into play when brand-name drugs are about to lose their patents, meaning the companies will lose out to generic medications, or those to ensure research continues on antibiotics. But pharmaceutical profits continue to rise: According to company rankings at Forbes.com, top pharmaceutical company Pfizer was up 21% in profits in 2012 from 2010. Even after a series of lawsuits cut Johnson & Johnson’s profits by 28%, they remained second on the list of profitable companies.

Wealthier seniors have already been asked to participate in higher-premium Medicare programs, and the health care law already attempts to end duplicate tests and to cut down hospital time.

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Featured, World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

White House opposed plan backed by Pentagon, State, CIA to arm Syrian rebels

February 9, 2013 By Leave a Comment

f533fc5e49f12b36c2d5631be338091c White House opposed plan backed by Pentagon, State, CIA to arm Syrian rebels

(PhatzNewsRoom / Security) —- The White House knocked down a proposal last summer from top national security leaders, including then-Secretary of State and David Petraeus, to arm Syrian rebels, according to U.S. officials, one of whom said the issue appears dead for now.

Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey said in testimony to a Senate committee on Thursday that they also backed the plan to provide weapons to opposition fighters.

But officials, who requested anonymity to speak freely about a sensitive subject, said the White House rejected the idea.

“The reason we have not armed them is because the White House has no appetite for it,” a U.S. official familiar with the deliberations told CNN.

The official said the ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, was among those in the State Department who “advocated for it pretty strongly.”

The issue of arming the rebels “is dead in the water for now because folks are resigned to the fact that White House will not budge,” the official added.

The administration has resisted arming the rebels, citing concerns about the infiltration of extremists groups who could possibly use those weapons against other targets.

For now, the U.S. government has provided millions in humanitarian aid to the rebels fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-.

The CIA has also sent agents to vet the opposition group to try to better understand its composition.

The United States in December designated a key Syrian rebel group, the al-Nusra Front, as a terrorist entity.

U.S. officials argued it was a necessary step that would not weaken the ability of other rebels to combat the Syrian military.

Appearing before the on Thursday, Panetta and Dempsey were asked by Arizona Sen. John McCain, the leading Republican proponent of a more aggressive backing of Syrian rebels, whether they supported the idea of arming them.

“We do,” answered Panetta.

“We did,” answered Dempsey.

They did not get a chance to explain as McCain moved on to another topic. But later in the hearing Panetta and Dempsey said they supported the president’s decision to give non-lethal aide only.

“Obviously there were a number of factors that were involved here that ultimately led to the president’s decision to make it non-lethal,” Panetta said.

But McCain used the brief answers to urge President to consider the plan, saying in a statement that “the time to act is long overdue, but it is not too late.”

“The crisis in Syria represents a graphic failure of American leadership. I urge the president to heed the advice of his former and current national security leaders and immediately take the necessary steps, along with our friends and , that could hasten the end of the conflict in Syria,” McCain said in the statement.

State Department Victoria Nuland declined to comment when asked about the matter, calling it an internal policy deliberation. The White House also refused to comment.

Obama spoke last month about to get more involved in the civil war in Syria.

“Syria is a classic example of where our involvement, we want to make sure that not only does it enhance U.S. security, but also that it is doing right by the people of Syria and neighbors like Israel that are going to be profoundly affected by it. And – and so it’s true sometimes that we don’t just shoot from the hip,” he told CBS News.

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Featured, World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Five things Chuck Hagel may be asked about

January 31, 2013 By Leave a Comment

130104115215 hagel story top Five things Chuck Hagel may be asked about
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

testifies before the Committee Thursday
The former senator split with the GOP over the
Some feel Hagel is too cool to Israel, not hard enough on Iran
He supported the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy

() — When the Senate Armed Services Committee is gaveled into session Thursday, Chuck Hagel is likely to face some sharp questions from many of his old colleagues.

If confirmed as secretary of defense, the one-time infantry sergeant and twice-wounded Vietnam veteran would be the first former enlisted man to lead the . The former from Nebraska gets his chance to answer questions Thursday morning during his , and here are five subjects where he can expect them:

1. Afghanistan

If confirmed, Hagel will be tasked with closing out the longest war in U.S. history, one that has now lasted more than 11 years. He opposed President ’s decision to send another 30,000 troops into the conflict in 2009, telling the National Journal, “I think we’re marking time as we slaughter more young people.” The Obama administration now plans to pull combat troops out of Afghanistan by 2014, replacing them with a training mission to advise Afghan forces, steps Hagel will oversee if confirmed.

2. Gays and women in the military

As a senator, Hagel supported the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that kept from serving openly in the U.S. military. He told The New York Times in 1999, “The U.S. armed forces aren’t some social experiment.” And the nominee’s opponents have seized on his 1998 criticism of a Clinton administration State Department nominee as being “openly, aggressively gay,” a remark for which Hagel apologized in December.

Now he’s been asked to lead a department that has allowed gays and lesbians since 2011. And he’ll be left to implement the plans outgoing Defense Secretary announced last week to open front-line combat units to women, which allow the generals and admirals to ask for exemptions for certain posts. As defense secretary, Hagel would have to make the final call on those requests.

3. The Big One

Hagel is among the backers of the “Global Zero” movement, which has called for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons under a worldwide regime of inspections. He was a co-author of a 2011 study by the group that called for reducing the current U.S. arsenal of about 5,000 warheads and bombs to about 900, a force Global Zero says would be enough to deter potential attackers while reducing the risk of proliferation or nuclear terrorism.

That position has raised some eyebrows, since Hagel would be the steward of that American arsenal if confirmed. In a recent statement, Hagel’s co-authors say their views and his “are in the U.S. national security interest and squarely in the mainstream,” while keeping nuclear stockpiles at Cold War levels aren’t. And he’s not the only high-profile figure to ultimately endorse the idea of a world without the bomb: Obama held out the same hope in 2009, as have presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan.

4. Cutting the Pentagon

Within weeks of taking office, Hagel could be forced to implement steep cuts in the Pentagon budget as a result of “sequestration,” the automatic spending cuts set up in the deal that ended the 2011 standoff over the federal debt ceiling. At the beginning of the year, voted to put off those cuts for two months.

Panetta has called those across-the-board cuts of about 9.4% “potentially devastating” and urged Congress to find another way to reduce spending. But Hagel has called the defense budget “bloated” and said the Pentagon “needs to be pared down.” Look for questions about how Hagel would wield that knife.

5. The Middle East: Iraq, Iran and Israel

This has been the biggest source of criticism for Hagel since Obama picked him to replace Leon Panetta in December and the rawest nerve for the Republicans with whom Hagel broke over the war in Iraq.

Hagel supported the U.S. invasion in 2003. But by 2007, he had come to believe it was a “blunder” and joined Democrats who tried to force the Bush administration to withdraw American troops. “He has long severed his ties with the Republican party,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Republicans have accused him of being too cool to Israel, the leading U.S. ally in the Middle East, and too soft on Iran. Hagel has called for direct talks with the Islamic republic, which Western powers suspect is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, and he complained in 2007 that the “Jewish lobby” in Washington scared lawmakers away from supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But others have rallied around him, including his friend Rabbi Aryeh Azriel of Temple Israel in Omaha, Nebraska. Azriel said Hagel is “definitely a friend of Israel” and “has wonderful, fresh ideas to try to re-engage the discussion about the Middle East.”

An Obama administration official working on the senator’s confirmation hearing told CNN that Hagel will testify that he believes Iran is a state sponsor of terror; he supports the president’s sanctions strategy against Iran and believes all options should be on the table including the military option.

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Featured, World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S. steps up involvement in Mali

January 27, 2013 By Leave a Comment

130125163202 02 mali 0125 horizontal gallery U.S. steps up involvement in Mali
(Members of the arrive at a base camp in Sevare, Mali, on January 25. French and Malian troops advanced on the key Islamist stronghold of Gao after recapturing the northern town of Hombori as the extremists bombed a strategic bridge to thwart a new front planned in the east. )

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: United States agrees to conduct aerial refueling missions, to transport troops
Malian and French forces recapture the city of Gao, a stronghold of the Islamic militants
The Malian offensive is backed by French forces

(CNN) — The United States is intensifying its involvement in Mali, where local and French forces are battling Islamic militants.

It will support the by conducting aerial refueling missions, according to the , which released a short statement Saturday following a call between Leon Panetta and French Jean-Yves Le Drian.

“The leaders also discussed plans for the United States to transport troops from , including Chad and Togo, to support the international effort in Mali. Secretary Panetta and Minister Le Drian resolved to remain in as aggressive operations against terrorist networks in Mali are ongoing,” it read.

U.S. policy prohibits direct to Mali because the is the result of a coup. No support can go to the Malian military directly until leaders are chosen through an election.

But the United States is supporting the effort with intelligence and airlift support.

So far, the U.S. Air Force has flown at least seven C-17 cargo missions into Mali, carrying 200 passengers, mainly French troops, and 168 tons of equipment, according to Maj. Robert Firman, a .

The in U.S. involvement comes as Malian forces loosened the grip that Islamist militants’ hold in the country’s north with the retaking of the city of Gao.

With the support of French forces, the Malians entered and took control of Gao, which for months had been a militant stronghold, the French defense ministry said.

The advance was made in stages, with forces taking Gao’s airport and the main bridge leading to town before entering the rest of the city.

“Jihadist terrorists, who have fought Malian and French armies, have seen their mobile and logistical capabilities reduced,” the ministry said in a news release.

The quickening advance of the government forces has brought them to the heart of the territory held by the militants.

The Islamic extremists carved out a large haven in northern Mali last year, taking advantage of a chaotic situation after a military coup by the separatist party MNLA. The militants banned music, smoking, drinking and watching sports on television. They also destroyed historic tombs and shrines.

The takeover stoked fear among global security experts that Mali could become a new hub for terrorism.

Refugees tell harrowing stories of life under the Islamist militants.

But the French-based International Federation for Human Rights said it is “very alarmed” by reports that Malian soldiers are themselves carrying out extrajudicial killings and abuses as they counterstrike.

The United Nations’ refugee agency, UNHCR, has called for an increase in international aid for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been displaced by the fighting in the country.

More than 150,000 refugees have fled Mali into neighboring countries, and another 230,000 are displaced inside Mali, the agency said.

The military’s advance into Gao may shed more light on the conditions that residents there have faced. According to the U.N. agency, one former resident told of a hospital stripped of medicine by the armed militants and filling with bodies.

As the Malian troops advance, some other countries in the region are joining the French force aiding them. Between 700 and 800 African troops from Benin, Nigeria, Togo and Burkina Faso have arrived, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Friday, and a number of Senegalese troops and up to 2,000 from Chad are on the way.

France has 2,150 soldiers on Malian soil, with 1,000 more troops supporting the operation from elsewhere.

French involvement in the conflict began on January 11, the day after militants said they had seized the city of Konna, east of Diabaly in central Mali, and were poised to advance south toward Bamako, the capital.

Until 1960, Mali had been under French control.

The MNLA, made up of ethnic Tuareg rebels, staged their coup against Mali’s central government after returning to Mali well-armed from fighting for late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Featured, World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pentagon makes women in combat rule change official

January 25, 2013 By Leave a Comment

Pentagon makes women in combat rule change official
(U.S. Army Cpl. Kristine Tejada from 1st Platoon, Task Force 2-82 Field Artillery Regiment, provides security on Sept. 24, 2011, at the ancient Ziggurat of Ur in Iraq. Defense Secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order on Jan. 24 to lift a ban on women serving in combat. . Jeremy Fowler, U.S. Army)

Story Highlights

New policy changes rule put in place in 1994.
About 230,000 military jobs will be affected by the change.

(PhatzNewsRoom / ) — WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday that the military will lift its ban on women serving in combat roles, which will open about 230,000 posts, including those on the front lines.

“Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military’s mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles,” Panetta said at a news conference. “The department’s goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.”

Military service chiefs unanimously support the change, which reflects the realities of the modern military, said Gen. Martin Dempsey, of Staff.

“The Joint Chiefs share a common cause on the need to start doing this now and to doing this right,” Dempsey said. “We are committed to a purposeful and principled approach.”

President Obama said Thursday he supported Panetta’s decision.

“Earlier today I called Panetta to express my strong support for this decision, which will strengthen our military, enhance our readiness, and be another step toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals of fairness and equality,” Obama said in a .

“As Commander in Chief, I am absolutely confident that—as with the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’—the professionalism of our armed forces will ensure a and keep our military the very best in the world,” Obama said.

Pentagon policy restricting women from serving in combat on the ground was modified in 1994, according to the Congressional Research Service. Women cannot be assigned below the brigade level — a unit of about 3,500 troops — to fight on the ground. Effectively, that has barred women from infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers and special operations units of battalion size — about 700 troops — or lower.

The services will have until January 2016 to implement the changes. Last year, Panetta opened up an additional 15,000 jobs to women. He ordered the remaining exclusions lifted because he had been committed to doing so since taking office.

Panetta said he and the service chiefs have been working on the plan for more than a year.

The move comes as Panetta prepares to leave office. President Obama has nominated Republican former senator of Nebraska, a Vietnam combat veteran, to take his place.

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Featured, World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Military to open combat jobs to women

January 24, 2013 By Leave a Comment

4e5edfbbf25e4ffd506883906236b833 Military to open combat jobs to women

[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct to female troops, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.

will make the announcement Thursday and notify of the planned change in policy, the officials said.

“We will eliminate the policy of ‘no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,’” a senior defense official said.

The officials cautioned, however, that “not every position will open all at once on Thursday.” Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an “assessment phase,” in which each branch of service will examine all its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a for integrating them.

The Army and , especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report on their progress.

The move will be one of the last significant made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. , the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta’s coming announcement.

“It will take a while to work out the in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like special operations forces and infantry, may take longer,” a senior defense official explained. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible.

The has left itself some , however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as closed to women. A senior defense official said if, after the assessment, a branch finds that “a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed.”

The official said the goal remains to open as many jobs as possible. “We should open all specialties to the maximum extent possible to women. We know they can do it.”

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who spent six years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said he supports lifting the ban on women serving in combat, pointing out women are already serving in harm’s way. But he said the move should not fundamentally change the military.

“As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world – particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units,” McCain said in a statement.

Thousands of women in the military have already found themselves in combat situations, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington. Recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan have lacked a real front line, and women serving there have come under fire and had to fight back alongside male counterparts, she said.

Murray, who leads the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, called Panetta’s decision a “historic step for equality” that recognizes the role women play in the military.

The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be opened to women. Then the Defense Department must wait 30 days while Congress is in session before implementing the change.

It is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board.

A senior defense official explained the Pentagon’s reasoning behind the different approach: “You’re talking about personal choice of behavior versus physical capability. And they were already in the units. If you take a unit that’s never had women before, that’s quite a culture change.”

Another senior defense official said the goal is “to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field.”

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense, charging that combat exclusion is unfair and outdated, harms America’s safety and prevents women from receiving training and recognition for their work. The plaintiffs, who include women awarded Purple Hearts, say the exclusion places them at a disadvantage for promotion.

The ACLU said it is thrilled about Panetta’s planned announcement.

“But we welcome this statement with cautious optimism, as we hope that it will be implemented fairly and quickly so that servicewomen can receive the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts,” Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, said in the statement.

Earlier this month, the Army opened the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment to women, and it has begun recruiting female pilots and crew chiefs. The Navy has put its first female officers on submarines in the past year, and certain female ground troops have been attached to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 800 women were wounded in those wars, and at least 130 have died.

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In wake of Benghazi, U.S. limiting remarks on Algeria attack

January 18, 2013 By Leave a Comment

t1largmap In wake of Benghazi, U.S. limiting remarks on Algeria attack

(PhatzNewsRoom / Security) — The post-Benghazi over who was responsible for that attack in is now reaching into internal administration over how much to say about the in Algeria.

U.S. officials, including Leon Panetta, were quick to call the kidnapping a terrorist attack, but the administration has resisted discussing details about what elements are directly involved.

A senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the latest intelligence tells CNN that although “intelligence is streaming in” from Algeria, the administration will not come to a firm conclusion what specific elements of al Qaeda in the are responsible until it has a higher level of certainty than currently exists.

Just how gun-shy is the U.S. about stating its conclusions on Algeria?

“The intelligence is uncertain until we build a level of confidence that allows us to say all indications are it’s a particular group,” the official said. “We are pretty certain we know who is responsible, but there are still streams of intelligence that conflict with what we know.”

After the attack in Benghazi, the administration was skewered for avoiding blaming terrorists. Part of the came from the intelligence community, which initially said public discussion of the event should be limited to a belief that the attack came spontaneously after a protest over an anti-Muslim film. Only more than a week later did the intelligence community feel confident in the connections to terrorism.

While several U.S. officials have emphasized how sketchy information has been in the initial hours following the attack on Wednesday, the senior U.S. official said intelligence has continued to be developed and assessed from all sources. The United States is analyzing video claims by militants working closely with the Algerians, monitoring media reports, and assessing imagery and such as cell phone calls from satellites and drones flying overhead.

“There is a great effort to collect all we can,” the source said. He also noted that some of the intelligence collected early on had resulted in other leads.

The Benghazi controversy also had again raised the question of what intelligence the U.S. might have had in advance about the threat against the BP compound in Algeria.

The official noted that the U.S. government might not be aware of specific threats against a particular commercial facility, but at this time there is not a final answer on that question.

Share|

Related Links:

  • No Related Links
Filed Under: Featured, World Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts